Sitting of 7 March 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: Order. As all the private Bills have blocking motions, I shall, with the leave of the House, deal with them in a single group.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 March.

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lerwick Harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Room Heaters
    Mr. A. Cecil Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department has made any assessment of the effects of solid fuel room heaters, installed by the Housing Executive, on the health of the elderly.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): No, Sir. However, I understand the Housing Executive continuously reviews the suitability and effectiveness of room heaters in all its properties.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that the frail and elderly are having great difficulty coping with the intricacies of this form of central heating? Does he know that injuries have been sustained when people have tried to remove the ashcan and the throat plate? Will he consider making provision for some form of ash carrier to help overcome the problem?
    Mr. Patten: I shall consider the matter of the ash carrier with the Housing Executive. There is no risk whatever with these heaters when they are properly used. We must see that they are properly used, for example by publicity, by regular visits, through the coal advisory service and the Housing Executive, and by regular servicing.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is even greater concern among the elderly in that those who want their gas heating changed to solid fuel find that, because the Government have been dragging their feet over what is to happen with gas in Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive is unable to take a decision in the matter? When is that matter likely to be resolved?
    Mr. Patten: There has been no dragging of feet. We are spending more in Northern Ireland on this aspect than has ever been spent before, and I hope that the Housing Executive will be able to continue with a full programme.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that when the Housing Executive reports to the National Coal Board about a fire which is in need of repair, the Housing Executive follows up the matter to make sure that the repair is done, so treating a little better those who have been without a fire for perhaps several days because of lack of repair?
    Mr. Patten: I shall see that that point is drawn to the attention of the Housing Executive.

    Driving Licence
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he plans to make any changes in the format of the new 10-year driving licence in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Yes, Sir. Some changes to the existing format will be made to meet the requirements of the European Community model licence, which the United Kingdom is committed to introduce from 1 January 1986.
    Mr. Ross: I am surprised to hear that reason being given for the changes that are necessary. Why has the Northern Ireland licence been introduced from 1 January this year when it will last for only one year and be superseded by the European licence? Why not wait until next year? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the new one is in the form of a three-part licence rather than the booklet that we had previously? Could not all the information have been put on one plastic card which could have been made small enough to fit in with all the credit cards that one carries nowadays, rather than the back of the new licence being used as an advertisement for the DOE?
    Mr. Patten: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that it was introduced because the Public Accounts Committee suggested that we should get ahead, and it is always right to take the advice of that Committee—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should have said that it is invariably right to take the advice of that Committee. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in the second part of his supplementary question, because the new licence is in two, not three, parts. One part is in plastic so that a photograph can go on it and be secure. The other part could not be in plastic because too much information needed to be carried on it.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When did the House approve this EEC decision?
    Mr. Patten: The House will doubtless be discussing the EEC decision— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] — which goes back to 1980. I am sure that there have been a number of occasions since then when the House has been able to consider the point.

    Farm Wardens
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farm wardens would need to be appointed in Northern Ireland during a period of tension to meet his Ministry's food control plans.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Approximately 860.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient instructors are available to teach farm wardens and that sufficient time will be available between the appointment of farm wardens and a period of tension to ensure that they receive appropriate training and instruction?
    Dr. Boyson: Most of the farm wardens will be appointed from within agriculture in Northern Ireland. All the appointments should be identified within the next six months. Since they are all involved in agriculture already, training will take no more than one day.

    Security
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since I last answered questions in the House on 7 February, 11 police officers, one member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, one member of the prison service and seven civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. As the House will know from my statement on Monday 4 March, the incident which claimed the most lives was that on 28 February when the Provisional IRA killed nine police officers at Newry police station — an atrocity which rightly brought widespread condemnation. I know that the House will wish again to join me in extending sympathy to all who were bereaved by terrorist action during this period.
    Notwithstanding this tragic loss of life, the security forces have continued their determined efforts to defeat terrorism and to uphold the rule of law. Since the beginning of this year a total of 83 people have been charged with serious offences, including four with murder and seven with attempted murder; and 40 weapons, 1,768 rounds of ammunition and 2 lb of explosives have been recovered.
    Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend might not wish to answer too directly, but does he accept that the overwhelming majority of people in this country, albeit some reluctantly, accept that it would be unreasonable for our security forces, when confronted by armed men apparently bent on violence, to wait until their lives were put at risk and they were fired on before they defended themselves?
    Mr. Hurd: Such judgments usually have to be made on the spur of the moment. They are bound to be difficult judgments. One cannot generalise sensibly in advance. All I can say is that the test which the courts would apply afterwards, if necessary, would be whether the degree of force used was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In addition to countering the IRA's shoot-to-kill campaign against Roman Catholics, will the Secretary of State do all in his power to reduce the flow of explosives across the United Kingdom frontier with the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is on to an important point which is much in my mind. Home-made explosives did the damage at Newry on Thursday night. The explosives were made out of ammonium nitrate, a common farm fertiliser. The problem of fertilisers being converted to home-made explosives exists in the North and in the South. It is logical that the two Governments should work together on that problem.
    Mr. Proctor: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the growing trend in the IRA to shoot Catholics in the security forces, such as the RUC and, in particular, the prison service? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the motives for such deeds?
    Mr. Hurd: That is an important matter. Four of the 17 RUC officers killed in the last year are believed to have been Catholics. Two of them were killed at Newry on Thursday night. A Roman Catholic prison officer was also killed recently outside the cathedral at Armagh. It is too early to be certain, but there might be a singling out by the terrorists designed to intimidate members of the minority community who serve with courage and steadfastness

    1153
    alongside colleagues with similar qualities from the majority community. If that is so, I believe that the campaign will fail.
    Mr. Nicholson: On Monday afternoon the Secretary of State made a statement to the House in which he announced that large sums of money are to be made available for the provision of better security at border police stations. May I draw to his attention the fact that many of us are aware that the proposals for a new police station in Newry are not new, but have been on the books for many years? Will he assure the House that there will be no more shilly-shallying or dilly-dallying, that the decision will be made, come what may, and that the badly needed station will be provided almost immediately? Will he further assure us that he will not allow those who may try to object to the building of the police station to stand in his way?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a long delay in the planning procedures for this particular project. I understand that the procedures have now been completed and that the project will proceed. Certainly it has the highest priority.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House at what time before the carnage in Newry a foot patrol of the RUC did surveillance duty around the police station? Will he assure the House that the members of the RUC who are now on duty at vulnerable border police stations and who are living in portakabins will be safeguarded immediately, and that proper housing accommodation will be put in place for them?
    Mr. Hurd: On the first point, I am informed that protection is given to the Newry police station by patrolling at all times, and that the responsible patrol was inspected by the divisional commander late on the afternoon of Thursday 28 February. There was never any question of withdrawing protection from any vulnerable base or station. On the second point, we have a massive police buildings programme, which includes 20 major building projects over the next five years and the one at Newry, which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned. From his knowledge of these matters, the hon. Gentleman will realise that a portakabin is not necessarily more vulnerable than a conventional building, because of the effect of blast and falling masonry. However, he is correct to say that we must provide the best possible technical protection in both the design of new stations and the protection of existing stations, including those in the border area. That is being given the highest priority.
    Finally, the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends made some serious criticisms and gave serious advice in their discussions in the Assembly at Stormont on Monday afternoon. If he or his hon. Friends would like to come and go over that ground with me, I shall be extremely pleased.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are aware that international terrorist activities are being financed by insurance companies in the City of London? Will he further confirm that the Government are aware that those insurance companies that provide policies for the payment of ransom against kidnap are providing positive encouragement to kidnapping and other such terrorist activities? Will he confirm that the Government
    1154
    are aware that the leading insurance company in the City of London has already admitted to paying such ransoms, and will he tell us why the Government have so far refused to make such activities illegal?
    Mr. Hurd: I am certainly aware that such policies exist and have existed for some time. The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. I have heard arguments both against and in favour of allowing such policies to continue. That is one of the matters that we are now considering.
    Mr. Benyon: Further to the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), is my right hon. Friend aware that ordinary people cannot understand why the security forces cannot open fire on people carrying offensive weapons? Is it not time to revise the yellow card?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not believe, on the evidence available to me, that the existing rules act as an inhibition on the legitimate right of our security forces to protect themselves. It is important that they should operate under the rule of law. If my hon. Friend has a suggestion or proposal to make in that regard, he should let me know about it.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State aware that some Labour Members, who are destructively critical of his efforts and those of the security forces to protect the law-abiding people of Ulster, have been notably absent both for his statement on Monday afternoon and at Question Time today, when it was obvious that the slaughter of innocent members of the security forces would be raised? What is his interpretation of that?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is reopening a matter which had I hoped had been closed. I would simply repeat my view, which I believe is incontestable, that this Parliament is responsible for security in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it is this House to which I must report and am accountable.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Has it not always been the clear law of this country that soldiers need not wait to be fired upon before they fire in order to avoid being killed?
    Mr. Hurd: I have stated the law, and that the position under the law as it stands. It is a reasonable position, which is understood by the security forces and in which they are thoroughly and professionally trained.
    Mr. Archer: Since we all wish the police to operate as effectively and as safely as possible, and since almost everyone, including the Police Federation, is urging the Secretary of State to restructure the police authority and reform the police complaints procedure, will he tell the House whether he proposes to publish a consultation document, and if so, when?
    Mr. Hurd: The term of office of the present police authority expires at the end of June this year, and I am considering what proposals to make in that regard. It is unfortunately true that some places on the authority are unfilled as a result of decisions taken by the local authorities controlled by the Social Democratic and Labour party, and by the trade union movement. I hope that we can resolve the matter.
    As to the police complaints proposals, which are a separate matter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is

    1155
    right. I hope that soon I can let him and all the parties interested in this matter have our proposals, which I hope he will find far-reaching and important.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an up-to-date statement on the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Boyson: Figures released today in respect of 14 February show there were 122,957 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland. The unemployment rate was 21·2 per cent. This represents a slight decrease on the January figure. Employment has stabilised during the past year, and indeed in the past six months of 1984 there has been an increase of more than 4,160 in the numbers in work. Manufacturing output has increased by 3 per cent. in the past 12 months, compared with the previous year.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that until and unless unemployment is significantly reduced a political settlement will be extremely difficult to achieve? Does he agree that one of the best ways to reduce unemployment is through the small firms sector, and what is he doing to encourage small firms in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the lower the rate of unemployment, the less likelihood there is of people standing at street corners who can be recruited into paramilitary organisations. I agree with my hon. Friend also that unemployment can be reduced by the expansion of small businesses and by outside firms coming into the Province. LEDU, the Government organisation for helping small firms, helped 906 companies to establish themselves last year, which created 3,721 jobs. Indeed, we announced two months ago that we would pay between 50 and 75 per cent. of the cost to small firms of calling in auditors, computer experts or other consultants to help them to expand. The number of small firms applying for establishment grants in Northern Ireland is three times higher than it was three years ago.
    Mr. William Ross: We are grateful for the work that was done that led to the founding of the Maydown Precision Engineering works outside Londonderry, and we were very glad to hear the Minister say that he looks to small businesses to provide many jobs in Northern Ireland, but will he assure the other subcontracting and jobbing engineering firms in Northern Ireland some of which are very small, that they are eligible for exactly the same kind of financial help as was given to Maydown Precision Engineering? Will he assure such small firms in the Londonderry area and in my constituency that they will not find that they are undercut by the financial assistance that was given to that firm?
    Dr. Boyson: If one adds up the amount of financial assistance that we are giving to industry every year, one sees that the amount of money going to Maydown Precision Engineering is well below 1 per cent., so the other 99 per cent. will be spent around the Province. Maydown precision engineering is a new organisation. Any new organisation anywhere in the Province which believes it can bring in private capital, and its own capital and which needs help in starting up, can approach LEDU and the IDB. As I have already mentioned, last year we assisted nearly 1,000 firms to establish themselves by means of Government money.
    Rev. William McCrea: In view of the disastrous unemployment figures in my constituency of Mid-Ulster, which has the worst unemployment figures in Europe, will the Minister say how many times he or his Department has been in contact with the Cookstown clothing firm which has given closure notice to its employees? Has his Department made funds available to that firm in order to encourage it to change its mind, or have other firms been approached to take over this business?
    Dr. Boyson: The IDB, like LEDU, is in continual contact with hundreds of firms inside the Province. I am not certain about the developments during the last week concerning the Cookstown firm. I know that they have been in contact. I shall send a letter to the hon. Gentleman giving details of exactly what has happened during recent weeks.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Minister investigate why 20 per cent. of the cuts in the youth training programme are in the constituency of Foyle, which includes both Strabane and Derry, two areas with the highest unemployment figures in these islands? I express my appreciation, which is shared by the entire community in Derry, not only for the concern that the Minister has shown about the closure of a major engineering works in the north-west, but for the positive action that he has taken to save those jobs.
    Dr. Boyson: I appreciate, as, I am sure, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the hon. Members's comments. As to the various community groups and other groups that are taking part in youth training, at the end of last year there was a surplus of places which had not been taken up. An analysis was made throughout the Province of how one could bring into relationship the number of places available on the one side and the number of people making applications on the other. About 80 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now on one form of course or another. About 56 per cent. of those who are on training courses obtain jobs when they leave. Therefore, such training courses in the Province are very helpful. I shall look into the details that apply to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and contact him.
    Mr. Bell: While the decrease which the Minister has mentioned in the number of unemployed is welcome to the House, does he not agree that there are certain black spots in Northern Ireland which continue to cause concern? I am thinking of Strabane, Cookstown, Newry and Greater Belfast. The most up-to-date figures that are available to me show that 4,035 are out of work in Strabane, 2,661 in Cookstown, 7,996 in Newry and 61,005 in Greater Belfast. Although the Minister has referred to an increase of 4,160 in those at work, does he agree that that is mostly part-time rather than full-time work? Would it not be better if the Government pursued a policy of job creation which would result in people working full-time rather than part-time?
    Dr. Boyson: We should obviously be delighted if a higher take-up of full-tme jobs in the Province could be achieved, but if it is a choice between no employment and part-time employment we take what we can get. One trusts that those firms which take on part-timers will find that the employees are so good and and that the firms' profits have so increased that their part-timers become full-timers in two or three years' time.
    The atmosphere in the Province is better. It is by no means ideal. There are pockets of high unemployment in

    1157
    Strabane, Cookstown and other places. Indeed, they are some of the highest unemployment areas in the whole of Europe. Special measures must be taken in such cases. The February survey showed that employers throughout the Province intended to employ 2 per cent. more in a year's time than now and to invest 17 per cent. more this year than last. It is by further investment and taking on more workers that the unemployment problem will be solved.

    Short Bros. Ltd.
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to fill the current spare capacity for the manufacture of aircraft at Short Bros. Ltd.; what recent guidelines he has issued to the management of Short Bros. in this regard; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Boyson: Due to the success of Shorts over the past few years in winning contracts, I am pleased to assure the House, on the advice of Shorts itself, that there is no undue spare capacity for the manufacture of aircraft. I trust that the winning of new contracts will ensure that this happy state continues. I have not issued any recent guidelines to the management of Short Bros. in this regard and I see no reason to make a statement.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister join my right hon and hon. Friends and, I am sure, the entire House in congratulating Shorts on its successful efforts in filling spare capacity? I have in mind especially the multi-million dollar order from Boeing, following so recently on the sale of eight Short 360s to China.
    Dr. Boyson: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Shorts announced yesterday, or the day before, that it is making the rudders for the Boeing 737–300. This will provide 100–150 jobs during 1986–89 at the Shorts works.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister agree that it would be sad if Shorts showed a capability for winning orders from foreigners throughout the world but could not convince companies in the United Kingdom to buy from it? Will he do whatever he can to persuade the Ministry of Defence to order the Short Tucano?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman will be echoed throughout the Province. Everyone involved in the Province hopes that the trainer aircraft contract will be considered seriously and that the contract will go to Shorts.
    Mr. Bell: Irrespective of the guidelines which the Minister is issuing or not issuing, will he tell the House what guidelines he proposes to issue to the Shorts management on the statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday that external borrowing limits will be reduced for nationalised industries from £3·1 billion in 1984–85 to minus £110 million in the financial year 1987–88? Last year the Secretary of State wisely allowed Shorts' EFL to rise from £78 million to £79 million. Will the Minister tell the House that he will use his best endeavours to spare Shorts from the Chief Secretary's axe?
    Dr. Boyson: There is an established procedure by which I see the chairman of Shorts every three months. I saw him last weekend at an informal meeting. Should any problems occur, I will be contacted by the chairman. I
    1158
    shall certainly meet him and we shall consider fully any problems that have arisen. The continuance of Shorts, with the success that it has been having over the past few years, has done much to raise confidence throughout the Province.
    Mr. John Browne: I support my hon. Friend's words of congratulation for Shorts. Will he confirm that in future contracts, especially with the Ministry of Defence, the company bids competitively with other British companies and not on a favoured basis?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the Ministry of Defence will ensure that there are comparable contracts for all, which can be obtained on a competitive basis, with all companies knowing what they are bidding for. Shorts has an advantage in that previously it has had no military aircraft orders from the United Kingdom and there have been years when few civil aircraft have been ordered, because of the recession. This means that the company now has the advantage of being able to offer continuity of labour and production in seeking the trainer contract.

    Footpaths
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will allocate specific duties to district councils in respect of gritting and clearing footpaths.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Agency arrangements already exist which permit district councils at their discretion to grit footpaths in specified urban areas throughout Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the intense public preoccupation with measures to cope with frost and snow in the Province? Will he, pending the restoration of genuine local government to look after these matters in a commonsense way, bring local authorities as far as possible into co-operation with his Department in these measures?
    Mr. Patten: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, last winter we produced a model agreement for agency arrangements in consultation with local government. I am bound to say that this has received a mixed reaction, partly, I suspect, because many district councils think that praise and popularity are not always heaped on the shoulders of those who undertake this important function.

    Political Talks
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning dialogue between political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hurd: The need for serious discussion among the parties opposed to violence about practical ways of creating political stability in Northern Ireland is compelling. I shall continue to try to stimulate such discussion, taking a more active part myself if and when this seems sensible. Northern Ireland cannot in my view return to political normality unless those elected representatives who believe in the strength of democracy are willing to meet and work together.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he confirm that, alongside a vigorous

    1159
    security policy in Northern Ireland, the Government will take every opportunity to encourage political initiatives in the Province as part of the path towards political stability?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is correct. I have been trying to do that. There have been various road blocks along the way, and I shall continue to try to remove them.
    Mr. Rowe: In the light of President Gaddafi's recent statement, will my right hon. Friend comment on the difficulties caused to such a dialogue by interventions from outside by people as irresponsible as the President of Libya?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is correct. We have left the Libyan authorities in no doubt that any type of interference by them in the affairs of Northern Ireland will be incompatible with progress towards a better relationship.
    Mr. Archer: Is it proposed to arrange a further summit meeting in the near future, or are the Government now persuaded that long, detailed and undramatic discussions are more likely to bring progress than short, exciting ones? Further, is not a discussion more likely to produce a consensus in the absence of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is leaping ahead a bit on the Order Paper, since this question refers to political parties. Following the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that leap, I must say that we have not yet begun to discuss with the Irish Government the date for the next summit.

    Co-ownership Housing Schemes
    Mr. Beggsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will reconsider the present financial limits which apply to co-ownership housing schemes with a view to increasing funds available for the first home purchase under the scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Proposals have been made for increases in the purchase price and income limits, but I wish to review the scheme as a whole rather than consider these in isolation. The Government, however, remain fully committed to the co-ownership scheme in Northern Ireland and I am pleased to say that the high level of applications is being maintained.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that response. Will he consider how the co-ownership scheme could be applied to self-help schemes in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Patten: I know how much interest the hon. Gentleman has taken in this subject and how much he has lobbied us about it. I can assure him that that proposal will be considered by the review, which I hope will have reported by the end of the summer.

    Bank Deposits
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to require banks, on his instructions, to deposit with the High Court moneys which are suspected either of belonging to illegal organisations or of being destined for use in furtherance of terrorist activities, such moneys to remain on deposit for a specified period during which the custodian of the funds may seek to prove that they are for lawful purposes.
    Mr. Hurd: We are examining our existing powers. The Government would not hesitate to take all appropriate steps if it were clear that a proscribed organisation's funds were lodged in a bank in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Government of the Irish Republic are to be commended for the speed and determination with which they tackled the suggestion that large sums of money were being deposited in their bank for use by terrorists? Even if the right hon. Gentleman is not yet in a position to do the same thing in Northern Ireland, does he not nevertheless believe that a detailed scrutiny of the finances of the Provisional Sinn Fein might yield interesting results? Where does that organisation find the money to man a full-time office, full of sophisticated equipment that is used to spread propaganda around the world? From where does that organisation get the tens of thousands of pounds to fight the elections that it has fought during the past two or three years? Should we not be seeking the answers to those questions?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Irish Government's action. I agree that one of the areas upon which a robust security policy has to concentrate is the Provisional IRA's source of funds. We all know, alas, of the money that it receives from the United States. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken vigorous action on that. There is also the money that it derives from all kinds of fraud and rackets throughout the island of Ireland. As the hon. Member will be aware, the RUC is now spending more time and effort on that.
    Mr. Latham: Unless he comes up with some better ideas as the result of his review, will my right hon. Friend start from the basic proposition that he should at least match the anti-terrorist action taken by the Irish Government to cut off the funds of these terrible people?
    Mr. Hurd: We already have powers on the statute book which are not comparable with those which existed in Northern Ireland before. We have the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Theft Act 1968. Those powers are formidable taken together. We are now urgently considering whether they need to be reinforced.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Secretary of State consider the matter carefully, because in my view the Northern Ireland (Emergency Powers) Act 1978 is not enough? If it was right to sequestrate the funds of the NUM for not having a ballot, would it not be right to sequestrate the funds of the paramilitary organisations, which never believe in a ballot?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not beleive that the comparison can be carried far, if at all. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the subject of funds for the Provisional IRA is crucial.

    Plastic Bullets
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many people have been (a) killed or (b) wounded by plastic or rubber bullets used by the security forces in Northern Ireland since 1968.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Since the

    1161
    introduction of rubber baton rounds in 1970, and plastic baton rounds in 1973, 14 people have died as a result of their use by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Since 17 March 1981, when records were first collated, 249 people are recorded as having been injured by them.
    Mr. Flannery: May I place on record my horror at the killings in Newry?
    Those weapons are indiscriminate. Innocent people, including children, are often killed and blinded by them. Does the Secretary of State not think that the use of such weapons antagonises even further some sections of the minority community and results in more violence than there would otherwise be?
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remarks. I fundamentally disagree with the second part. We never cease to look for an alternative to plastic baton rounds, but if he is asking me to support a policy that puts the security forces in a position, when they are faced with serious rioting, of resorting to lead bullets or being overwhelmed, I do not support any such policy.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon.Friend agree that the best way for people to protect themselves against injury or death from plastic or rubber bullets is for them voluntarily to move away from any area of riot or disturbance in which such weapons might necessarily be used?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend has a good point. If he studies the statistics of the firing of baton rounds he will see that they closely follow the incidence of rioting in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister accept that we are rather surprised that the Secretary of State misunderstood my last question this afternoon? I was referring—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a supplementary question on this question, not on his last question.
    Mr. Maginnis: I was referring to those who, naively, like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), and maliciously, like the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), ask unhelpful questions. What is the Minister's opinion of their absence on Monday when the Secretary of State was making a statement about the killings in Newry?
    Mr. Scott: If I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to those who all too often in the House, when any action or policy by the security forces seems to be effective against the terrorists, get on the coat tails of the propagandists and support them, I wholeheartedly support the point that he made.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with progress towards improving relations with the Republic of Ireland since the last meeting of the heads of Government.
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that many of the statements coming from the Taoiseach and other senior Ministers in Dublin over the past few weeks have been extremely helpful? Can he confirm that meaningful
    1162
    discussions are continuing, and does he hope that in due course there will be another meeing between the Heads of State which will bring positive results?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. The dialogue which the two Heads of Government agreed should continue is continuing. It is confidential, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to say much about its contents. However, we envisage—as did the Chequers communiqué' —that there will be, at the right time, a further summit meeting.
    Mr. John David Taylor: As one of the most important issues in relation to the Republic of Ireland is security co-operation, can the Secretary of State explain why the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Chief Commissioner of the Garda have not met once in the past two years to discuss border security?
    Mr. Hurd: There is reasonably good co-operation across the border between the Garda and the RUC. From time to time there are meetings at various senior levels. However, it is certainly important that the Chief Commissioner of the Garda and the Chief Constable of the RUC should be in close, co-operative touch.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ross: The principal findings of the Bridge report published yesterday leave far too many questions unanswered. Has the right hon. Lady seen the film produced recently for ITV which contains the allegations of Miss Massiter and others? If not, will she find time to see it during the course of the day or possibly on Channel 4 tomorrow, when I gather that it is to be shown to the public? Alternatively, does the right hon. Lady wish to see the establishment of a McCarthyite structure in this country such as existed in the United States in the early 1950s?
    The Prime Minister: Responsibility for the intelligence services has been discharged in the same way by all Governments, including the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported in office. It has been recognised by all Governments that what they can say on the matter on the Floor of the House is very limited. The last Labour Prime Minister said:
    "I shall adhere to the normal practice of not commenting on security matters."—[Official Report, 29 June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 631.]
    I called in Lord Bridge to make certain that there had been no unauthorised interception through the procedure adopted by Ministers. He fully discharged that responsibility.
    Mr. Maclean: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the British Rail unions are seeking pay rises of over 30 per cent? In view of the fact that in recent months the prehistoric leadership of those unions has deliberately sabotaged the freight network to the tune of £200 million,

    1163
    does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no pay rises for British Rail staff this year until there have been productivity gains on a similar scale?
    The Prime Minister: British Rail has already lost a great deal of income through not carrying sufficient coal and, in some cases, because during the coal strike there has not been enough coal to carry. I hope that all those who work for British Rail will make it their top priority to get back both freight and passenger traffic.
    Mr. Coleman: It is reported that, since her visit to the United States the Prime Minister has been enthusiastically inbued with the idea of substituting vouchers for supplementary benefit. Is she aware that members of families who suffered under parish relief and the ministrations of relieving officers in pre-war days could give her advice on the indignity of such a system, without such a costly visit? Will the Prime Minister recognise that if she proceeds with that idea it will be fought line by line and inch by inch by those of us who had that experience?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of substituting vouchers for supplementary benefits.
    Mr. Evennettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strike action taken by teachers is unprofessional and irresponsible? Will she consider the provision of a no-strike clause in teachers' employment terms?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the strike action taken by teachers is deplorable and damaging to the children in their care. My hon. Friend will be aware that at least one teachers' union — I believe that there is more than one — has a no-strike clause in its constitution. We applaud that as being in keeping with the professional standards that we expect of teachers. I hope that it will be followed by other unions.
    Mr. Steel: As the Prime Minister accepts that she has a duty to maintain public confidence in the security services, does she agree that there is something lacking in a report which does not address itself to complaints about surveillance not authorised by a ministerial warrant, blanket surveillance under single ministerial warrants or the widespread interception of transatlantic calls, which are not subject to ministerial warrant at all? Do not those issues need to be addressed?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in a previous reply, all Governments have discharged their responsibility for the intelligence and security services very carefully. All have been governed by the same practices. Sometimes when we were in opposition I came to the House to support the then Home Secretary—he will know the occasions—because I accepted the practices and traditions that govern the service. It is vital that we do nothing to undermine the security services or to undermine the freedom on which the country depends.
    Mr. Cohenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Prime Minister recall that passage in her speech to the Tory party conference in which she said that she wanted to reduce the influence of the state over the individual? Is she not being two-faced in this matter? Is not the Government's real policy one of cutting the welfare side of the state — housing, social services and education—while massively increasing the repressive arm of the state, taking away civil liberties in the process? In this latter respect, is she not becoming to the British state what Joe Stalin was to the Soviet one?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go to the Soviet Union for a considerable length of time and see how he enjoys the comparison.
    Mr. Churchill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is reckless and irresponsible of the Leader of the Opposition to promise the Kremlin the two highest priorities on its shopping list — a nuclear-disarmed Britain and a break-up of the NATO Alliance by our dismissing the Americans from their nuclear bases here? Is it not strange that he should condemn American researches into space defence while not equally condemning those that have been undertaken by the Soviet Union since the middle 1970s?
    The Prime Minister: For any right hon. or hon. Member to suggest that he would remove cruise missiles from Britain and then close United States' nuclear bases here is thoroughly to undermine our defence and security, freedom and democracy. It is wise to point out that, had we not remained firm in deploying cruise with our Allies, I doubt very much whether the Soviet Union would have been brought back to the negotiating table.
    Mr. Ryman: Following the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers to return to work on Tuesday, is the Prime Minister aware of the vindictive and gloating attitude of the National Coal Board, which, on Tuesday morning, refused to allow 1,700 miners to return to work at Bates's colliery, Blyth?
    The Prime Minister: The management of the NCB has discharged its duty at the end of the strike excellently and commendably. It is anxious to get workers working together harmoniously and back in the pits. I commend the management on the action that it has taken.
    Mr. Traceyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the extraordinary statement of the deputy leader of the Greater London council to the effect that GLC funds will be supplied to Labour-controlled boroughs which refuse to set a rate, so that irresponsible authorities can pay their workers when they should take responsibility for them? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another disgraceful abuse of ratepayers' money in London.
    The Prime Minister: Every council has the duty to make a legal rate, otherwise very serious consequences can follow. I believe that it is completely irresponsible to set out to assist any council which is not going to discharge, or seeks not to discharge, its legal responsibilities.
    Mr. Kinnock: When this month's unemployment figures show an increase yet again of 20,000, does the Prime Minister propose to continue with the policies which have already increased unemployment by 2 million and will certainly bring even higher jobless totals if they go on?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in his description of the numbers of unemployed. They have risen, seasonally adjusted, although the headline figure is down. I believe that
    "the only answer to the economic problems which have dogged Britain … is to improve the performance of our manufacturing industry. That means higher productivity, better design, more vigorous salesmanship, more reliable delivery and servicing." So said the right hon. Gentleman's Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Kinnock: It was convincing then. From the right hon. Lady now, it is utterly unconvincing. That response does not convince even her own hon. Friends. Her hon. Friends on the Treasury Select Committee reporting today said that the Government's attitude exacerbated the problems of the pound. The Tory Reform Group today said:
    "Under the Prime Minister's policies we are not eating the seed corn, we are burning it."
    Will the right hon. Lady take the advice of the Tory Reform Group and ourselves and many others? [Interruption.] I know that the Tory party is split, and it is demonstrating it very conclusively. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would like to take up these claims with the chairman of the Tory Reform Group — [Hon. Members: "Who is he?"] The Secretary of State for Energy. Will the Prime Minister, in any case, take its advice and increase investment in production, housebuilding and improvement, education and research before the deterioration gets even worse and before unemployment goes even higher?
    The Prime Minister: It was not easy to discern a thread through the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I noticed that he disagreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. That means that he disagrees with the message. I am surprised about that, because the message was clear—higher productivity, better design, more vigorous salesmanship, more reliable delivery and services. The speed at which—[Interruption.] It is no good the Opposition yowling at something they do not like. The speed at which we achieve those objectives will decide the speed at which we get unemployment down. With regard to the Treasury Select Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—[Interruption.] The Opposition are yowling away, Mr. Speaker, as usual. The Treasury Select Committee said:
    1166
    "There are good reasons why the Government should not state explicitly an exchange-rate target, ceiling or floor. To do so would reduce speculators' risks".
    I agree.
    Mr. Kinnock: Conservative Members are — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am doing my utmost to try to get in another Back Bencher. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is the Tory Back Benchers who are preventing that, probably by prior arrangement. There was not so much a thread on the Prime Minister's response as cobwebs. All of what she said related to six years ago —2 million jobs ago, £40,000 million of investment ago, and £50,000 million worth of oil revenues ago. In spite of that passage of time, all that the Prime Minister does is worsen the situation. Are we supposed to hang around and wait for the equivalent of Mr. John James to turn up to do for the British economy, and 3⅓ million unemployed people, what he has had to do for Guy's hospital.
    The Prime Minister: In spite of everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Government have achieved record output, a record standard of living and record investment. That is a very strong economy.
    Later—
    Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statements.
    Sir Anthony Grant: The point arises from Question Time today, and I deferred making it until after business questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Then I will take it now.
    Sir Anthony Grant: You will recall, Sir, that on Tuesday my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rightly raised with you the abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time by excessive long-windedness on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It occurred again today. It is rapidly becoming an abuse of the House. Although I appreciate that you give some licence to Front-Bench spokesmen, could you tell the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that sometimes the shortest interventions are the most effective? To be perfectly fair, would you also tell Members on the Government Front Bench that sometimes the shortest answers are the most effective?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's comment will have been taken to heart. However, that is not a matter with which I can deal.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr.NeilKinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY II MARCH—Opposition Day (9th Allotted Day): Debate on an Opposition motion on record unemployment and the need for new industrial policies.
TUESDAY I2 MARCH — Second Reading of the Interception of Communications Bill. Motion on the Immobilisation of Vehicles Illegally Parked (London Boroughs of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea) (Continuation) Order.
WEDNESDAY I3 MARCH—Motion relating to the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY I4 MARCH—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day): Until about seven o'clock, consideration of the following estimate:
Class IV, Vote 5 industrial support (Department of Energy) the appropriate report will be shown on the Order Paper as relevant.
Afterwards, a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House on Cmnd. 9447, the Government's observations on the fifth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee Session 1983–84 on the Falkland Islands.
The questions will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.
Proceedings on the Cinemas Bill (Lords), which is a consolidation measure.
FRIDAY I5 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY I8 MARCH — Until about seven o'clock, debate on motions relating to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment Regulations, and the equivalent regulations for Scotland.
Motion on European Community proposals for the 1985–86 CAP prices.
[Relevant Documents for Monday 18 March: 1. 4582/85, ADD 1, ADD 2 & COR 1(e), ADD 3: CAP Prices (1985/1986); 2. 4637/85: Situation in Agricultural Markets (1984); 3. Unnumbered: Aid to German farmers.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee: 1. HC 5-xiv (1984–85); 2. HC 5-xiv (1984–85); 3. HC 78-xxxiii (1983–84) para. 11.]
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful. May I first tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading of the Interception of Communications Bill next Tuesday should be further postponed until proper answers have been given to the serious allegations made in the Channel 4 television programme and to the matters that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have raised both with the Prime Minister and with the Home Secretary? Tomorrow the programme is to be shown, and its showing will illustrate the point that the report by Lord Bridge is, because of the narrow remit given to him by the Government, merely a clumsy attempt by the Government to dodge the issues of real concern. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, as long as the Government take that attitude, more people will believe
1168
that they have something to hide? Does he accept that, whenever the Second Reading of the Interception of Communications Bill takes place, that consideration must largely dominate the proceedings in the House?
On the business for 15 March, the motion relating to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment Regulations will need at least a full day. Will the right hon. Gentleman rearrange business on that day to provide the time? Finally, I have asked several times in recent weeks for debates in Government time on the proposed closure of one third of Britain's network of skillcentres, on a report by the Commission for Racial Equality and on the Prime Minister's proposals for British participation in star wars research. Will the Leader of the House now assure the House that we can have those debates before the Easter recess?
Mr. Biffen: I note that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Second Reading of the Interception of Communications Bill might be further postponed. I do not feel able to agree with him. The Bill was published on 14 February. It is a matter of genuine concern that Parliament should debate it and proceed with it. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that some of the points he made about the Bridge report were referred to and dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon.
As to the question of there being a full day's debate upon the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment Regulations on Monday 18 March, I take note of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Perhaps that might be pursued through the usual channels.
In regard to skillcentres, I stand by what I said earlier about the importance of this topic for a Commons debate, but there will be an opportunity at least for its inclusion in the more general discussions on unemployment on Monday.
As for the questions about debates upon the CRE and upon star wars, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. I note the interest that is shown in the points.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that shortly before Christmas the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology produced a report of immense significance on education and training for new technology. When will we have a chance of discussing that? In particular, when will we have an opportunity to discuss our reaction to our own recommendations in that context?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. No allocation of time has been made for the week in prospect, but I shall bear in mind the point he makes.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he may have underestimated the number of hon. Members who are concerned about the Government's limited list proposals and also about the problems of Scotland, on which a separate order is to be considered? Does he recognise that in the way he has proposed the business we will even be deprived of the one and a half hours between 10 o'clock and 11.30 which would have been available for that debate had it been for the whole day or for the latter part of the day?
Mr. Biffen: On the second point, I shall be happy to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman identifies. On the first point, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, it is a matter for further consideration through the usual channels.
Mr. W. Benyon: My right hon. Friend will have noticed the extraordinarily light sentence passed by the magistrates on the chief perpetrator of the violence at the Chelsea match this week. This has further angered and frustrated many of my hon. Friends. Is it possible to have a debate on the subject so that the views of the House can be made clear to the judiciary?
Mr. Biffen: Obviously I cannot offer a debate in Government time next week. I have a lively sympathy with my hon. Friend, but he might consider the opportunities that there are for him as a private Member.
Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South): May we have an early statement next week about contradictory statements on regional aid that have been made by the Minister of State, Department of Industry? He is always telling the House that the Government cannot help some areas because less than 35 per cent. of the working population live in designated areas. He told the House on 28 November that we had to negotiate that 35 per cent. with the EC, but on Tuesday in a parliamentary answer to me he said that there is no maximum of 35 per cent. at all for the whole of the EC. Can we have the truth? Is there a limit, as the Minister said in November, or is there no limit, as he said on Tuesday?
Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may consider that, since Monday's debate is drawn also to include the need for new industrial policies, he can make the point on that occasion.
Sir Peter Mills: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the importance of the coming Monday, which is Commonwealth Day? May I also draw his attention to early-day motion 450?
[That this House wishes to be associated with all other Commonwealth Parliaments in the observance of Commonwealth Day on 11th March, and with the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which brings together leaders of 1,000 million Commonwealth people of diverse races, cultures and religions, who pursue the same ideals of Parliamentary democracy, individual freedom and peace in the world; and urges that especially in this Interrational Youth Year the best ideals of the young people of the Commonwealth should be encouraged.]
That motion stands in the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. On behalf of the Government, will he endorse our continuing support of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, particularly at this time when we have here 25 commonwealth visitors?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend does the House a service by reminding us every year at this time of the significance of the Commonwealth, and particularly of the important role that the CPA has played in developing a mutual understanding by all of one another's institutions. I am very happly to meet his request.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week
1170
on the Government's policy on miners going back to work in the pits? Is he aware that hundreds of miners are still awaiting their court appearances and that many of them are charged with minor misdemeanours? Nevertheless, the NCB is refusing to allow them to start work. Is there not a principle in this country of assuming that people are innocent until they are found guilty? Why is such discrimination taking place? Hundreds of miners have been before the courts, have been found not guilty, and have had their cases dismissed, yet the NCB is acting in this vindictive way. Is it the Government's or the NCB's policy?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the massive return to work in the mining industry. I shall draw the relevant Minister's attention to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on the order on Wednesday can run until 11.30 pm? Will he also confirm that, whatever orders may have been laid to date, by the time that Wednesday comes they will exclude from the limits imposed all expenditure consequent upon the buyback of defective housing, pursuant to the Housing Defects Act 1984?
Mr. Biffen: I can give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks. I shall refer his second point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Given the earlier revelations of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) about insurance companies in London insuring people against being kidnapped, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the relevant Minister makes a statement on that issue, and allow a debate in the near future so that hon. Members can express their views? Alternatively, will the Government adopt an ambiguous approach such as that adopted by a previous Administration, who installed free of charge telex machines in Sinn Fein incident centres, for which I do not believe they are getting any rent?
Mr. Biffen: I can probably best help the hon. Gentleman in the first instance by referring the matter to the relevant Minister.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not a little surprising and, indeed, disappointing that the House of Lords should have been able to discuss the report of the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the De Lorean scandal, together with the Government's response to it, before any debate has been fixed for this House? Can we please have an early date for a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I have already implied that there could be a reasonably early debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee in respect of the De Lorean affair. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend more specifically fairly soon.
Mr. Don Dixon: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to debate the report of the Transport Committee on the White Paper "Buses"? That might give the Secretary of State an opportunity to come out of hiding. No one has seen him since the publication of that report. He certainly has not attended the Standing Committee dealing with the Transport Bill.
Mr. Biffen: If, through the haze of the past 48 hours, I recollect aright, I think that the hon. Gentleman was in danger of losing his birthday. However, I am glad to see him in his place and thus recovered. The Government will, of course, wish to consider the Select Committee's report at the first appropriate moment.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the unhealthy interest in some sections of the press, particularly in The Guardian and The Observer, about security matters, and in view of the fact that almost no one else is interested in the subject, can my right hon. Friend arrange that the House goes into secret session next week when we debate the Interception of Communications Bill?
Mr. Biffen: I think that my hon. Friend makes an interesting point but one sufficiently sweeping to put me in danger of seeming like a moderate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that at this very moment many pensioners are queueing outside to get into the House so that they can tell hon. Members about the long-term decline that has taken place in their living standards since the Conservative party came into office? On this day, should not the Secretary of State for Social Services make a statement on that issue? Will the Leader of the House make arrangements so that when lobbies take place in future, elderly people and others are not kept queueing outside the House in the cold, and perhaps rain, but can queue in Westminster Hall? They could at least then have some modicum of comfort in a building that they have paid for in taxes throughout their working lives.
Mr. Biffen: The House will be anxious that appropriate arrangements are made for those wishing to undertake lobbying. That is a matter for the Services Committee, to the attention of which I will draw the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He will appreciate that the Secretary of State for Social Services is first for questions next Tuesday and he may wish to make his points then.
Dr. Alan Glyn: The country was not impressed by yesterday's performance. What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take when the Water (Fluoridation) Bill returns from another place to ensure that that process is not repeated?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may care to use his undoubted persuasive powers among a few of those who sit close by him.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Leader of the House aware of the fresh warnings of the gathering crisis in research and development in this country? Yesterday, the motor industry warned that the total United Kingdom spend on research in that industry is only 1 per cent. of United States Government support for research in their industry. Today, the Science and Engineering Research Council warned of the woefully inadequate research in engineering as a whole. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the whole question as a matter of urgency, before science and technology in this country disappear altogether?
Mr. Biffen: The debate on Monday will deal with the desirability of new industrial policies, and I should have thought that that would give the hon. Gentleman exactly the opportunity he is seeking.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members hope that he will provide a full day for the debate on the limited list?
Mr. Biffen: I note the point.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware, in view of Lord Bridge's farcical report, that before the Second Reading of the telephone tapping Bill we need a proper report dealing with the harassment suffered by trade unionists and peace campaigners at the hands of the security service and the special branch? As the Home Secretary has stated that campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament is perfectly legitimate, will the Leader of the House make sure that before the Second Reading of that Bill the Home Secretary explains why an ex-editor of the CND journal was questioned closely by the police about leading personalities in CND—about their private lives and the leadership style of the general secretary—practices which have more in common with Russia and Czechoslavakia than with a democracy?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot, in answering the hon. Gentleman's first point, go beyond the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. I shall draw his other remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I support the request for a full day's debate on the National Health Service which, with the considerable increases in resources under the present Government and much improved management, is now the jewel in the crown of the Government. As for Tuesday's business, will my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members should not believe everything they see on television?
Mr. Biffen: I note the point that my hon. Friend makes and that she is one of those who joins the Leader of the Opposition in asking that Monday's business be reconsidered. I have undertaken to do that.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House ensure that next week the Prime Minister makes a statement about what has happened this week in relation to sackings by the National Coal Board? Is he aware that many hon. Members would like to know why working miners at Kiveton Park, many of whom she praised for trying to break the strike, were sacked when the majority of men returned to work on Tuesday? We should also like to know why others have been suspended prior to going for trial. The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that serious crime would be a sackable offence. Is the Leader of the House aware that we should like to ask her why some who took coal from pit waste tips to try to keep their families warm during the winter months are being considered to have committed a serious crime? Some of my constituents have been sacked this week for having taken coal off tips.
Mr. Biffen: I should not like to prejudge where ministerial responsibility for these matters lies, but since the hon. Gentleman asks me to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the subject, I shall undertake to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the Government provide the opportunity for a debate on the operation of the wages councils? Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Tuesday there was widespread disappointment on the Government Benches after it was

1173
suggested in the Financial Times that the Government were on the verge of making a decision to retain the wages councils, albeit in a modified form? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there will be anger outside when it is realised that these councils price people of all ages out of work?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will appreciate that Monday's debate will cover employment and pricing people out of work, or into work. Once the Budget has been announced, there will be a number of opportunities for considering general economic issues, of which the wages councils are a part. I say that because I have no specific plans for a debate on the wages councils.
Mr. Mark Fisher: If the Leader of the House cannot help my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) with a statement, can he provide a debate in Government time on the miners sacked during the dispute? Is he aware that Mr. John Northard, the NCB's western area director, has said that no miners whom he has sacked will get their jobs back? Is he aware that that includes four Stoke-on-Trent miners who were sacked before their case went before the court? When their case came before the court neither the coal board nor the police offered any evidence against them and their case was dismissed. Is he aware that those four men remain sacked? Will the Leader of the House provide a debate so that we can ensure that the treatment of miners at different coalfields is equal, fair and just?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman identifies a constituency problem. I suggest that he tries his chance at an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Back Benchers feel strongly about Monday week's debate on the limited list? Does he accept that two and a half hours for Back Benchers is not enough? My right hon. Friend has said that he would like the debate to end at 7 o'clock. Will it be a time-limited debate, and if it is not how does he propose to bring it to an end at 7 o'clock?
Mr. Biffen: Since my hon. Friend has worked in the Whips Office, he knows precisely what the answer is. I take note of his voice among others which seek a reconsideration of Monday week's business.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Can I press the Leader of the House for a proper early debate — not an Adjournment debate—on an amnesty for sacked miners who have been denied their jobs by the National Coal Board, often for petty reasons? Is there not a need for a proper debate on the general issues, because the NCB's policy is nothing short of victimisation? A debate is especially important as allegations have been made that the NCB has broken the same law — the Miners and Quarries Act — under which they are denying miners their jobs? A general debate is very important.
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate some hon. Members' strong feelings about the topic. On Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be answering questions. Initially, the hon. Gentleman might see how far he can take the argument then.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that none of next week's debates are to do with extending yet more borrowing to that
1174
bottomless financial sink in Brussels? Will my right hon. Friend also put the record straight about yesterday's business? Obviously, our hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) got what happened wrong from the newspapers. The reason why we lost yesterday's business was not to do with those who are concerned about fluoridation. They asked for further consideration to be adjourned at 1.25 am yesterday The Government whipped Members into the Lobby to keep the debate going, thereby losing yesterday's business. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why they did that?
Mr. Biffen: The great occasion on Thursday afternoon is to look to the future rather than to hold inquests on the past. Regarding my hon. Friend's first points, I have not been briefed on the matter, but I am sure that we both hope that the answer is no.
Mr. Richard Holt: does my right hon. Friend recall that during the past few months I have several times requested that the House debates the divide between the north and the south of England? Since I last rose, only three weeks ago, I have received many letters and comments of support from all sides of the political spectrum that it is time that the House discussed fully, not just in an Adjournment debate, the economic, social and cultural divide between the north and the south, which is growing apace. Until we debate that matter, the divide will continue.
Mr. Biffen: I wish that debates could cure that. Shortly, we shall have the Budget, and thereafter there will be ample opportunities for economic arguments of the sort that I know my hon. Friend would employ on this important issue.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the miners in my constituency marched back to work this morning? Is he further aware that they are most unlikely to be willing to produce much coal until their comrades who were unreasonably sacked during the strike have been reinstated? Is he aware of the deplorable situation in Scotland and will he provide an urgent debate on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that his identification with the returning miners was a most patrician occasion. However, I do not think that I can take matters any further by finding time for such a debate next week.
Mr. David Harris: As, unfortunately, any increase in the BBC licence fee can and probably will be implemented before the House votes on it, will my right hon. Friend at least undertake to have a debate on this subject before the Home Secretary comes to a decision so that the many hon. Members who are wholly opposed to the figure that the BBC is seeking can register opposition?
Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, any increase in the licence fee would be subject to a negative resolution of the House and there could, therefore, be a debate on it.
Mr. Harris: That would be afterwards.
Mr. Eric Forth: Bearing in mind that the negotiations about the enlargement of the European Community to include Spain and Portugal are now reaching a crucial stage, will my right hon. Friend undertake to use his best endeavours to allow the House

1175
to debate the effects that that would have on the United Kingdom and the EC before the United Kingdom takes its final decision in the negotiations? Will he ensure that we are not faced with a fait accompli by the Government after they have acceded to the negotiations?
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's truly important point, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast current account deficit in the United States is leading to powerful pressure within the United States for protectionist trade measures which, if enacted, would have a disastrous effect on world trade and on our exports? Is it not time that we had a major debate about instituting new talks about GATT?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but no Government time has been made available for such a discussion next week. However, I shall certainly bear his point in mind.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a number of City institutions have recently sponsored public share issues in property companies in a way which enables investors to take advantage of the substantial tax concessions available under the business expansion scheme? Since this is clearly an abuse of the spirit of the scheme, which was designed to promote job-creating investment, will he find time for a debate on this subject?
Mr. Biffen: I can think of no better example of a topic that properly belongs to the Budget debate, the Finance Bill and all that follows from it.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend allow an early debate on early-day motion 463?
1176
[That, in the opinion of this House, the National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants should grant an amnesty to those of its members who refused to pay £1 a week levy to the miners' strike, who were subsequently tried by a kangaroo court and fined £50, and whose appeal against the court's sentence is shortly to be heard; and that all other unions which have treated their members similarly should refrain from any further action against them.]
The motion draws attention to the plight of trade unionists in my constituency and elsewhere who are victimised because they refused to contribute to a union levy for striking miners, imposed without a democratic vote? They have since had to appear before a kangaroo court and have been fined £50. They are appealing against that and are worried about their jobs because they are in a closed shop. Could we debate the possibility of an amnesty for those wholly innocent people?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I believe I am right in saying that he has drawn the attention of the House to this matter previously. I can offer no Government time for such a debate next week, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Derek Spencer rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) has not been rising before, but I will call him as it is just before 4 o'clock.
Mr. Spencer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the rate-capped councils such as Leicester which are holding their rate meetings today fail to fix rates, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement so that the uncertainty facing ratepayers can be removed?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw my hon. and learned Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because I fully understand the point that has been made.

Rates (Scotland)
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement about revaluation and rate support grant in Scotland. As hon. Members know, there has been a revaluation of property in Scotland which will come into effect on 1 April this year. I believe that such regular revaluations are essential to maintain a fair distribution of burdens within the rating system. In considering the rate support grant settlement for 1985–86 I have had very much in mind the special issues which revaluation raises.
It is, however, now becoming very clear that authorities are not heeding my repeated warnings to contain their expenditure. Spending in both 1984–85 and 1985–86 will continue to be above the Government's plans. I will, of course, be closely examining the budgets of all authorities to see whether any are planning expenditure of a level which would make it necessary for me to take selective action to reduce their rates. I would also remind all authorities that the penalties for overspending in 1985–86 will be much more severe than in 1984–85.
I consider that the increases in rate bills now emerging are in general so steep that I must take further action to protect domestic ratepayers. I have therefore decided to increase the total of aggregate Exchequer grant and within it the domestic element of rate support grant by £38·5 million, making it possible to increase domestic rate relief to 8p per pound of rateable value. This is an eightfold increase over 1984–85, from £14 million to £102 million. Domestic rate relief is a direct relief on each £1 of rateable value, and accordingly the benefit from it increases with rateable value. The necessary order will be laid shortly.
The increase in domestic rates will in total now be reduced from 24 per cent. to about 17 per cent. The increases for individual domestic ratepayers will in many cases be higher, and in many cases lower, than this figure, depending on the level of spending in their local authorities and changes in the pattern of valuation. It is, of course, open to ratepayers to appeal against their valuation and we have made improvements in appeal procedures in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984.
The cost of increasing domestic rate relief in this way will be financed by adjustments within my existing policies and expenditure programmes.
As I have said, the object of revaluation is to apportion the rate burden fairly. This means that some pay a larger share and some a smaller share. That is justifiable, but it is necessary to have regard to the effects on domestic ratepayers in current circumstances. This I have done with a substantial increase in domestic rate relief.
Mr. Jim Craigen: The Secretary of State must think that Scotland's ratepayers are daft if he believes that they will be taken in by this chickenfeed of an increase in domestic rate relief, when he, as Secretary of State, has already cut the beef substantially in the form of the rate support grant settlement for 1985–86. Are we to gather that this mean threepence of an increase in the domestic rate relief is the consolation prize to the chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland for his visit last week to London? Why is this brinkmanship coming on the last day before the district councils must notify the regional councils of their rate poundage?
1178
Did the Secretary of State consider a variable domestic relief, since some authorities will not have such large increases in rates as a result of revaluation as will others? I note, for example, that Kyle and Carrick and Argyll councils come into that category, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) — is still, unhappily, on the shelf of a high revaluation authority. Did the Secretary of State consider a revaluation-capping exercise to assist the authorities that will be especially disadvantaged by revaluation?
How can the Secretary of State have the gall to suggest that a 17 per cent. increase is not steep? What will be the increase for the commercial sector in Scotland? I know that areas such as Dumfries and Galloway are extremely worried about the impact of revaluation. As to appeals, is not the Secretary of State thrusting his responsibilities onto the appeals machinery?
The Secretary of State said that the proposal does not call for extra money, and that he will find it from existing programmes. Where will he find that extra money? We asked him to postpone the revaluation or to pay in full the increase in domestic relief that would be required to obviate the impact of revaluation on the domestic sector, but he has done neither. He talked about protecting the domestic ratepayer, but he is giving them as much protection as a grizzly bear gives to his victim as he is about to extinguish all life from it.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that he is the spokesman of a party which recently reaffirmed that it supports revaluation and agrees that it should go ahead. He described the proposal in various splendid ways, including calling it chickenfeed. He might wish to know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is not exactly opposed to the views of the Labour party, asked for an increase of £3l million to help domestic ratepayers, and I have today announced a £38·5 million increase for that purpose.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we made the announcement on the last day before the districts must give their rating details to the regions. The answer is that this is the first day on which I could have made the announcement, after putting together the package, following the announcement of the full details of the effects of rate changes on various areas. The hon. Gentleman suggested variable domestic relief, but he has not taken fully into account the fact that the method of payment of the relief means that the higher the rateable value of the property in question, the more help its owner will receive from the change. Therefore, it allows for the fact that some need more help than others.
The hon. Gentleman suggested the capping of revaluation. If he really believes that that is practicable, he must have a poor appreciation of what revaluation is about. The object of revaluation is to ensure that the share paid by each category of ratepayer is more or less fair in current circumstances. As I have already said, the hon. Gentleman's party and the leader of that party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), agree with that system and support it. The hon. Gentleman said that I had suggested that an increase of 17 per cent. was not steep. That is not the case. I consider that it is a very steep increase. The increases that have been responsible for revaluation in Scotland still amount to about 12 per cent. The rest is due to overspending by local

1179
authorities which have refused to bring their spending under control. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman's party and his colleagues have been more responsible than anybody else for encouraging overspending. As for money, about £26 million will come from reductions in my cash-limited programmes in 1985–86. The programmes mainly affected are likely to be industry, largely the Scottish Development Agency, roads and transport, the urban programme, health and housing. I have also taken some account of the grant penalties that are likely to arise from local authority overspending.
Sir Hector Monro: May I give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him upon his success in assisting domestic ratepayers in Scotland? Is he aware that this increase to 8p will more than halve the rise due to revaluation and that it will be of substantial benefit to the domestic ratepayer? Will he further confirm that the sum of £38 million is far more than was requested by the local authorities, who asked only for £31 million.?
Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is perfectly correct. The combined effect of all the domestic rate relief that we have produced and largely paid for has been more than to halve the effect of revaluation on domestic ratepayers. I have no doubt that people in general will notice that whereas the Labour party, in the form of its representatives in local government, seems to do everything possible — particularly yesterday — to increase rates by every means that it can, this party has put a great deal of money into helping domestic ratepayers in order to ease the burden upon them.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that his 17 per cent. increase is between three and four times the current rate of inflation? How can that be justified? Why is there a second revaluation in Scotland before revaluation has taken place south of the border? Finally, will the Secretary of State at last do something towards redeeming the Tory promise of reforming the whole of the rating system, in view of what Scottish ratepayers have suffered during the past few years under this Government?
Mr. Younger: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be quicker than most to believe that Scotland should go its own way when it wishes to do so. He may recall that the revaluation system is completely different in Scotland. We had revaluations in 1961, 1966, 1971, 1978 and 1985. The effect of those revaluations has been to keep our valuations much more up to date than those south of the border. As for costs, I am glad to note that the Western Isles council appears to have announced rates increases which are considerably less than those in most of the rest of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman must be glad about that. I should also have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome, if nobody else would, the fact that one of the effects of this revaluation is to make substantial reductions in industrial rates in Scotland. This is very important for jobs. For example, he might like to know that the assessor in Strathclyde informs me that the result of revaluation will be that standard industrial units in East Kilbride will have their rates burden reduced by 18 per cent. I wonder what they will think if the right hon. Gentleman presses for that not to happen.
Mr. Michael Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed in Scotland, not least by my constituents who are the most highly rated in Scotland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key elements in rates increases is the insatiable appetite for spending of Labour authorities? It is only thanks to the action that my right hon. Friend has taken that rate levels have not been higher. Will he bear in mind that there is deep apprehension in many district councils about the shape of the possible rate support grant settlement for 1986–87. Will he further accept that there is a deep desire, as yet unrequited, for a reform of the domestic rating system in Scotland?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments on all of those points. On his last point, he knows that my right hon. Friends and I are involved in a further study of what improvements can be made to the rating system. He is quite right in saying that there are gainers and losers in any revaluation. I have mentioned some of the industrial gainers. It is also the case that to quite a large extent such items as sports grounds, in which a great deal of interest has been taken in recent years, do rather better out of this revaluation than would otherwise have been the case. None of these gainers would have gained anything if there had been no revaluation. That is the answer to those who say that they would rather not have had a rating revaluation. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, it is this Government alone who have stood out with determination to ensure that the effects upon domestic ratepayers are not too severe. It is the Labour party, through its local government representatives, that is uncorking the champagne and flying the red flag with joy because of the increased expenditure that it is imposing upon ratepayers.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that when he crept into the House this afternoon to make his statement it was to tell us that the local government financial strategy over which he presides is in tatters and that throughout Scottish local government there is no confidence either in him or in his Ministers? This is just another admission that we are to have statement after statement about local authority finance from the Secretary of State but never any success in administering it. Since so many people are to be so badly disadvantaged by revaluation will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his officials advise every householder in Scotland of his right of appeal, how to appeal and how to make sure that the result of that procedure will be that some justice will be rescued from the injustice that he is creating?
Mr. Younger: On the latter point, I can certainly confirm that we shall do everything we can, as is usual, to advise people of their right of appeal and how to appeal. I am sure that many people will do so. However, I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Although this statement is mostly about Government help to the domestic ratepayer, I thought that the hon. Gentleman would intervene to thank me for the fact that as a result of this revaluation Burroughs in Cumbernauld is having a rates reduction, I understand from the assessor, of about 23 per cent. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would thank me for that.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Aberdeen, where there has been

1181
very substantial revaluation, this news will be most welcome? Will he agree with me that during the course of this week Aberdeen district council made an extremely responsible response to his request that it should attempt to meet the guidelines? Does he agree that that salutary example should be followed throughout Scotland?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was pleased to see the press reports of the decision taken this week by Aberdeen district council.' I also welcome its decision on housing. This was in contradistinction to the advice given to it by many people in the Labour party. As my hon. Friend has pointed out this Labour council acted against the encouragement given by many of its friends to councils throughout Scotland to defy the law and increase the rates.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that many hon. Members regard announcements of this kind as a very piecemeal way of dealing with the very serious problem of rating valuation? Secondly, are we right to assume—I think we are—that this is not £38 million of new money? The Secretary of State said that about £26 million of the £38 million has to be taken from the Scottish Development Agency, from industrial growth, from the roads programme and from other essentials that had been earmarked for the promotion of industry in Scotland. Did I hear the Secretary of State aright when he said that in order to make this announcement he is taking that sum of money away from industry?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's first point is valid. The reason why I have acted in two stages is that information about the effect on many classes of ratepayer has been made available at various points during the course of the revaluation. I have acted as quickly as it has been possible to act when I have had the information upon which to act. However, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that it would have been better if we could have done it all at once. However, we did not have the information to enable us to do so. As for the money, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. There is no such thing as "new" money. All the money comes from taxpayers and ratepayers. What I have had to do—and it has been very difficult—has been to re-order the priorities within the Scottish budget. If it is necessary to help some people, somebody else has to find the money. That I have managed to do.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the further increase in domestic rate relief will be welcomed warmly by Conservative Members and by those who pay rates? [Laughter.] Labour Members seem surprised. Is it not a fact that only a limited number of electors pay rates? Does he accept that this further increase in domestic rate relief will cushion further the effect of the revaluation, the legal requirement for which was introduced by the previous Labour Government? Finally, will he review urgently the rate support grant distribution fomulae and consider sympathetically the prospect of continuing to seek a better way of raising local taxation?
Mr. Younger: I confirm that I shall continue to do what my hon. Friend urges in the last part of his question. He is right to say that the whole population does not pay rates. The amount of domestic rate relief is proportionate
1182
to the rates that an individual has to pay. This means that all ratepayers derive some benefit and that those who have the greatest burden receive the greatest assistance. I confirm that we shall continue to do all that we can to make the rate support formula meet as nearly as possible the needs of ratepayers and the system.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that ratepayers will welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has bowed under the storm of protest that has greeted the revaluation. However, there will still be considerable dismay at what he is doing. I have received many letters from my constituents on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman has been developing the humbug that the rating consequences are all due to the Scargillites in Edinburgh and Stirling. Gordon district council and the Conservative-controlled Grampian regional council have kept entirely within the right hon. Gentleman's guidelines, yet before his announcement today the ratepayers in those authorities were faced with a 42 per cent. cash increase in what they pay in rates. His announcement will serve to reduce the increase to 34 per cent. I do not believe that those ratepayers will be very impressed with the way in which the Government are helping them. The money that is to be used to achieve the reduction will come from cutting an already savagely cut Scottish Office budget. This will lead to further problems in other sectors of the Scottish economy and he and his Government will pay the consequences at the end of the day.
Mr. Younger: It is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have made those remarks. It is only the Liberal party which believes that money can be produced by inventing it and plucking it from thin air. It is obvious that money has to come from somewhere, and the only area from which it can come is from other programmes.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that many of his constituents will regard my announcement with dismay. If they are dismayed by the prospect of having an extra 3p in the pound to help towards their domestic rates, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are not the same as mine. I am left wondering whether the hon. Gentleman has had time since the rate support grant debate that took place a few weeks ago to check with the district council in his constituency, whose domestic rate is 9p in the pound, why it appears to be necessary for it to budget for about 80 per cent. of its balances. That seems a strange decision, but it is for the council to make it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will look into that.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome news today, which will be of considerable value in rural areas. I agree very much with his comments in response to the question from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Will my hon. Friend ensure that an appropriate proportion of the relief will go to rural areas of the sort that are to be found in my constituency? The councils in these areas have suffered because they adhered to the guidelines. They will welcome any benefit that they can get from the increased relief that my right hon. Friend has announced.
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I can assure him that the benefit will go in proper proportion to rural areas as well as other areas. I think that it will have an equally beneficial effect on ratepayers in all areas.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that a rate revaluation is designed to remove inequities in a system that is basically inequitable? It seems that he is tinkering with it and trying to create a workable system when in essence we have an unworkable public expenditure system. What overtures has he made to the Treasury to try to dissuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making tax cuts and encouraging him to increase real public expenditure as it relates to the needs of the people of Scotland and elsewhere?
Mr. Younger: That is a wider question. The hon. Gentleman will soon have an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his judgment of what is the best way of using public money to help many different interest groups in Scotland and Britain generally.
I do not go along entirely with the hon. Gentleman's definition of the purpose of rate revaluations. He suggested that their purpose was to remove inequities, but they are introduced to remove inequalities which arise during the passage of time. That is why, the more frequent the revaluations, within reason, the fairer the system is. It has been said that there is no statutory requirement to have revaluations, but that is not so. There is a statutory requirement to have revaluations in Scotland—
Mr. Harry Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman postponed the revaluation.
Mr. Younger: —every five years unless an order is put before the House for postponement. The Government have already put an order before the House to postpone the revaluation for two years. We cannot continue postponing revaluations from year to year without making the system extremely unfair. We have taken what is clearly the right decision.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his customary chivalry in handing his water bottle to the hard-pressed domestic ratepayer as he crawls through the desert of death? He has come to the rescue of domestic ratepayers by ameliorating the effects of revaluation. Domestic ratepayers have a vote, of course, but there are many who do not pay rates who also have a vote. The rating system enables the consequences of extravagant expenditure of social administration to be placed as a burden on the backs of ratepayers and to be continued. It also enables Conservative administrations that are not profligate to be punished. It is not a good system and it should be urged upon my right hon. Friend, when he gets back his water bottle, that he redeems an impossible rating system that is unfair and contrary to our principles.
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's argument. A number of authorities have been trying to increase their expenditure over a number of years. They suffer penalties for doing that, but their general activity reacts on the rest of the system and affects adversely many authorities which have been spending sensibly and reducing their expenditure. That is regrettable and I hope that all authorities will get together to try to stop that happening. I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend has chosen exactly the right analogy in referring to me handing a water bottle to ratepayers. When he sees the
1184
effect of the three extra pence he may consider it to be something a little stronger — perhaps a wee deoch-and-doruis.
Mr. John Max-ton: Why does the Secretary of State respond so quickly to the screams of that dying species, the Conservative voter in Scotland, when it took him five months to respond to the legitimate demands of Scottish teachers, and then only flatly to refuse to give them an independent inquiry? If the Secretary of State has £38·5 million to spend, would it not be better to use it to increase teachers salaries? Would not parents in Ayr and Eastwood prefer him to spend the money in that way rather than giving it back to them in this form of rate relief?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his somewhat backhanded compliment for the speed of response in this instance. I am glad that I was able to act reasonably quickly when the information became available. The teachers' dispute is a separate matter. I did not turn down the teachers' request out of hand and the hon. Gentleman should know that. I suggested a perfectly good way forward for them. Unfortunately they have refused persistently to take it up. I can assume only that they have turned down my offer, to my great regret.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the domestic ratepayers on Tayside will be relieved that something has been done to prevent what could have happened? My right hon. Friend must be aware that the real problem is that he is constantly faced with high-spending authorities which, for many years, have bought their voters' affections, and that has resulted in the re-election of those authorities. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, until the system is changed, he will continue to battle against the ever-increasing tithe and that, under the present system, there will be no real answer to the problem? My right hon. Friend must ask his right hon. and hon. Friends to produce as a matter of urgency a system that is fair to all those who benefit from the high-spending authorities.
Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friends and I are far from satisfied that the rating system is working fairly. So many people either do not pay rates or think that they do not pay rates. They therefore appear to encourage councils to spend more and more of the money which they think is not their money. Obviously that is not a satisfactory principle, and we shall, therefore, do everything we can to find ways of improving it.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: As this is the second time this year that the Secretary of State has had to readjust his budget—first on student fees and now on the revaluation contribution—will he say what will be the impact on the industrial, health and housing sectors from which this money is to come? How much money does the right hon. Gentleman have in reserve for his rather phoney offer to the teachers?
Mr. Younger: On the last point, I have given my answer and that answer stands. I shall make clear the details of the changes in my programmes when the necessary gross cash limit adjustments are announced. I expect that the initial gross reductions on most of the affected programmes will be outweighed by increases in the cash limits during 1985–86 to carry forward the effect

1185
of the normal entitlement of underspending on those programmes in 1984–85. The size of these increases will not be known until the end of this financial year.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: What effect will the cuts in the other budgets — for example, industry and roads — have on the Highlands regional council which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is not noted for flying the red flag over Inverness? Will not the cuts simply exacerbate the present problem? Since the local government re-organisation there has been a tenfold increase in the road mileage that has to be serviced, repaired and kept up, while there has been only a doubling in the cash available for those services.
Mr. Younger: On the general effects, I shall make a detailed announcement so that hon. Members will have a clear picture of what is happening. We are able to make the necessary adjustments because we are talking about an early period in the financial year and because we can use some of the underspending in the current year. Those funds can be carried through. I believe that the changes in other programmes will not be drastic. When those changes are made, the House will be able to make known its views.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Secretary of State now recognise that Edinburgh district council is determined to implement its mandate to improve services and create jobs? What moral authority does the right hon. Gentleman have to try to prevent the council from tackling years of appalling neglect of Edinburgh's council housing stock and from starting to raise services to the levels in other parts of Scotland?
Mr. Younger: I have read in the press only what Edinburgh district council has in mind. I do not propose making any comment on that until I have an opportunity of seeing the council's budget and the budgets of all the other local authorities in Scotland. It would not be proper for me to comment on that at this stage. I can well imagine, however, the real views of the vast majority of the Edinburgh people at the antics of the past few days. I shall leave it at that.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: If this increase in public spending can be met by creative accounting with last year's underspending, why cannot that same creative accounting be used to meet urgent calls, such as the call to increase teachers' pay? If some industrial premises are having their rateable value reduced, and bearing in mind the fact that a great many industrial premises have been turned back to green fields because of the Government's industrial policies, where is the logic of loading additional spending on to the domestic ratepayer and the SDA, which is trying to build fresh industrial premises?
Mr. Younger: As I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates, revaluation merely alters the share of rates paid by the various categories of ratepayer. It so happens that in this revaluation, which is decided entirely by assessors and not by the Government, the industrial ratepayers will carry a lower share and the domestic ratepayers a higher share of the rating burden. The domestic share of the total burden will increase by roughly 14.4 per cent. and the industry share will increase by 12.7 per cent. That can only be helpful to industry, and that is one of the purposes of revaluation.
I repeat that I have been saying for some weeks that I am prepared to look at a package put together by the SJNC
1186
for Scottish teachers. I made it clear that I was prepared to help them, but I am bound to say that it appears, after repeated efforts, that the teachers have turned down this request — I regret that — and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how one could meet the request as time goes on.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State accept that although the announcement is inadequate, I certainly welcome it? Will he confirm that it will do nothing for commercial ratepayers? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider examining a similar scheme to give some relief in the face of the swingeing increases in commercial rates in areas such as mine?
Mr. Younger: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about commercial ratepayers. He and his colleagues have seen me about that matter. In general —I do not refer to the Borders particularly — the share of rates borne by commercial ratepayers will fall by 3·2 per cent. I fully accept that there are commercial ratepayers — including those from the Borders—whose valuations are fairly high, because of the assessor's assessment of their economic position compared to that of comparable premises in other parts of Scotland. There seems to be a clear case for making appeals. No doubt that will be considered in the normal process.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome this acrobatic attempt by the Secretary of State to save one of his own goals. Now that we have this implied admission that it is the unelected Secretary of State for Scotland who has been responsible for the explosion of rates in recent years, will the right hon. Gentleman apologise to the householders and to elected local authorities in Scotland for his deplorable and devious conduct towards local government finance since he came to office? Will the right hon. Gentleman estimate how many jobs will be lost as a consequence of his robbing the SDA's Peter to pay the Paul of Eastwood and Ayr?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman perhaps needs a new scriptwriter. Even by his standards, that was a remarkable question. I remind the hon. Gentleman that is a Front Bench spokesman in an Opposition party which has clearly agreed that the rating system is right and that revaluation is the right thing to do. The hon. Gentleman cannot quarrel with the fact that the independent assessors have decided that the various categories should change the share of rates that they bear. If the hon. Gentleman is at odds with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who clearly supports the revaluation of the rating system, he should say so. I do not think he is.
Mr. Ewing: I am sure that the Secretary of State is greatly relieved that he has quietened the bark of the Buchan bulldog. That bark is now merely a whimper. This shows how cheaply the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) can be bought. Is the Secretary of State aware that this measure might be a sop and consolation prize to the two Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland who are sitting beside him — they were both disciplined last week by their executive committees — and all right for their executive committees, but it certainly is not all right for the domestic ratepayers in Scotland who see the right hon. Gentleman as one who believes that an increase of 17 per cent. in domestic rates is acceptable?

1187
The right hon. Gentleman talks about local authorities spending above the guidelines, but is he not yet aware that the finer and deeper he cuts the guidelines the more impossible it is for local government to stay within the guidelines? They cannot keep their spending programmes within the guidelines that he has set. If the Secretary of State has a conscience, will he think black burning shame of himself for making the health of the people of Scotland pay for his bungling incompetence?
Mr. Younger: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's various points, I have never said, and do not believe, that a 17 per cent. increase is acceptable. If local authorities had been spending according to the guidelines and recommendations that we have been making for all these years, the increase through the revaluation would be only 12 per cent. Even after the Government help, that is the measure of the overspending which still runs in the system, encouraged, aided and abetted by the hon. Gentleman. We have enhanced the guidelines by £97 million this year to make it easier for local authorities to meet their targets. I should have thought that he would recognise that. I am at a bit of a loss when commenting on the hon. Gentleman's remarks, unfortunately, because I cannot accuse him of having a new scriptwriter. It is all too apparent that he writes his scripts himself.

Surrogate Motherhood
4.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on commercial surrogacy.
Over the last few months there has been increasing concern about the practice of surrogacy — that is, the practice whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant with the intention that the resulting child should be handed over to another couple. This concern has related in particular to the activities of agencies which operate to promote surrogacy arrangements on a commercial basis. We also now have the results of the consultation which we initiated on the Warnock report on "Human Fertilisation and Embryology". Although there was some difference of view about the general principle of surrogacy, there was almost total agreement on the unacceptability of surrogacy undertaken on a commercial basis.
When the Warnock report was debated in this House last November I said that the Government would consider urgently whether clarification of the law on surrogacy was necessary. This we have now done. It is quite clear that the question of surrogacy raises wide issues not just of general principle but also about, for example, the legal status of children and the involvement of professional people in facilitating surrogacy arrangements. We have concluded that it would be right to deal with these questions in the comprehensive legislation which is needed to deal with the whole range of issues raised by the Warnock report.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the existing position is unsatisfactory. The case of Baby Cotton demonstrated the difficulties which commercial surrogacy arrangements can cause and the widespread public concern about them. There are almost certainly other similar cases in prospect and there is an incentive for commercial agencies to increase their activities before any general legislation can be brought forward.
The Government believe that commercial surrogacy is in principle undesirable and the commercial agencies should be prevented from operating in this country. I shall therefore shortly be bringing forward a Bill to achieve that purpose. It will prohibit such agencies from recruiting women as surrogate mothers and from making surrogacy arrangements; and it will prohibit advertising of their services.
The objectives of the Bill will not be to resolve all the issues in the field of surrogacy. It will, however, give rapid effect to the widespread view that this is not an area where commercial agencies should operate and will avoid a possible increase in the number of surrogacy arrangements procured by them. I hope that the House will agree that action of this kind is justified and urgent.
Ms. Jo Richardson: We welcome the Secretary of State's statement outlining his intention to introduce a Bill to deal with the profit-making element of surrogate parenthood. He is right to concentrate on a short Bill which deals with this aspect of a difficult and sensitive subject. It is unfortunate that one case involving large sums of money should have clouded a more thoughtful discussion of the complicated issues. I am glad that he left open the wider and more informed debate.
No one wants to see women exploited, and the genuine desires of infertile parents to have a child must be thought

1189
about carefully. When the time comes, will the Secretary of State make available to the House the results of the consultations that he has carried out following the publication of the Warnock report, because that will help the House to come to some conclusions?
I should have preferred that part of Warnock and the part dealing with research on embryos to form part of a wider package introduced comprehensively, but, having said that, I must say that we are strongly opposed to commercial agencies making money out of people's miseries and welcome the Secretary of State's statement that this aspect of the matter is to be covered.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. I shall, of course, respond to her request and make the results of the consultations that followed the publication of Warnock available to the House. Perhaps I can consider the form in which they can be published and made known. Plainly, I wish to move quickly in an area where there is most anxiety. Warnock's unanimous recommendation was to ban commercial surrogacy agencies. That has been supported by virtually all the organisations which have commented on the Warnock report. That does not in any way invalidate the case for a more comprehensive Bill, but, equally, we should act quickly and certainly against this abuse.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by his hon. Friends, who will be happy to facilitate the passage of the legislation that he will bring forward shortly? He will recall that the original case that drew public atention to the matter involved an American lady. Can he comment on the international dimensions of the problem? How extensive will the legislation that he is proposing be? To what extent has he been able to obtain co-operation from other countries — in particular, the United States — in dealing with this extremely distasteful matter?
Mr. Fowler: The Bill will essentially affect arrangements, agencies and advertising in this country. In bringing forward the proposals we have been very much influenced by the Baby Cotton case and some of the things that have taken place in the United States; for example, the case of a handicapped child who was born as a result of one of these arrangements and was then rejected by the commissioning parents. One does not want that type of thing to happen in this country.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Secretary of State aware that he will find supporters in all parts of the House for his decision to bring in this Bill? Many of us also welcome his recognition that there are some aspects of Warnock which cannot wait for a comprehensive Bill, which may be some years away. Does he believe that a contract for a surrogate mother to hand over a baby at birth can be legally enforced? If it cannot, does he feel that that issue can await a second Bill?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general support for the intention to legislate. A contract is unenforceable, but I believe that it would be wise for the House to consider all those issues, including the legal status of the child, which is completely unsatisfactory at the moment. These issues will, I am afraid, have to be dealt with in general legislation. These are matters which are extremely complex, but none of them should invalidate the case for acting speedily where we can.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other members of the Cabinet who have pressed so strongly for the introduction of this legislation. Many millions of people and the ethical committees of the medical profession in this country will be satisfied with this as a first step towards more consideration of Warnock. Will he cast a sympathetic eye on those who are involved in a similar tangle to that of Baby Cotton's parents and issue guidelines to those who are responsible for the safe keeping of those children when they are born? There will inevitably be cases before the legislation takes place.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for this measure. I pay tribute to her for all the work that she has done in this area, and I shall give thought to what she has said. Clearly, she recognises that the Bill is a first step. Equally, she is right in saying that there is nothing that we can do in the Bill that will affect children who are to be born in the next two or three months. However, I shall see whether there is anything further that I can usefully do in terms of guidance.
Mrs. Renée Short:: As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, surrogacy is a means of helping infertile couples to have a child. We need to bear in mind the severe complications and difficulties that that situation can create. I think that the whole House welcomes the right hon. Gentleman's statement about removing the commercial aspects of surrogacy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that senior medical geneticists working on infertility and genetic diseases are concerned about the future of their work? Can he assure us that such work will be able to continue and will have his support?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady takes us into areas that are at the heart of the Government's consideration of the Warnock report. The private Member's Bill of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is also involved. We are trying to act now in a specific and limited way. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait for the more general legislation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman's statement will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. Can he confirm that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I confirm that the legislation will apply to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to add to the warm welcome that this proposal has received from the House. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the encouraging things about the proposed Bill is that it will allay public fears over an especially intense area of the Warnock controversy, and that more reasoned discussion of other areas which demand such discussion may therefore become possible?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is right.
Sir Hugh Rossi: If a human act is intrinsically good or bad, how can the payment or non-payment for that act alter its essential nature?

1191
On another plane, if all surrogacy — commercial or non-commercial— were to be made illegal, would we not avoid a great many legal and sociological problems?
Mr. Fowler: The option of acting on surrogacy in general is still open. I am sure that many hon. Members will have sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said, but I think he will agree that there is no consensus on the matter, as there is in the case of commercial surrogacy.
I am concerned to move quickly in an area of great concern, on which, as hon. Members' reactions this afternoon have suggested, there is general agreement. The aim is to prevent the present position from getting worse. I hope that, whatever aspirations hon. Members may have about the final form of the legislation, they will support this limited but valuable Bill.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the surrogate service which the Secretary of State is illegalising will still be available to any British national who goes to the United States or to the EEC? Should not the Government introduce some disincentive to those who would wish to use that service? The right hon. Gentleman could ensure that there was no possibility of patriating children who were the product of a surrogate relationship.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman takes us a long way from the intention of the Bill. For one thing, British law cannot apply in the United States, and there is no sense in thinking that it can.
Mr. David Crouch: I warmly welcome the Bill and the speed with which it is being introduced. My right hon. Friend has spoken of his intention eventually to introduce comprehensive legislation on the Warnock report. When is such legislation likely to appear before the House, and does my right hon. Friend feel in any way inhibited by the fact that the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill is now under consideration?
Mr. Fowler: I do not feel inhibited by that Bill, but clearly the House's decision on it will affect the final form of the legislation which the Government put before the House.
The Government intend to introduce a comprehensive Bill dealing with the wider issues considered by Warnock. I believe that that is what the House would wish us to do. I cannot at this stage give a commitment about timing, but the Government wish to introduce such a Bill as soon as they possibly can.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the abolition of the commercial market in surrogacy, but the question of the legal status of children born in surrogacy, and other major issues in the Warnock report, remain to be considered. I hope that the comprehensive Bill will appear sooner rather than later. Right hon. and hon. Members seem to assume that it will be years before we have a comprehensive Bill which legislates in detail. I would be very disappointed if we had to wait for years. We should act now, sensibly and comprehensively, but as a matter of urgency, on all the issues in the Warnock report.
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree that we should act sooner rather than later. The Government are acting with exceptional speed in this matter. We debated Warnock only last November and I now propose to introduce
1192
legislation on part of it, which seems to be generally welcome to both sides of the House. Consultation with all the interested parties has taken place. The Government cannot be accused of delay.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I join in the general welcome given to the statement and to the Bill when it appears? However, does my right hon. Friend agree that however much we may want to assuage the longing of childless couples for a child, the nation has been deeply affronted by the idea that this could be done by offering an embryo or a foetus, or the pregnancy services of a stranger, through a commercial agency for money? We are heartily glad to see that one of those practices is promptly to be banned. When can we expect legislation on the others?
Mr. Fowler: I have just answered my hon. Friend's final point. I entirely agree that is is unacceptable to sell children or to charge for pregnancy. The risk of exploitation is one of the reasons why the Government are acting with such speed.
Mr. Dick Douglas: As there is no Scottish Office Minister on the Bench, can the Secretary of State assure us that his legislation will apply to Scotland, which has a different legal system?
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the difficulties of ensuring that people do not go to the United States for this service. Is there not a case for consulting Ministers in the EEC with a view to reaching an appropriate agreement?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, the Bill will apply to Scotland, I shall consider whether the hon. Gentleman's second point can be taken further.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response, but I hope that he will resist the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Ross) to include non-commercial surrogacy. There would be no general support for that.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective way of stopping the operation of commercial surrogacy agencies is to ensure that the contracts are unenforceable, that no money can be required to be paid under such contracts, and that if money has been paid it is recoverable?
Mr. Fowler: I shall consider my hon. Friend's latter point. I have sympathy with his general argument, but a Bill which prevents commercial or fee-charging agencies from recruiting surrogate mothers and making surrogacy arrangements will have an impact on the problem which my hon. Friend and I want to tackle. I realise that the inclusion of non-commercial surrogacy would not be acceptable to all. It has deliberately not been included in the Bill, which depends on agreement on both sides of the House to achieve progress. We do not have much time in which to get the Bill through.
Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Bill will make commercial agencies illegal. Will it also be illegal for individuals to be surrogate mothers for gain? Would it be possible at the same time to make illegal the implantation of human embryos in animals?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's latter question goes much wider than the Bill. The Bill will do three things

1193
—prevent commercial or fee-charging agencies from recruiting surrogate mothers, ban agencies and individuals from advertising, and create penalties for offences. It is a limited but valid measure.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for his categorical assertion that this is a first step? When does he hope the Bill will be on the statutue book? Can he assure us that the penalties laid down by the Bill will be sufficient to deter those who would traffic in human beings?
Mr. Fowler: I strongly hope so. I hope that I shall be able to introduce the Bill before Easter — in the next week or so. The message that people will take from this is that the Government are determined to act against such agencies. I think that that message will be understood.
Mr. John Ward: I should like to add my thanks and that of my constituents for what my right hon. Friend has done and his speedy reaction. He said that the Bill was a first step. As this is a holding operation, and in view of anxiety expressed in the House about experiments on embryos, will my right hon. Friend consider giving a fair wind to the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)?
Mr. Fowler: There are various views on that. The Government are neutral. I am not a member of the Committee considering the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, but it seems that he is well able to look after himself and he appears to be making progress in Committee.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Although I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, does he agree that it flows from several of the questions that have been asked today that many complex issues in the Warnock report are interrelated and that piecemeal legislation is undesirable? Does he have any plans for further interim legislation, or will the next step be a comprehensive Bill?
Mr. Fowler: The next stage must be comprehensive legislation. However, I do not regard this as piecemeal but as action against a well-defined evil. Most right hon. and hon. Members regard it as such. The Bill does not in any way invalidate the case for comprehensive legislation, and the Government will continue to prepare it.

Coal Industry Dispute
5.3 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the current situation in the west Fife and central Scotland coalfields."
It is fairly apparent to some eyes that the miners' strike is over. That is not the case in west Fife and central Scotland where the miners are persisting in staying out, principally because they feel that the National Coal Board is being unfair.
During Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday, the Prime Minister gave me the impression that she thought that the NCB was right not to re-engage miners who had been convicted of serious criminal acts and dismissed from work. We must define what is meant by "serious criminal acts." I should like to illustrate my argument by describing acts for which men in my constituency have been sacked. The NCB director in Scotland, Mr. Albert Wheeler, says that there can be no further consideration of their sackings. His attitude is vindictive and spiteful.
George Wallace was convicted of a breach of the peace offence, sentenced to six months with good behaviour, and sacked. Mr. David Carruthers, who has served 30 years in the mining industry and never been in trouble, was convicted of a breach of the peace offence and fined £25. He has been dismissed. Robert Young was convicted of a breach of the peace offence and fined £75. He has been dismissed. His gross misconduct occurred on or about 7 June at Cartmore opencast mine— nothing to do with NCB property. Such sackings show that the mining industry in Scotland is being managed vindictively and spitefully. The churches in Scotland have protested to the Coal Board, and Dunfermline district council has written to it saying that it deplores the attitude of the director of the NCB in Scotland. That was the council's unanimous view.
I recently spent half of an afternoon pleading with the National Coal Board not to use non-union buses to convey miners to work, but it persisted. That has merely rubbed salt into the wounds and is another example of its spiteful and vindictive attitude.
Willie Bell, who has recently retired as manager of the Solsgirth mine, in an article in The Scotsman this week, said:
"Long ago in my management career, I learned that a manager can't produce coal by himself. If you can't get the backing of the labour force you may as well forget it."
It appears that the NCB in Scotland has not read or digested that article. Mr. Bell's comments back up the call of Labour Members of Parliament and others for a public inquiry into the operations of the NCB in Scotland. I am pleading for an opportunity to discuss this issue. If not, I cannot be responsible for the repercussions in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

1195
"the current situation in the west Fife and central Scotland coalfields."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
There is now a further application under Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.
Mr. Cormack: My point of order is relevant now. Mr. Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Cormack: Under the terms of Standing Order No. 10, a debate cannot be granted unless 40 hon. Members are present in the Chamber. Would you consider referring the Standing Order to the Procedure Committee so that the time of the House is not wasted, because if there are not 40 hon. Members present, even if you grant leave, a debate cannot take place.
Mr. Speaker: I have not granted the application. It is not for me to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it, he is free to do so himself. I shall now take the further application under Standing Order No. 10.

Hackney Rates (High Court Application)
5.9 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the response of the Department of the Environment to the declaration of Mr. Justice Mann concerning Hackney's refusal to set a rate."
On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Justice Mann in the High Court granted interim relief to a Hackney resident against Hackney council in respect of its stated intention not to fix a rate this evening. He ruled that Hackney has a duty to make a rate for the year commencing 1 April; that it cannot make a rate contrary to the Rates Act 1984; that moneys forwarded by tenants in respect of rates after 1 April cannot be used until a rate has been fixed; and that Hackney cannot borrow against expected revenue until a lawful rate has been fixed for 1985–86.
The matter is the more specific and quite extraordinary because the response of the Secretary of State for the Environment has been to enter into negotiations with the resident who made the ex parte application to Mr. Justice Mann in the High Court. I have a letter in my possession from the resident who made the ex parte application to the leader of the Liberal party in Hackney and I shall quote briefly from it, because it shows how specific, urgent and important the matter is:
"You will be interested to learn that the Solicitor to the Department of the Environment telephoned today to ask for copies of the papers in this case. He told me that the Private Office had evinced an interest. He also said that if the Liberal Group were put in a position where they had to make a budget and upon getting all the information they needed to do so, they found that there was a defined need for further assistance (say, in respect of Housing repairs) a properly evidenced application to the Secretary of State would undoubtedly result in further funding being made available."
The person who was party to the application was a Mr. Fleming, who stood as an SDP candidate in a local by-election last Thursday and was defeated.
The matter is important for two reasons. First, it is important because it is a constitutional outrage and in contempt of Parliament, as well as an insult to the people of Hackney, for the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with a resident who is not a Member of this House or a member of the Hackney borough council. And it is an outrage for the Secretary of State for the Environment to offer moneys to an individual who is nothing to do with the Hackney borough council.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: This is an outrage.
Mr. Sedgemore: I do not accept that this is an outrage. If the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) would only listen, he might learn something.
It is also important because there are a number of other councils affected by this ruling, which totally changes the law in respect of rate capping. It is urgent because I have been told by the Hackney council today that, if this ruling stands, on 1 April Hackney council will not be able to pay any wages or salaries or to provide any services for the people of Hackney. That means that we are within four weeks of the breakdown of local government in Hackney.

1197
I do not want to be dramatic or to exaggerate, but it means that we shall get not only hardship but disorder and rioting in the streets, and the Secretary of State for the Environment is going to have to come to this House with emergency legislation. I believe that we should be debating today the nature of that emergency legislation before the constitutional crisis hits us.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the response of the Department of the Environment to the declaration of Mr. Justice Mann regarding Hackney's refusal to set a rate."
I have to give him the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Northern Ireland (Local Elections)
5.14 pm
The Parliamentary tinder-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
The main and immediate purpose of this draft order is to apply to local government elections in Northern Ireland provisions corresponding to sections 1 to 3 of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. Sections 1 and 2 of that Act provide for voters at parliamentary elections in the Province to produce a specified document in order to receive a ballot paper, and list the documents which are acceptable for that purpose. Section 3 of the Act creates a new electoral offence in respect of unlawful possession of specified documents and confers appropriate powers on the police to deal with this and related offences.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government have also decided to take this legislative opportunity to revise the existing body of local elections rules for Northern Ireland. These are set out in schedule 5 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, as substituted by schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977. The new rules, which form the bulk of the draft order before us tonight, have the general effect of aligning the procedures at local elections more closely with those prescribed for parliamentary elections in the Representation of the People Act 1983.
In addition, the draft order provides for the establishment, for the first time, of a standing list for absent voters in local elections in Northern Ireland. This course of action has for some time been advocated by those who take a close interest in electoral matters in the Province, and in particular by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
It may assist the House if I now describe the main provisions of the draft order in slightly greater detail. A number of hon. Members will of course be familiar with some of the issues from our debates last year on the Bill which became the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. I have also written to the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland setting out the main features of the draft order.
Article 3 disapplies the substance of the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, which this order replaces. The remaining provisions of the 1977 order—article 3 and schedule 1 — deal with district electoral areas and have been superseded by the District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which the House debated in January and which comes into force on 15 May this year, when the 1977 order will be revoked.
Article 4 of the draft order, together with schedule 1 to the order, substitutes the new election rules in the schedule for those in schedule 5 to the 1962 Act. Many of the rules, as might be expected, replicate their predecessors in terms of their purpose and practical effect, though not necessarily in their precise drafting or arrangement within the schedule. The significant changes are as follows.
Rule 1 of schedule 1 extends polling hours at local elections, which will now be from seven in the morning until 10 o'clock at night. Previously, as hon. Members from Northern Ireland are aware, polling was from 8 am to 8 pm. The additional time will on all occasions be valuable and should prove particularly useful at the forthcoming district

1199
council elections in May, when voters and electoral staff will be familiarising themselves with the new voting procedures designed to curb personation. Those who took part in the debates on the previous order will remember the representations made by, in particular, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) urging us to extend the polling hours at elections in the Province.
Rule 3 provides that in these rules the term "returning officer" means the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, or a deputy returning officer authorised to act under the Chief Electoral Officer's supervision. The purpose of this rule, and of its application throughout the schedule, is to make it clear that the Chief Electoral Officer has sole responsibility for the proper and efficient conduct of all aspects of local elections, as he does for all other elections in Northern Ireland.
Rule 25 provides that the roll card shall be in the form shown on the appendix in form 6—in other words, that the back of the card shall list the specified documents and make clear the requirement to produce one such document in order to obtain a ballot paper. I should perhaps add that this modification of the poll card is intended largely as an aide memoire for electors. The Government's major publicity campaign to emphasise the need for voters to possess a specified document — and to obtain one quickly if they need to do so—is planned to begin some two months before polling day. Indeed, the delivery of leaflets to households in Northern Ireland has already begun. I understand that the Chief Electoral Officer proposes to reinforce the Government's own publicity campaign with his own public information programme in the run-up to the election. I echo the hope that I expressed in the debate on the earlier order, that political parties, in their own campaigns, will reinforce the work both of the Government and of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Rule 34 is the rule which applies to local government elections the provisions of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 concerning the production of specified documents. The House rightly devoted considerable time and thought during the passage of the elections Bill to both the principle of seeking to defeat organised electoral malpractice by means of this voting requirement, and to the composition of the list of documents. I am only too aware that some right hon. and hon. Members may remain critical or sceptical of the conclusions of Parliament as embodied in the resulting Act, but, having endorsed the measures in relation to parliamentary elections, I believe that the House should support their application to local elections. As I made clear during our debates on the principal Bill, it has always been the Government's aim to have the anti-personation provisions in force for the district council elections in May, and that is what this order, if approved, will achieve.
Finally, as regards the significant changes to the rules, I draw the attention of the House to the effect of rule 41 and the hours of polling set out in rule 1. They follow the Representation of the People Act 1983 in prohibiting the issue of ballot papers after the close of poll. This contrasts with rule 46 in schedule 5 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 which allowed people present in the polling station at that time to remain there to apply for a ballot paper and cast their vote. It was, in a sense, a sort
1200
of electoral drinking-up time, which encouraged last-minute crowding of the polling station, some of which at least was deliberate and designed to facilitate electoral abuse.
Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister clarify that point by telling me whether he means inside the room where the booths are, or inside the school?
Mr. Scott: Inside the polling station as defined, which would normally be within the school. However, if the building were divided in any way between different polling stations, it would be within the boundary of that particular polling station.
Mr. Ross: I am sorry to rise again, but my experience is that whenever the 10 o'clock or 8 o'clock deadline came, the policeman, on the instructions of the presiding officer within that room, closed and locked the door. Those who were inside the door of that room were then allowed to vote. Is the Minister now saying that unless those people have their polling paper in their hand they will not be allowed to cast a vote, although they are inside the locked room?
Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to clarify what will happen if Parliament approves the order and it becomes law, I should tell him that at 10 o'clock, at the close of poll, the shutters will come down and no other ballot papers will be issued, whatever the physical situation of someone claiming to vote.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the repercussions of that decision? The Government may have felt it possible that disorder would break out if the doors were closed at 10 o'clock and people outside felt that they were disfranchised, but if they were in the polling station and refused a vote, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if not a riot, there would be considerable upheaval in the polling station by people being refused a vote.
Mr. Scott: In the first place, we have extended the polling hours by some three hours, so there should be no difficulty for genuine electors to get to the poll in good time. Secondly, I am concerned more with the possibility of disorder being used for electoral abuse, which will not happen, because no further ballot papers will be issued, than with the possibility of disorder for its own sake, with which I am sure the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be able to cope.
I should like to return to the main body of the order—
Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister has not explained why he has changed the system.
Mr. Scott: To bring it into line—which members of the right hon. Gentleman's party frequently urge upon me — with arrangements on this side of the water, in the first place, and, secondly, to counter the possibility that the flooding into the polling station just before the close of poll can be used as a cover for electoral malpractice of one sort or another. On both those grounds, the change is justifiable. It is an important part of the order, particularly against the background of having extended the polling hours by some three hours for this and subsequent elections.
I should like to refer to other provisions of the order beyond those which, in the view of the Government at

1201
least, are the most significant. Article 5 provides that local elections shall take place on the basis of district electoral areas, as designated by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As I said earlier, the relevant order comes into force on 15 May.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister confirm that the rather unusual form of that article, in that it does not specify the particular Order in Council, is due to the concurrence of the procedure for making that order with the procedure for dealing with this order?
Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption.
Article 6 makes fresh provision for absent voting at local government elections, to which the grounds for entitlement are similar to those for local electors in Great Britain under the Representation of the People Act 1983. In particular, under paragraph (2) of part I of schedule 2, all local electors who are also on the standing list for absent voters at parliamentary elections will now be entitled to apply for absent voting facilities for an indefinite period at local elections.
I would like at this point to clarify the practical relationship between those two lists—the one for party election, and the other for local elections. The draft order does not provide for the automatic transfer of a voter's name from the existing parliamentary list to the local list, because if it did some voters who have in the past voted in person in local elections might find themselves unexpectedly required to vote by post or by proxy at local elections. On the other hand, it is clear as a matter of common sense that most people entitled to an indefinite absent vote will wish to exercise that right in both local and parliamentary elections. The best solution therefore seems to be an administrative one. Once the order is made, the Chief Electoral Officer will write to all those who are on the standing list for parliamentary elections to ask them if they wish to be entered on the equivalent list for local elections. He also intends to provide future applicants with a form under both this order and the Representation of the People Act, so that in practice they will be entered on both standing lists.
Mr. William Ross: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. Can he tell us what the position is in regard to EC elections?
Mr. Scott: Perhaps I can cover that point in my winding-up speech, after other points have been raised.
Paragraph (4) of part I of schedule 2 provides that applications for absent voting rights at a particular local election shall be made to the Chief Electoral Officer. Under schedule 5 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 such applications were made to clerks of district councils in their capacity as deputy returning officers. I want to emphasise to the House that the new arrangements imply no criticism whatsoever of the way in which clerks of the council have discharged that function in the past, or could be expected to do in the future. The reason for the change is simply that we believe it makes good organisational sense to vest responsibility for all electoral matters in one clearly designated office. That argument gains added force with the introduction of a standing list of absent voters at local elections. It would be ineffective and confusing for voters to have to apply to
1202
one authority if they required an absent vote for a particular election only, and to a separate authority if they sought the facility on a continuing basis.
Article 7 reaffirms the existing legal requirement that polling in an election year shall be held on the third Wednesday in May. Article 8 extends from three to six months the time within which the Chief Electoral Officer must submit an account of electoral expenses to district councils, and also increases from 21 to 42 days the period in which claims can be made against the returning officer. Article 9 increases the limit on candidates' expenses to £135 plus an additional 2·8p for every elector on the register. The new rates reflect the change in the value of money since they were last raised in February 1981.
Article 10 deals with costs which may be charged for inspection of certain election documents, and article 11 retains the existing right of candidates in Northern Ireland to send their election addresses post-free — not a privilege which exists on this side of the water, but one which is highly valued in the Province.
Article 12 abolishes the candidates' deposit for local elections, which has long been an anomaly between Northern Ireland practice and that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Article 13 disapplies for the purposes of local elections a provision which applied only in Northern Ireland whereby a person wrongly charged with personation could claim compensation not exceeding £10. In future any claim can be pursued in the ordinary way through the civil courts as at parliamentary elections.
Article 14 extends certain voting offences in the 1962 Act. More importantly, article 15 replicates the provisions of section 3 of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. These create an offence relating to the possession of specified documents either on polling day or the day preceding it, and a related offence of obstruction or concealment. The powers conferred on the Royal Ulster Constabulary by this article, taken in conjunction with the specified document requirement itself, constitute in our view the most effective available strategy for safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process. The remaining three articles make consequential amendments to earlier legislation.
I apologise for the fact that this has necessarily been a rather lengthy and technical description of a draft order which exhibits both these characteristics in abundance. As I said earlier, however, the order seeks to do only two things; first, to bring to bear at local government elections in the Province the measures which Parliament has already agreed should apply at elections to this House; and, secondly, to bring the generality of local elections rules more closely into line with those governing parliamentary elections. I believe that these are both desirable objectives and that this draft order, if approved, will achieve them, in good time for the district council elections on 15 May. I comment the order to the House.
5.31 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister has just said that the order does only two things. He would be mistaken if he supposed that the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the order derives from either of those two things or classes of things with which his speech was entirely concerned. We were, of course, opposed, as he well knows and remembers, to the Northern Ireland electoral measure of the current Session, but it would not be reasonable to argue that the law for local elections

1203
should be in that respect any more than avoidably in other respects different from the electoral law applying to parliamentary elections. Nor—he will not be surprised by this—are we averse to any steps which continue to approximate the local government electoral procedure to the parliamentary, or to eliminate unjustified differentiation between the operation of electoral law at local elections in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water. Although they will be increased further when the Representation of the People Act 1985 comes into force, the extension of the facilities for absent voting and the application of a standard list of absent voters are features in the order which we welcome.
The Minister was not entirely accurate in suggesting that those are the only two things which the order does. It does something else which is of great importance and which is unacceptable to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to myself, for it is this order which perpetuates the application to local government elections of a system of proportional representation. Proportional representation was foisted upon the Province in 1972 by an order under the misrule of Lord Whitelaw. That being a year in which there was a plethora of orders relating to Northern Ireland, it was not seriously debated or considered by the House. In consequence, the House never had a proper, separate and specific debate upon the principle of proportional representation, to the application of which to one part of the United Kingdom it was assenting by accepting the order at that time.
When proportional representation was introduced, it was described as experimental. If it was experimental, there is no doubt what the result of the experiment was. It was a result which was predicted and understood by those, hitherto in the large majority in the House, who have resisted the application of proportional representation to the rest of the kingdom.
The Government, with the general approval of the House, have recently placed much emphasis upon the importance of the integrity of the electoral process in Northern Ireland. That integrity is severely damaged by the principle of proportional representation itself. One of the outstanding consequences of proportional representation is that it disjoins the elected person from the specific body of electors by whom he was elected. There can be no part of the United Kingdom where that disjunction is more undesirable than it is in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the kingdom is it more desirable that electors should look to one representative as the person, whatever his politics or religion, who is responsible to them as their representative. That is, of course, of overwhelming importance parliamentarily and would be lost if ever we introduced this pernicious system into parliamentary government, but it is of no small importance in local government which is based upon the paradigm of parliamentary representation.
In local government it is of great importance that those who live in a ward should know to what person they should look, irrespective of party or other affiliation, to deal with grievances which they may have in respect of the operation of the administration of that local authority. Under proportional representation, there can be no such identification of an elected person with electors and no such congruence of responsibility.
1204
Indeed, the proportional system does more than that, because it creates of necessity, in order to be operated, electoral areas in which the natural and local interests of the electorate differ from one part of the district electoral area to the other, so that the whole significance of a ward in local government as an area small enough to share common interests which will be represented by the elected representative is destroyed by proportional representation.
In the creation of district electoral areas in parts of my constituency, for example, one lumps together towns, parts of towns and suburbs with deep rural areas whose interests and concerns may well be sharply differentiated. All the people in that district electoral area will have a menu card of representatives from whom to choose. They will not choose among those representatives on the ground that any one of them is identified with that area; they will choose on the ground of politics, which is exactly the ground on which our electoral system otherwise dissuades electors and those elected from viewing their mutual responsibilities.
If the object is to build up confidence in the integrity of the electoral process — words and phrases used frequently during the earlier debate — we could not go further in the opposite direction than by the process, which was experimented with in the 1973 elections, of proportional representation. That process was reaffirmed by the 1977 order, which the present order replaces.
I expect that in preparing himself for this debate, the Minister will have read again the debate that took place on 23 February 1977, when the earlier order was before the House. It was not a very long debate, but it is good reading. It was made clear that the question of proportional representation, as applied to local government elections in Northern Ireland, was at issue in that order. The Minister in charge at the time was the then hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, Mr. Ray Carter, who, in common with all those who have served in the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment—I mention that Department, because it was the one with which he was particularly concerned — paid great attention to, and showed great alacrity in dealing with, the duties of his office. All those who have so served have adapted their interests and administration to the needs, as they perceive them, of those for whom they are responsible.
In the course of that debate, the then Minister realised that the acceptability or otherwise of the order was bound to turn upon the acceptability or otherwise of the principle of proportional representation. In that debate I made a reference that is pertinent to this debate. I said:
"I give warning that my right hon. Friends and I will not cease to complain of this system, which we are unhappily perpetuating tonight, until it is removed by a further order".
Tonight we are presented with a further order that not only does not remove that system but repeats and reinforces the offence. Therefore, the Government cannot say that they are taken by surprise when I point out that we will not approve the order and thereby assent to the imposition of an abominable system upon the people of Northern Ireland which would not be acceptable for local government, or for other purposes, to the electorate in the remaining part of the United Kingdom.
In that distant year of 1977, the Minister's predecessor referred to my remarks and said:
"The right hon. Member for Down, South concluded with a wide-ranging criticism of the PR system and suggested that we might come back at some time in the future with a Bill,

1205
presumably in another stage of the decompression procedure, bringing Northern Ireland back into line with the rest of the United Kingdom."
He continued in prophetic mood:
"I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Member a time, place or date for such an event, but with his persistence and that of his colleagues, perhaps such a Bill may one day come about." —[0fficial Report. 23 February 1977; Vol. 926 c. 1581, 1586.]
During this Session, we have witnessed progress in that direction. Not so many days ago, we witnessed the Government's acceptance, in the teeth of the wishes of the Northern Ireland Office, of the principle put forward so firmly by the Opposition, that the electors of Northern Ireland are entitled to be governed under the same electoral laws as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It has been an important Session in that respect, in that all sides of the House have joined together in establishing that as a principle. Thus, whatever contradictions a Government may be guilty of in future—as they are in this order the principle has at any rate been accepted by the House as a whole.
As my eye falls upon the date of February 1977 and upon the column heads for that debate, I recall that within a few weeks of those prescient remarks by Ray Carter, the House and all elements of it agreed that Northern Ireland should be equally represented together with the rest of the kingdom, and on the same scale in the House. Lo and behold, after a lapse of years, that came about. Tonight, I reaffirm what I said in 1977 with a conviction that is strengthened by the preceding debates on the Representation of the People Bill in this Session, that the day will come when the House will concede to Northern Ireland in electoral law that parity with the rest of the United Kingdom which it is now denied.
Meanwhile, it remains for those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to repudiate the breach of the general principle, and to draw a lesson, which should be an instructive warning to those representing constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom, against the folly of imagining that, by superseding our onefor-one electoral system and our unambiguous identification with the constituency of the elected person, we would do anything but damage to the electoral integrity of the process upon which the esteem and power of the House depends.
We shall endeavour to defeat the order tonight, not for the aspects to which the Minister referred but for what it does, and for the error that it repeats.
5.46 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: The backcloth to the order is that the people of Northern Ireland will be involved in elections that are very different from other elections in which candidates have stood. They will find themselves with new ward boundaries, with district electoral areas that have been regrouped, and with changes in the identification that is required before a vote can be given to any elector. In addition, I know that, certainly around the Belfast area, there are some extra and different polling stations. Thus, there will be considerable confusion.
Against that backcloth, I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed that the hours should be lengthened. I suspect that my election workers will not be so grateful, but such a lengthening of hours is necessary because of the obvious delay that will arise.
1206
As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, the order carries on the process of proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies. I should make it clear from the outset that I do not oppose proportional representation for the sake of it. I believe that representation should be as near as possible proportional to the votes that are cast. Bur I do not believe in a system of STV in multi-Member constituencies.
One of the most essential ingredients of representation is that the elected representative should be clearly identified with, and clearly identifiable by, his constituents. Once one has a number of representatives —especially if they are from different parties—as one esteemed hon. Member has pointed out:
"politics is riven by a parochialism made essential by the fact that each one of five Members is vying to persuade the same set of constituents that he alone holds the key to their interest and that he is capable of being even more parochial than the next Member."
Those words were uttered on 14 February 1985. The same hon. Member referred to
"the manifest failures and inadequacies of proportional representation in so many countries"
and said:
"in truth it is a negation of democracy."—[Official Report, 14 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 581–83.]
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made that accurate assessment of proportional representation by the single transferable vote in multi-Member constitutiencies.
Having been present in the House on that occasion—the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear—I heard the Minister utter those words, and I left the Chamber with great hope that when the local elections order was printed, I should find that a new system of voting was to be introduced for Northern Ireland district council elections.
I was shocked to discover that the Government had a double standard, one for the people of Northern Ireland and another for those on this side of the Irish sea. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will at least attempt to justify the double standard of bringing to Northern Ireland what his colleague, speaking from the same Dispatch box, called a negation of democracy.
When dealing with that, he might care to explain why he did not do what many in Northern Ireland, especially in local government, advised him to do, and introduce in the order a provision dealing with the nomination of candidates to require any candidate standing in the 1985 local government elections to sign a pledge that he was opposed to violence.
Had the Minister been prepared to do that, he could to some extent have avoided many of the horrific consequences that we shall witness in local government after May of this year. It is important for him to be aware that, on the best evidence that the psephologists can present, we are likely to have about 60 IRA men in council chambers. It is likely that no fewer than three, and probably five or six, councils will be held on the controlling votes of IRA members. In one or two, or even more, of those councils it is likely that there will be an IRA front man as the mayor or chairman of the council.
The Minster has allowed Northern Ireland to drift into that situation by refusing to follow the logic of Government decisions in the past, when they have rightly refused to meet dlegations containing Sinn Fein members.

1207
It was logical for the Government to have taken that decision. It was logical for us to expect that steps would be taken to ensure that we in Northern Ireland who must sit in local government would not have to do that which he and his colleagues refused to do, and sit down with Sinn Fein members.
The difficulties that are likely to occur must have come home to the Government when, after the tragic events of Newry, as Belfast local authority members stood for one minute in silence in memory of the gallant members of the RUC and UDR who had been killed, the Sinn Fein member sat throughout and refused to get to his feet. That was a passive action on the part of Sinn Fein, whereas in the coming months the activities of Sinn Fein in local government are likely to increase as their numbers are replenished in district councils.
This order presented the Minister with an excellent opportunity to insert a requirement that, when signing a nomination paper, a candidate must state his opposition to violence. It is clear that Sinn Fein believes in violence. Indeed, its members have publicly stated that they support it. They would have been seen, had they been prepared to sign such a paper, to be dishonest. I do not believe that they would have stood under those circumstances.
The Minister refused to accept the logic of banning Sinn Fein. Having failed to do that, this order presented him with an opportunity at least to make an effort to stop Sinn Fein from getting into the councils, so allowing those representatives of the Nationalist community who abhor violence to take their places in district councils and speak for their electorates in Northern Ireland.
I believe that violent acts will be seen in district councils after May. Local government will never be the same again because of the presence of Sinn Fein. There will be a degree of intolerance that even the most hardened council in Northern Ireland has not seen before. It is unlikely that the coming term of office will expire without there being violence in council chambers, especially at emotive times such as when deaths occur in the community.
I wish to consider the procedures in the order flowing directly from the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. I do not intend to rehearse the opposition that I and other hon. Members expressed when that measure was going through the House. It is on the statute book and I must accept it.
However, I now have an opportunity to speak again on that subject. I shall do so only to the extent of asking the Minister to underline the reason that he gave for allowing the presiding officer or clerk in a polling station to assess for himself—if he had personal knowledge of the person appearing before him, even if the document which that person produced did not clearly identify the person—whether to allow the vote.
Paragraph 34(3) of the order states that the presiding officer or clerk
"shall deliver a ballot paper … unless the … document raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the elector … he represents himself to be."
That, at first sight, appears to mean that if the document presented to the presiding officer or clerk contains a different name or address from that on the electoral register, a doubt will have been raised and the vote will not be permitted.
1208
However, when the 1985 Act was going through Parliament, the Minister gave us to understand that if the presiding officer or clerk knew the person appearing before him to be the person on the electoral register—despite the fact that the document did not verify that—he could, acting on his own knowledge, hand over a ballot paper.
I urge that the degree of flexibility that that permits be impressed on presiding officers and their clerks at polling stations so that not only can delay be avoided but people are not unjustly disfranchised, especially when the presiding officer or clerk knows the person to be the person on the electoral register.
The Minister referred to the 10 pm deadline and said that would it bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Some people will accept that as sufficient reason for the deadline. The fact that almost everything else in the order makes us different from the rest of the United Kingdom did not seem to trouble him. From my experience of polling stations—having stood in five or six elections— I believe that it is rare, in the closing moments of an election, not to have people rushing in to cast their votes.
I have often seen queues at polling stations as polling closes, whether at 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, because people often leave voting to the last moment. On one occasion the queues were both inside and outside the polling station. I can imagine what would happen if a presiding officer put his hand over the ballot box and said, "Nobody else can vote." The least that he could expect would be verbal abuse from a room full of potential voters. More likely, disorder would occur. Certainly it would in west Belfast.
The Minister said that existing legislation was sufficient to deal positively with personation. That should be enough without suggesting that not only should we stop people outside the polling station from voting, but people inside who have already been handed a ballot paper.
I have reservations about deposit levels at any election. I do not like a person who cannot afford a large deposit being stopped from standing. He might be a worthy candidate, but might not have the support of a wealthy political party. However, at local level, when there is free postage, it would be unwise to remove the meagre deposit required at present. I remember a candidate in Northern Ireland standing for election when he knew that he had not the slightest chance of winning and that he would lose his deposit. He stood simply to advertise his business.
I fear that candidates will put their names forward in local elections merely to advertise their business. It will cost them nothing. The business will be drawn to the attention of every elector who goes to the ballot box. Everyone who reads the local newspaper will read about the election and the business will be advertised for nothing. The £15 deposit would at least dissuade some prople from standing as candidates. Advertising should not be permitted, but it has been permitted because it is hard for an electoral officer to prove that a person's name is put forward to enable him to advertise.
Unfortunately, the order cannot be amended, but I ask the Minister to consider my comments so that in future we do not allow free advertising by local candidates in Northern Ireland elections. If people want to advertise they must pay for it. If they want to stand for election and have some chance of success they should not worry about a meagre £15 deposit.
6.3 pm
Mr. William Ross: I interrupted the Minister and asked him about the standing list for EEC elections. He promised to make inquiries. Will he also inquire about the standing list for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections to see whether we can group them together so that we do not have the hassle experienced in the past?
The Minister spoke about closing the doors of polling stations. I am not sure what he means by a polling station. Article 22 makes it clear that he was talking about individual polling boxes. The article says:
"One or more polling stations may be provided in the same room."
That is not what the ordinary man or woman regards as a polling station. The ordinary party workers in Northern Ireland, including myself, regard the polling station as the school where polling takes place.
The rooms in the school are locked when the deadline falls and the people inside the rooms are allowed to vote. If a person arrives one second after the key turns in the lock, he has had it. If the Minister is saying that those already inside will be prevented from voting, that is a different kettle of fish. I believe that he was telling the House and the people in Northern Ireland that even if a person is inside the locked room he will not be able to vote.
I appreciate the difficulty, and I understand the fear that large numbers might crowd in at the last minute, but I believe that that fear is ill-founded. If there is to be any misappropriation of votes, it will be in the middle of the big rush, which in Northern Ireland usually occurs in the evening between 5.30 and 8. That is when most people in Northern Ireland, particularly in the towns and villages, go to vote.
I make my comments in the knowledge that not one jot or tittle of the Order will be altered. I have several questions to ask before I deal with my views about proportional representation.
An extension of time is provided, from three months to six months, and from 21 days to 42 days. The Minister mentioned that, but he did not give the reasons for the extension. Will he explain why the times are being extended? I am aware of past problems.
Mr. Scott: The time limits were set down in the 1962 order, when the returning officer was the local district clerk. Since 1972 the returning officer has been the Chief Electoral Officer. The time limits in the 1962 order for a more local operation are not adequate for the Chief Electoral Officer to carry out his duties, and we are therefore extending the limits.
Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Will the local council clerks act as the local electoral officers as they always have, or will the duties be carried out by the deputy electoral officers? That should be cleared up.
Article 27(2) mentions 5 pm in relation to the appointment of agents by candidates. The article suggests that it is possible to make a change if an agent is unable to be present. If an agent becomes ill, will the 5 pm deadline stand or will it be possible to appoint someone after that time? This is a matter that should be examined. We want to be up to date when dealing with the technicalities of getting the elections off the ground.
Article 30(2)(b) states that a person may be removed from a polling station
1210
"by the presiding officer's order … by a constable … or by any other person authorised in writing by the returning officer to remove him".
Whom does the Minister have in mind? Is he suggesting that other members of the security forces who are present at the polling station can take that action if it is desirable or necessary? The provision is so loosely written that one has no idea who would have such authority.
Article 48(3) sets out in essence the first-past-the-post principle, which will be used when only one vacancy is to be filled. I raised that matter during previous debates and said that in effect that meant that we would have a first-past-the-post system at by-elections where only one seat was to be filled. The Minister disagreed with me. Although he was correct because of the way in which I put it, it is accurate to say that it is a first-past-the-post election by the exhaustive voting system because one of the candidates must gain more than 50 per cent. of the votes. Exactly the same result would probably be reached if the individuals were fighting on a simple majority electoral system. The Minister shakes his head, but I should like to know on how many occasions it has not worked out in that way. It usually comes down to the first-past-the-post result in the end.
Hon. Members have already commented on the use of the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland. I recall the arguments about that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when some folk were shouting for it. One of the reasons given then was that it would be good because it would break the mould in Northern Ireland politics. If those who were happy at that prospect in 1970 could return to the House, they might not be so pleased in 1985 with the consequences of breaking the mould of politics in Northern Ireland.
In some quarters there is anxiety about proportional represention only because of a fear of Sinn Fein electoral success under the process. However, the intention of the STV system is to help minorities, regardless of who they are. The system tends to turn minority votes into quotas and, therefore, into seats on a council. Anyone who does not understand that is shutting his eyes to the realities of the system that has been introduced and is used in Northern Ireland.
The way to stop abuse is to produce a proper identity card—we shall not stop it with this order or with the previous legislation. However, the Government have steadfastly turned their back on that. Instead, they chose a complex system of preventing personation and persist in using an electoral system which negates all their efforts hitherto. The use of the STV system is a main reason why Northern Ireland political life has been in turmoil for the past 12 years. The system, more than any other, makes personation worth while, because personation can be spread over a considerable number of polling stations—perhaps nine or 10—and a relatively small number of people can go through a polling station, be lumped together and make up a quota. Even with the restrictions, Sinn Fein will undoubtedly do that. It will be sufficient to put Sinn Fein members on to councils in many parts of Northern Ireland, and many of the evils already mentioned will flow from that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) gave his reasons for wanting a first-past-the-post system, not least of which was the rapport which grows between an elected member of a ward or constituency and his electors. The objection has been voiced in many

1211
quarters, and has been echoed in the House today, that even relatively large minority votes under the first-past-the-post system are not represented by their party. Time and again hon. Members have said that that is a source of division and resentment in the community. The truth is that the real strength of the simple majority system is that the representative who is responsible must meet and deal with all sections of the population, some of whom are unfriendly to him at first. In doing so, he finds out that they do not all have horns and cloven feet.
Mr. Scott: That is not my experience of local government. When I sat in local government in Greater London, I sat in a multi-member ward. That is the present practice throughout Greater London and in most metropolitan districts.
Mr. William Ross: There are two important differences. First, it was a multi-member ward. In multimember wards where several representatives are elected on the first-past-the-post system, most of them are members of the same political party. The Minister was working in a system with which we in Northern Ireland are familiar. It is different in its outcome from the proportional representation system. I am sorry that the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and defends PR, when he has no understanding of the practicalities on the ground. If he had, he could not have uttered those words.
The truth is that a single-member consituency or ward does more to create cohesion and respect for the various elements in society than any other, and that the PR system is inherently divisive. That is a fact of STV systems which I am sorry is not understood. If the Minister understood it, we would be discussing, not this order, but a straightforward simple majority system.
In 1977 my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down said that PR was an aching tooth that had to be taken away.
Mr. Powell: A rotten tooth.
Mr. Ross: It is a rotten tooth that aches. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will forgive my mistake. I listened to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department make his attack on PR a few days ago from the very same Dispatch Box. I am curious to know who is speaking for the Government on this matter. Was it the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he took part in the debate on the Representation of the People Bill, or was it the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Is he speaking for the Government, the Northern Ireland Office or the Foreign Office? The Government should have only one voice—
Mr. Stuart Bell rose—
Mr. Ross: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am dealing with the Government, not the Opposition.
The Government cannot have two views on this subject. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If proportional representation is so good at producing the marvellous results that are claimed for it, why do we not have it in local government elections in Great Britain? On every occasion it is rejected, often with the same arguments that are used by my hon. Friends against proportional representation in Northern Ireland.
1212
If we wanted to ensure representation for the small minority groups, it would be better to introduce smaller wards, but that would not be cohesive. In Limavady the wards are more attuned to the communities than they used to be when we had to try to join differing groups across ward boundaries. We seemed to get away from that in the last redrawing of local government boundaries, but not as far as one would have wished.
In the Benbraddagh electoral area, in which I live, five wards stretch from the top of Glershare mountain down to and including part of the urban district of Limavady 17 miles away. I wonder how any Minister or Government can try to defend this mad system, which has done Ulster, Ulster politics and the Government no good, but which has done a great deal of good to organisations such as Sinn Fein, whose members are the front men of the IRA. For all we know, they may be active members of the IRA when the notion takes them. It is only because of this system that those violent, evil minorities have managed to gain a toehold in councils and in the Assembly. Perhaps eventually, should it ever be used here, they will get into the House. I know that a Sinn Fein Member has been elected to the House, although he was elected on a minority vote. In time, that aberration will disappear, but to continue using a system which guarantees that the most evil, wicked and violent elements in society can obtain representation in places where they can cause problems for law-abiding citizens and for the Government is mad. The sooner we are rid of the system, the better. If the Government had any wit, they would take away this nonsense tonight and introduce an order which does not contain the STV system.
6.22 pm
Mr. John David Taylor: This is very much a trial-and-error order, because it introduces new procedures that will be put to the test in the local elections in May this year. I trust that the Minister will watch what happens at those elections and will be prepared to change the legislation if he discovers that the present proposals are wanting. Some of the recommendations in the order will not, in practice, be suitable for local government in the Province.
The first matter that I raise is allowable expenses for candidates fighting the local elections. It is understandable in a United Kingdom general election to have standard guidelines for expenses incurred by parliamentary candidates throughout the United Kingdom, because they are contesting constituencies which, in general, have the same number of electors. The usual figure is between 60,000 and 70,000. However, the weird system that the Northern Ireland Office imposes upon us in local government elections, means that there is a great variance in the size of the electoral areas. In some areas, the electorate is 10 times the size of that in other areas, which means that under the present recommendations in the order, some candidates will be able to spend 10 times as much as other candidates, perhaps in adjoining electoral areas. For example, the electoral areas in the Moyne division have extremely small populations, whereas in Belfast city the electorates are much larger. Yet the allowances are on a per capita basis. I believe that for local government elections in Northern Ireland, allowable expenses should not be on a per capita basis, although I understand why they are for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

1213
I support what hon. Members have said about the fact that no deposits will be required in the forthcoming local government elections. Once again, we must take into account the special and weird system that the Northern Ireland Office continues to impose on us—the multi-Member constituency and the multi-member electoral ward. The system means that many candidates' names are on the ballot paper. Often, there is not simply one candidate for each of the main political parties in the Province, but several. There is already a fairly lengthy ballot paper, but in addition, the order will encourage a free-for-all, with any Tom, Dick or Harry being able to put down his name and have it added to the ballot paper for the purposes of self-advertisement or as a publicity stunt. There must be some control over those who can contest elections. Returning officers will be worried that no provision has been made for a small deposit to be paid by those who wish legitimately to pursue the democratic process in local government elections.
I do not approve of the extension of polling hours in local government elections. The times used to be from 8 am until 8 pm, but the new recommendation is that polling should start at 7 am and finish at 10 pm. I understand why the Minister was encouraged to change the hours. He introduced the new system whereby those intending to vote must produce identification such as passports or driving licences. Therefore, it may take much longer for people to vote than heretofore. I hope that, under the new procedure, more staff will be provided to make the system of polling more efficient, so that it will not be a prolonged affair. If the system were made more efficient, it might be possible to retain the old polling hours.
Mr. Scott: If Parliament approves the Representation of the People Bill, the hours of 7 am to 10 pm will apply to all elections. The idea of having different times for local elections in Northern Ireland does not have much merit. It would only confuse people, who may turn up between 8 pm and 10 pm expecting to be able to vote and discover that they cannot do so. Some consistency is desirable.
Mr. Taylor: Practice on the ground is different, as the Minister would begin to learn if he was in Northern Ireland more often. The polling stations are almost empty after 8 pm. We must remember that we are talking about local government elections, which we have had in Northern Ireland since 1921. During the past 15 years, my experience has been that, after 8 pm, hardly a soul turns up to vote. The staff sit there for the last two hours with very little to do.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Nonsense.
Mr. Taylor: Why does the hon. Gentleman say, "Nonsense"?
Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have toured many polling stations during the EC election. Some people were turned away at 10 o'clock and could not vote.
Mr. Taylor: That is the point that I am trying to make. We are talking about local government elections. My experience in British parliamentary elections and European elections is entirely different, but we should remember that the turnout at local government elections is considerably lower than the turnout for United Kingdom general elections. We are lucky to get a 50 per cent. turnout in some local government elections. I assure the
1214
House that, after 8 pm, the number of those wishing to vote is extremely small. Will the Minister conduct a survey at the local elections in May to discover what percentage of the electorate votes between 8 pm and 10 pm?
Rev. William McCrea: Would it not be correct to say that the reason why we saw nobody after 8 pm at the polling stations during the last local government elections was that 8 pm was the closing time? People would have been unable to vote after 8 o'clock. Does the hon. Member appreciate that in areas such as West Strabane 90 per cent. of the electorate vote, not 50 per cent?
Mr. Taylor: The percentages certainly vary. I am asking the Minister to allow the point to be tested. I see that the Minister is shaking his head as if to say that he will not allow it to be tested. However, I believe that it would be helpful if during the local government elections next May we discovered what percentage of the electorate voted between 8 pm and 10 pm. We should learn something from those figures. More staff must be made available next May at the polling stations because of the special procedures which will be used for the first time.
I disagree with the recommendation that people should be prohibited from voting even if they are at the pulling station before 10 pm. If an individual is there before 10 pm, he is to be denied the right to vote if somebody ahead of him in the queue takes a long time to produce his passport or driving licence for checking by the returning officer. It will cause great resentment among those who have made every effort to be at the polling station between 8 am and 10 pm. I do not understand why such people are to be denied the right to vote.
Computers are being introduced throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to assist the political parties. We heard earlier that the Government have provided Sinn Fein, free of cost, with telex machines. I hope that Sinn Fein is paying the monthly rental for those machines. Computers are also being introduced. Certain electoral officers in Great Britain are making available to the political parties print-outs of the electoral roll in their wards or constituencies. In certain constituencies the printouts are made available free of charge while in others a charge is made. The political parties in Northern Ireland should also be able to take advantage of the new technology. I welcome the fact that local government candidates in Northern Ireland are to enjoy free postal services.
In conclusion, I refer to proportional representation, which has already been debated at length this afternoon. This is a burning issue throughout Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is astounding that the Minister did not refer to it in his opening speech. He seems to be out of touch with the real political issues in the Province. I hope that in his closing speech he will take the opportunity to defend the introduction and maintenance of proportional representation in local government elections there. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave his opinion of proportional representation. The practice in Northern Ireland is contrary to that followed in the rest of the United Kingdom. Why do we have to be different? The Minister must say why. If he does not give an adequate explanation we shall oppose the order.
It is important for local government representatives to be local people. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East

1215
(Mr. Ross) referred to an electoral area that was about 80 miles long. How can councillors living at one end of that area be described as "local" if they represent people who live at the other end of the area? That applies in my constituency of Strangford. A housing estate in Newtownards is linked to Killinchey, which is at the other end of Strangford Lough. Killinchey is rural and is a nice boating area. There is no common link between Newtownards and Killinchey. Nevertheless, all the councillors could live in Killinchey. There would be no common link with the housing estate at Newtownards. That is the cruel situation that is being created in Northern Ireland at local government level by the maintenance of the proportional representation system.
There is another problem. The Northern Ireland Office may have intended when it introduced proportional representation to divide the Ulster Unionists from the other main Loyalist parties in Northern Ireland. With the single transferable vote and multi-member areas, several candidates from the same party can contest an election in the same area. Therefore they fight not only their political opponents, but their party colleagues. That is no good for the political life of our community. All the parties suffer from the system. The proportional representation, single transferable vote system would work if there were only one candidate from each party, but experience, especially in the Republic of Ireland, has shown that STV candidates spend their time not fighting their political opponents but stabbing their party colleagues in the back. That is why the Fianna Fail party committed itself to the abolition of STV.
The only reason why Northern Ireland still has STV, despite its weaknesses, is that the system is used in the Republic. The Northern Ireland Office wants Northern Ireland to use the same system as is used in the Republic, not the system that is believed to be right for the rest of the United Kingdom. Because the order is yet another occasion when the Northern Ireland Office is not giving the people of Northern Ireland the same rights as are enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom, and because it will not strengthen and integrate the union, we shall oppose it.
6.37 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has once again put his finger on an ambiguity. When we look at that ambiguity, we realise that there are problems which we had not expected. I refer to the definition of "polling station". I had always believed "polling station" to mean the school or other public building that is used at elections. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is defined in the order as the exact location where the presiding officer is sitting and where the ballot box is placed. It does not even include the booth where the ballot paper is marked.
Paragraph (4) of article 22 states:
"The returning officer shall provide each polling station with such number of compartments as may be necessary in which the voters can mark their votes screened from observation."
Therefore, the actual compartments are not part of the polling station. As I understand the order, the polling station is defined as the precise location of the ballot box, the presiding officer and his agent. That is confirmed in paragraph (3) of article 22, which states:
1216
"The polling station allotted to electors from any polling district shall be in the polling place for that district."
Therefore, the school or other building which was formerly believed to be the polling station is now defined as "the polling place". The precise location of the polling station will be the ballot box.
What will be the ramifications for agents and other party workers? In the past I have always been able to ensure the removal of posters from the fences, gates and doors of polling stations. I was able to do so because "polling station" was defined as the area within the curtilage of the building. That included walls, fences or gates, for example. If that is no longer the definition of a polling station, and if we are now to talk about the polling place, it will not be possible to object to the placing of posters in the areas that I have described. That is a ramification of major significance.
In a number of elections I have been able to have evicted from the polling station active members of Sinn Fein who were prominently displaying their Sinn Fein favours and who were in a position to intimidate those entering the polling station to vote. Will I now be unable to object to members of Sinn Fein being in the polling station? Will these people be able to festoon the building with posters depicting black flags, as they have done in the recent past? On that occasion I was able to have the posters removed. Will they be able to patrol the corridors leading to and from the various rooms where the polling places are now to be located? These are significant matters, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
There will be problems for the Chief Electoral Officer. Article 25(3)(c) states that the Chief Electoral Officer will have to set out on the official poll card
"the date and hours of the poll and the situation of the elector's polling station."
He will no longer be able to refer to King's Park school, for example. Will he have to refer to the gymnasium of King's Park school? Will he have to specify the bottom right corner of the gymnasium of King's Park school, or the number of the classroom? If there are two polling places in a particular classroom, will he have to define where the polling place is in that room?
There are further problems. Articles 29 and 30 deal with admission to polling stations. Is admission to the polling station admission to the narrowly defined area of the location of the ballot box? If someone is creating a problem that causes difficulty for those responsible for keeping order in the polling station, article 30 provides that if that person
"fails to obey the presiding officer's lawful orders he may immediately, by the presiding officer's order, be removed from the polling station".
Does that mean that he is ejected into the corridor? This is important, because he will be able to continue to cause problems in the corridor. The same applies to ejection into the playground. Article 30 states:
"the person so removed shall not, without the presiding officer's permission, again enter the polling station during the day."
Does that mean that he can patrol the polling place or wander around the rest of the polling place as much as he wants as long as he does not enter the vicinity of the polling place?
There are polling stations in County Armagh where it is necessary to know precisely what is meant by this legislation. It is necessary to be able to enforce what is meant and to insist that the presiding officer does so. I

1217
hope that we shall have some clarification. It seems that "polling station" means different things in different places in the order.
Article 22(3) states:
"The polling station allotted to electors from any polling district shall be in the polling place for that district."
Surely that is not to suggest that there will be only one polling place for each district electoral area. Surely that cannot be right, especially if the district electoral area stretches for about 15 miles and, for example, has a river running through it. If I am interpreting the provision correctly, there will be severe geographical and security problems.
Only yesterday I lodged an objection with the Chief Electoral Officer of Northern Ireland about the draft polling scheme. It is possible that he has acted in the light of article 22(3). He is insisting, or appears to be, that all the electors in a particular ward in Lurgan must go to one polling station. The polling station that he has chosen is situated on one side of a line which has been designated as a flashpoint area since 1969. This will create enormous problems for the security forces as well as for party workers and electors. The electors will have to cross the flashpoint area before they vote, and there will be enormous potential for trouble. I believe that the Chief Electoral Officer has been deterred from splitting the ward to allow the two segments of the ward to vote in safer polling stations. He may well feel that he is inhibited by article 22(3).
Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Feeny ward is split in three, with polling stations in three different schools. It is the ward in which I happen to live.
Mr. McCusker: It is clear that the Chief Electoral Officer is interpreting the order in his own way, and interpreting it differently in different places. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarification.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the difficulty arises from the high-handed attitude of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland? It has maintained the tradition of ignoring the advice of political parties which have been fighting elections for many years and whose combined experience is far greater than that of any boundary commission. Not so long ago a boundary commissioner in Northern Ireland ignored the advice of a political party because no other political party had bothered to make a submission. He explained that he thought that he and the commission might be biased if he were even to read the submission. It is hardly surprising that the wrong decision was made.
Mr. McCusker: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I agree with him. Nothing surprises me any more about the electoral law which applies to Northern Ireland or the election processes applicable to it. The Minister has been asked to comment upon the observations of one of his ministerial colleagues at the Home Office. We shall be told that Northern Ireland is different. Whenever Northern Ireland is segregated from the rest of the United Kingdom — this applies to electoral matters and hundreds of others — we are told that Northern Ireland is different. That is the only explanation that Ministers can offer, and I have no doubt that we shall hear it again this evening.
1218
I am pleased that the Minister has told us that the Chief Electoral Officer of Northern Ireland will take an initiative on the absent voters' list. Once the order is passed, I hope that the Chief Electoral Officer will move quickly. Some party workers are already concerned, and they may already be taking action. If the Chief Electoral Officer is to correspond with those on the existing absent voters' list to ask them whether they wish to he on the same list for local government elections, that will relieve us all, especially those who are qualified as absent voters. We shall be relieved of a great worry over the coming weeks.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, I am happy about polling stations remaining open until 10 o'clock. I would prefer the stations to be empty from 9 o'clock until 10 o'clock rather than have the prospect in the last half hour of coping with some of the difficulties and problems which have been described. Because it is a local government election, I hope that no one will queue up to 10 pm for a vote only to be denied that vote because the hour has struck. We might find that it is unnecessary to keep polling stations open for 15 hours, but, with the new demand on our electors, I believe that the more time we give people the better.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said about Sinn Fein. The Government were let off the hook by Sir George Baker, who recommended in his report that the Government should give urgent consideration to other means of dealing with Sinn Fein if they were not prepared to proscribe the organisation. For 18 months the Government have shilly-shallied and delayed holding a debate on this issue to hear what Northern Ireland Members have to say, and they are now confronted with precisely the situation described by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
Why should the Minister, as an elected representative, think that he is different from any Northern Ireland Local councillor when it comes to dealing with murderers and the apologists for murderers? Why should the Minister say, "I shall not talk to Gerry Adams or his ilk because they support, apologise for and defend killers," but expect my friends in the Craigavon and Banbridge district council areas to co-operate with those people for the well-being of the whole community?
Rev. William McCrea: Is it not difficult for the elected representatives on district councils to look across the floor at persons who are the godfathers of the IRA and who planned and plotted the murder of some of our best friends? Yet they are expected, as members of district councils, to carry on a political debate with those godfathers of the IRA. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is disgraceful?
Mr. McCusker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, this will be compounded 30 or 40 times, because there will be many more of those people to whom we must listen. The Government should have faced this before. I hope that in the years ahead the Government will not wring their hands and wish that local government representatives in Northern Ireland would act in a more cooperative fashion for the well-being of those who elected them.
What will be the procedure on election day? It has been suggested to me that, to avoid confusion and congestion at the polling stations, an advance guard will be put on the polling place and people will be admitted only if they have

1219
their identification with them. There will be immense organisational problems for the parties as well as for everyone else. I understand why that guard is proposed. If the problem can be kept at arm's length, perhaps there is some merit in it. Perhaps people can be sent away and told to come back when they have the proper identification.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not lawful.
Mr. McCusker: That was my first thought. I am told that if someone was designated as a second presiding officer, or as a senior presiding officer, he could stand in a particular place and vet voters. I believe that there will be many problems in doing that. I presume that the Minister has been consulted on this matter, and I hope that he can give us some assistance. The Northern Ireland people want to know whether voters will go to polling stations, produce their documents in the way that I have described and obtain their vote in the normal way, or whether they will have to go through a two-stage operation before they can cast their vote.
6.53 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a useful comment in opening his speech when he said that, after May, local government in Northern Ireland will never be the same. The House would be deluding itself if it thought that there would be normal local government in Northern Ireland after 15 May. There will be confrontation after confrontation. Belfast city council has shown us what we can expect with one or two Sinn Fein members. Sinn Fein members are bringing their supporters with them to council meetings. A council chairman who is afraid to offend Sinn Fein allows those supporters to sit near the place where councillors take their seats. We know the type of mob rule that will come into local government in Northern Ireland.
The House and the Government should have taken a serious view of this matter but, instead, there is a double standard. A Minister of the Crown in Northern Ireland says to Sinn Fein, "You are political lepers, and we don't talk to you." However, the Government expect their civil servants to talk to Sinn Fein and the elected representatives and people of Northern Ireland to co-operate with Sinn Fein in local government.
There is no difference between a Sinn Fein man and an IRA man. The IRA is the military wing of Sinn Fein. At night they are IRA men and during the day they pose as public representatives. During the day they talk about the ballot box and at night they use the Armalite, the bomb and the mortar to do their murder work. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) when he said that the Government were given an opportunity by an outside source—so they cannot be accused that they thought this up—to say, "Let people who eschew violence be prepared to make that declaration and be nominated." We know perfectly well that Sinn Fein would not and does not eschew violence and therefore should not stand for election.
The Government believe in some way that it is their business to save the SDLP. The leader of the SDLP does not even think it worth his while to sit through the whole of this debate, even though we are discussing this subject
1220
because of SDLP representations about Sinn Fein. That is hard to stomach. The gravity of this situation will be seen only when the results of the May elections are known.
For some reason, some hon. Members have wished to change the voting patterns in Northern Ireland. They have thought that that could be done by altering constituencies, gerrymandering boundaries and changing the voting system but, through the years, the Northern Ireland people have demonstrated where their loyalties lie. All the changes have made no difference. At the end of elections, the rock-solid desire of the people of Northern Ireland to remain an integral part of this kingdom and to refuse any arrangements with the Irish Republic has been signalled repeatedly.
I remember what happened during the first election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The words "On Her Majesty's Service" were actually taken off the envelopes that contained the postal ballots. In fact, the civil servants painted out those words on some envelopes. I brought up that matter with the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He said that those words offended people and that it was better to take off those words so that the people would vote. The words "On Her Majesty's Service" were struck out. Concessions were made.
Mr. Molyneaux: Has the hon. Gentleman investigated whether envelopes treated in that way ever conveyed social security benefits?
Rev. Ian Paisley: The old saying:
"Loyalty to the half crown if not to the Crown"
is applicable in those circumstances. I did not make any inquiry. We were told that we could not call the Assembly a Parliament; we had to call it an Assembly because at that time the agitators had an assembly at Dungiven. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was the president of the so-called Assembly of North Irishmen. It was a wonderful institution. The former hon. Member for Belfast, East, the then Mr. Fitt, did not fit in. He attended it once only although he was the leader of the group.
All those interesting things happened. Various changes were made, but every time, the electorate said, "Look, this is where our loyalties lie." All the electoral and boundary changes did not make any difference. The people cast their votes.
Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Member considered that Dungiven castle, in which the Republican Parliament met, was built for famine relief? Perhaps the Republicans were showing their famine for a united Ireland by meeting there in the first place.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions, but it was not an effective place to meet. The Republicans must have been famished for want of intelligence, because it did not do them any good then.
The people cast their votes, but the results of the ballot in Northern Ireland have not been acceptable to successive Governments. They do not like how the people of Northern Ireland vote. That is the root cause of all the trouble. We make all these changes, but the people still vote.
I should prefer to see a uniform system of voting in the whole of the United Kingdom. I prefer having a constituency that I can call my own. However, despite all the agitation and changes when the Unionists were united in the United Ulster Unionist Coalition they put it on

1221
record at the convention that if the suggested system was desired and if the minorities felt that it was the only way to bring peace, then they would wear it. They said that they would consider a modified list system. They spelt that out clearly.
The elected representatives of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland were not intransigent. They clearly said that if the suggested electoral system would bring peace, they would vote in that way. After all, the first Parliament in Northern Ireland was elected in that way and it was built in to the old Stormont system for electing the Senate.
We can have the single transferable vote or any other electoral system in Northern Ireland, but the hard Republican core of the people will not concede that it has democracy or liberty. Whichever way the Assembly is elected, the Republicans will still be against it, and seek to root it out and destroy it.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was riding one of his hobby horses when he said that Northern Ireland had equal representation at Westminister, but in paragraph 4 of its findings, the UUUC said that, if it was to have equal representation at Westminister, Northern Ireland should have 24 seats in the House. It wanted
"the boundaries and exact number of the constituencies to be determined by judicial commission on a basis and scale similar to comparable parts of the United Kingdom."
The party opposite was in the Assembly and it voted for that. I think that we were done out of proper representation in this House, but that is a matter for argument.
If we are to have an election in Northern Ireland, it should be run in a way to give public representatives some confidence in the electoral law. Many things have been mentioned tonight that the Government must face up to.
I asked that the polling hours be extended, and I believe that I was right to do so. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has left the Chamber. Many of the things that he said were nonsense because, in the old elections — the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) knew this well — there were many multi-seat councils. Ballymoney town council had 10 seats. The members all stood together. Belfast city council had four seats in a ward — an alderman and four councillors. No points can be made from that. The wards worked in different ways.
We are going to have an election where people will be bamboozled about a document. We have had the first literature about the document through our doors. The confusion has already started. People are asking what document they should take. A lady said to me, "Will it be all right if I take my marriage lines?" I told her that it would not be all right because she did not come into the category of someone needing marriage lines. I told her that she would need another document.
I must give the Minister credit. He took on board the fact that we wanted longer polling hours. I am grateful for that. If there is no one in the polling booth at 9 o'clock after a high poll, I shall be quite happy. An hour's rest will not do anyone any harm at the end of the day.
I know what will happen in the election. It will be another roll call of those who say no to Sinn Fein, no to the Irish forum and no to a united Ireland. The temperature will be hot. There will be a massive vote at the election. People will be voting with their feet. People will come without a document. They will have to be sent away. The parties will have to have transport to take the people home,
1222
wait until they have gone through their drawers to discover the document and then return them to the polling station. We will therefore need longer hours. I hope that point will be taken. We will need more workers in the polling stations. That is important.
I am glad that the poll card will carry a reminder about the documents that are required. That will be helpful. The Minister must clarify the points that have been put tonight.
I want to ask the Minister about the national flag being flown at polling stations. There is an argument about it at every election. Sinn Fein objects to the national flag being flown. At some polling stations it is taken down by the presiding officer but at others it still flies. Will the Minister tell us what the law is on that matter? The grievances start in the morning and run all day. The heat and the opposition start early. It is an important matter. Opposition Members who know nothing about Northern Ireland elections might wonder why I am talking about a flag. If they knew how deep the feeling runs they would know what happens. The presiding officer is accused of being a rebel, an IRA man, a Sinn Feiner, and so forth. All sorts of things happen in polling stations. For the sake of peace, let us know what the law is.
The matters that the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned must be clarified. One presiding officer will take one view. He will refer to the old rule and say, "This school is a polling station." When I read that I did not understand it. I asked my friends on the way over, "What is a polling station? Is it the place itself—the school or the building—or is it just part of the building?" I hope that the Minister can clarify that point.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) settled for the interpretation that the polling place is the building in which polling takes place, while the polling station is the ballot box, the presiding officer and the clerk. If that interpretation is incorrect, the order needs to be radically changed. It provides for only one political agent from each political party for the whole polling station. If the polling station is actually the whole polling place, one political agent will not be enough.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister should give a clear definition tonight of the polling place and the polling station. We will then know how many workers we can have in the place and in the station.
An order laid here cannot be amended; the order will go through tonight. I do not know how the Government can amend the order, or clarify the position, without withdrawing it. I know that an interpretation given by the Minister at the Dispatch Box cannot be taken to be the judicial opinion on an Act or an order, but we would like to know what the Government have in mind with regard to this important matter.
I hope and pray that the election period will pass quietly, but I doubt that that is possible. I know that those parties which had hoped for a full turnout of people will have difficulty because of the changes that did not need to be made.
I would be far happier if one identity card had been issued. Everyone would have had a poll card — an identity card — when they cast their vote, and after the election, the Government could have considered other matters.
Good suggestions have been made to the Minister about the possibility of registering in a certain way, requiring a

1223
signature, and so on. I know that such suggestions cannot be adopted at this election. We missed the boat, and we now have a cumbersome system and many difficulties to overcome. It will be a difficult time for Northern Ireland. The Sinn Fein vote will come out, but there will be people who will say, "We have had all these difficulties. What is the use?" The measure that the Government thought would help against Sinn Fein may be the very thing that will help it.
7.13 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: In a sense, we are engaged in a two-tier discussion. On one tier, hon. Members have been seeking clarification of many important points which should be cleared up well in advance of the election campaign.
On the second tier, there is the fundamental objection that we nearly all share to the principle — or lack of principle—of the proportional representation system. In recent elections there has been a great deal of confusion over the definition of the polling station. On many occasions, the wrong ruling has been given. The confusion arises, first, from the fact that the Representation of the People Act, supported by that authoritative document, "Parker's Election Guide", defined the polling station for the purposes of a Westminster election as the room in which polling takes place. I have in my files at home a Home Office ruling on that point in regard to a building that still exists in my own constituency. The ruling was given in the 1960s.
The Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, on the other hand, on which the order is based, gave a different ruling. It defined the polling station as the entire building, and, in some cases, the curtilage of the building. That was a recipe for confusion. As long as the two systems of election in Northern Ireland were kept separate, we got away with it. The confusion did not arise. Stormont elections and local government elections were clearly held under the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, while Westminster elections were held under the Representation of the People Act.
Once that blessed creature known as the chief electoral officer was introduced—I speak of the office rather than of a particular person — together with all his attendant satellites, assistants and assistant deputies, the confusion became compounded. Those officials took it upon themselves to define the position as it suited them on any particular occasion. They took what they wanted out of whichever electoral Act best suited their purposes. Consequently, they not only gave mistaken rulings but caused confusion in the minds of the unfortunate people who had to operate the system—the presiding officers in the various polling stations. Many decisions were made that were quite wrong in law. Had they ever been contested in an election court, I fear that some times—I will not specify the occasions, because I have a vested interest in some of them — candidates might have been unseated. That is how serious the situation is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has drawn attention to the third element of confusion—rule 22 (2) and (3). Rule 22(3) refers to the polling district. That is a new term. In the old days we knew what a polling district was, but in these enlightened days of wards and electoral areas created for the purpose
1224
of holding proportional representation elections, it is doubtful whether anyone understands the term "polling district". That is another matter that needs clarification.
It is very important that all those contradictions should be avoided. That can only be done in an authoritative manner. The rulings must be clearly understood by every one engaged officially in running the elections. The Chief Electoral Officer must be clear in his own mind about the precise directions that he is giving and the possible interpretations of those directions. The unfortunate presiding officers and clerks at the polling station, as well as the party officials there, have a right to obtain clear rulings.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, I have heard rumours and reports of a filtering device being employed at the entrance of a polling station or polling place. Such ideas are being bandied about, and the Minister has a golden opportunity tonight to put a stop to them.
The Minister who piloted through the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 — that unwanted piece of legislation—will be well aware that any attempt to filter and vet electors when they present themselves at the entrance to the polling station is illegal under that Act. Section 1(2)(1B) of that Act clearly provides that, when and elector produces one of the prescribed documents, the presiding officer or clerk to whom it is produced must issue that elector with a ballot paper.
If the rumours — they are rather better than wild rumours, as some of us could name those who have been consulted, but would not want to damage their chances of promotion, such as they are—are correct and the weird schemes are put into effect, the filtering officer at the door of the polling station, since he has no discretion, would have to produce the ballot paper on demand. He would also have to have at hand a copy of the register, to check the identity of the elector. I hope that the Minister will be provoked into slapping down such fanciful ideas today, and no later.
The Minister said that the Chief Electoral Officer and his deputies are the proper people to run elections, especially local government elections. We do not dissent. Council clerks used to perform the duties and there were occasionally hiccups. For example, a fairly inexperienced council clerk cheerfully permitted all the candidates to nominate themselves, and he accepted their nominations on the basis of their electoral placing, title and number on the list of electors printed on the blue sheets which came out in November, rather than on the register in February. Fortunately, that slip-up was detected in time. Council clerks have achieved miracles and done what I have never been able to do — make sense of the procedures regarding proportional representation election counts.
Mr. William Ross: It is simple.
Mr. Molyneaux: My hon. Friend might think so, but I put them in the same category as decimal coinage and metric measurement—I do not want to know at my time of life. If the advocates of proportional representation in the House—thankfully, they are becoming fewer—could see the charade of an election count under proportional representation, I am sure that they would oppose it for the rest of their lives. We have recently been encouraged by the evidence given by, and the common sense of, hon. Members in debates on the Representation of the People

1225
Bill. There were few supporters of proportional representation in those debates and they are confined entirely to that element of the House which is absent today.
I am sure that the House shares my disappointment at the failure of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) to illustrate how proportional representation did what one would have thought impossible — return councillors whom the electorate clearly did not want. The returning officer tells himself that he must establish a quota once he knows how many votes have been cast, and then determines which candidates have reached the quota. He suddenly realises that only six have reached the quota and that there are seven stools to be occupied. He casts his eye over the other candidates who have remained patiently in the place of the count, seizes on the most likely lad among the also-rans and declares him elected, although he has not reached the quota.
Hon. Members have mentioned the consequences of PR elections. Those who believe that electors are advantaged by having a choice of perhaps seven representatives are mistaken. For example, a well-subscribed petition might be given to Councillor A, who takes it to the responsible Minister and asks that the petition be considered carefully. A small group of the signatories then strike on the bright idea of going to Councillor B. Unfortunately, they do not have a copy of the original petition, so they present a garbled version. In some cases, that version differs materially from the original.
The fun does not stop there, as other groups of signatories feel that there is benefit to be derived from approaching all the other councillors, and they all give a different version. It might be simple if it stopped with the Department, as it might be able to make some sense of it all, but the matter is taken up with other authorities in Northern Ireland, thus adding to the confusion. Ministers can justifiably claim that they can sort out such confusion but, in this wicked world, we must acknowledge that the confusion creates a haven to which bureaucrats can retreat and in which they are immune to the probing attacks of Ministers, however diligent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann made a forecast which I believe will prove true. It is that the Minister will, like his predecessors, perpetuate proportional representation on the grounds that Northern Ireland is different. Ministers have consistently been hell-bent on keeping Northern Ireland different, and that is why we end up being regarded as different. The Secretary of State might recall the Prime Minister of the day in 1972 saying, when asked the purpose of abolishing Stormont and introducing some weird legislation, that it was designed to break the mould. Proportional representation was one of the hammers used to break the mould. It failed, as was illustrated dramatically after one of these crazy elections in Northern Ireland — it might have been for the first Northern Ireland Assembly — when the Secretary of State, sitting in the Tea Room with his head in his hands the day after the count said, "Jim, I'm sorry, I have to admit that a majority will remain a majority no matter how you rig the system."
It is precisely because the PR system fails on every count that we have to say, "Away with it." We on this Bench are therefore compelled to vote tonight against what in this order has clearly proved to be a failed system.
7.31 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) I listened with great interest to his arguments and to the various speeches that have been made. I felt rather like the bull fighter in a couple of lines of Spanish poetry which John Kennedy liked very much:
"Bull-fight critics ranked in rows fill the arena full.
But only one is there who knows—and he's the one who fights the bull."
I am not entirely sure who it is who has been fighting the bull, whether it is the Minister or the right hon. Members for South Down (Mr. Powell) and for Lagan Valley and the hon. Members for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I do know, however, that I am certainly the critic in what was a solitary row, but I am very glad to be joined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
I want to congratulate the Minister, as I have in the past, on the careful and articulate way in which he has taken the House through the terms of the order. He described it as safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and said that this obliged him to give a lengthy and technical description of the order. The House and I are grateful to him for that, even though the right hon. Member for South Down differed with the Minister on the aims of the order.
The Minister said that the aims of the order were to bring to bear in local government elections in Northern Ireland measures which Parliament has agreed should govern elections to this House. I would have thought that that would be very welcome to right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The second strand of the Minister's thinking was that this order would bring the election rules more closely into line with the rules governing local government elections on this side of the water.
I am grateful for the pat on the back, in metaphorical terms, from the right hon. Member for South Down. He quite rightly told the House that it was pressure from Her Majesty's Opposition that led to the acceptance by the Government of the principle that the electors of Northern Ireland are entitled to be governed by the same electoral law as the rest of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for South Down also gave his view that the order perpetuates the application to local government elections of the system of proportional representation. That theme has been taken up by several hon. Members. The right hon. Member for South Down described it as a disjunction which he thought was unjustifiable. We saw a dichotomy on the part of the Ulster Unionists—on the one hand welcoming and encouraging election laws which are the same as those in this country and on the other hand complaining, justifiably in their view, that they are always treated differently. This is a point of view that came up time and time again in the speeches made.
I nearly intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East when he asked the Minister whether he was speaking on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office or Her Majesty's Government. I would have thought that in the eyes of most Ulster Unionists they were one and indivisible. It shows the difficulty they have in disentangling their thinking in relation to the electoral laws of our country as they relate also to Northern Ireland.

1227
The Opposition welcome this order, as they welcomed the original Bill. The main provisions of the order substitute new election rules for the rules in the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962 and correspond to sections 1 and 2 of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 — that is, to prevent personation. The order also makes a number of other changes which should be noted and which we welcome.
One relates to postal voting, and the 10th annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights points out that provisions with regard to postal votes in Northern Ireland differ for general elections, assembly elections and local elections. This is clearly unsatisfactory and confusing. The order brings the provisions for local elections into line with those for general elections. That is to be welcomed. The advisory commission has recommended that there should be a standing list of postal voters for use in all elections. It has also recommended that postal voting on the grounds of change of residence should be reintroduced, pointing out that the numbers involved represent only about 2 per cent. of the total number of applications made. A number of cases have already been brought to the commission's attention involving moves from Derry to Belfast which makes it impracticable to vote at the old address.
We have heard some discussion tonight of the time at which polling booths close. In a democracy it must be in the interest of all those who wish to vote to have as long as possible in which to do so. I have stood in elections and I can recollect taking someone to the polling booth as late as a quarter to ten at night. We rushed him in and he was the last person to vote. When we brought him out my wife asked me if I was thinking what she was thinking, and we agreed that we thought that he had voted Conservative. Nevertheless, the principle remains that, the longer there is for people to vote, the more democratic it must be.
We therefore support the order. I have listened with great interest to the debate. I learn as I go along in this post of mine. I have learned to admire the way in which an order before the House can be widened and deepened to cover proportional representation, Sinn Fein, flags, crowns and half-crowns. It is very democratic. It is also nice to see the depth and the technicality of these debates. I am sure that the House is a better place for them and I am sure that Northern Ireland will be a better place when this order becomes law.
7.37 pm
Mr. Scott: I want to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the welcome that he has given to the order. I agree with most of what he said, and I am grateful to him for giving his support from the Opposition Front Bench to this very important measures.
We have had a long, sometimes technical, often detailed debate on this order and I shall seek to deal as succinctly as I can with as many as possible of the points that have been raised. I shall come at the end of the coverage of the detailed points to the fundamental question first raised by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and echoed by others, about proportional representation and the Government's decision to continue with that system in this order.
1228
I must at the outset express, in a low-key way, one worry that I have. I direct this particularly to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). In the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, I get considerably worried when elected representatives seek to question motives or the approach of officials who are responsible for the electoral process. It must be Ministers who stand at this Dispatch Box and take the responsibility for decisions that have to be made, whether in the shape, for example, of an order for electoral districts or anything else. I have already paid a warm tribute to Sir Frank Harrison and his staff for the work that they have done through the various boundary commissions.
I was very worried to read the reports of the debates on the Representation of the People Bill, in which the hon. Member for Antrim, North sought to imply that amendments had been proposed to that piece of legislation were somehow the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer. They are not. They are the responsibility of Ministers collectively, who will, of course, take the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, locally elected politicians and others in coming to these decisions, but we take responsibility for the proposals that come forward.
I should like at the outset of my speech to make clear my appreciation of the work that is done by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and his staff. Their dedication and integrity in difficult circumstances, with terrorist activity and so on, have enabled the democratic process in Northern Ireland to operate smoothly. I very much hope that, in future, criticisms of proposals that are brought before the House will be directed at Ministers, not at officials who do their best to see that the process operates as smoothly as possible.
Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister implying that he will hold himself responsible, even during an election campaign, for dealing with any matters that may arise, where it is believed, and even seen, by party officials and members that the Chief Electoral Officer or some of his subordinates are acting contrary to the law? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to put himself in the same position as the Home Secretary, who, although Parliament would be dissolved, would be prepared to give advice on such matters?
Mr. Scott: Obviously I would be answerable at the Dispatch Box for what happened during elections in Northern Ireland. Responsibility for the detailed operation of the law will rest with the Chief Electoral Officer. The point that I was making was that proposals that we bring before the House for changes in the law are the responsibility of Ministers, not of any official. If criticisms are made, they should be of Ministers, not of officials.
Rev. Ian Paisley: During the debate I was trying to point out that the suggestions and the input were from the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff. They make up those ideas and sell them to the Minister, and then the Minister puts them forward. I was tracing the parentage of this particular embryo. I think that that is how I described it.
Mr. Scott: I hope that it will not become the custom, particularly in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland, for such criticisms to be made.
I should like to refer to some of the detailed points that were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Belfast,

1229
East (Mr. Robinson) referred to what came to be called, during our earlier debates, the discretion of presiding officers. Let me make the position absolutely clear. It is necessary within the law for anyone who presents himself at a polling station and asks for a ballot paper to produce one document from the list set out under the law. However, if someone produces a document in which there is an error or something that does not exactly square up—a different address or something of that sort—and the presiding officer knows who the elector is, such a discrepancy cannot arouse a reasonable doubt in the mind of the presiding officer. Therefore, it is lawful for him to hand over a ballot paper. I have said that before but I reiterate it on this occasion because the point was raised.
The 10 o'clock shutter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East and others. That system has operated on this side of the water without great difficulty for many years. If one applies to the presiding officer for a ballot paper before 10 o'clock, one gets it. However, if one is just inside the door either of the polling station or within the polling place, and the ballot paper has not been issued, at 10 o'clock the shutter comes down, and that is the end of it. We are bringing Northern Ireland into line with the accepted practice which has been operated with no great difficulty on this side of the water for many years.
Another matter that was raised was the deposit. With a £15 deposit—
Mr. Molyneaux: I take it that the Minister is moving on from the conduct of the polling station. Before he does so, will he consider dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), myself and others about the so-called filter at the entrance to the polling station?
Mr. Scott: I think the House knows that I am always anxious to give way, but I shall deal later with that and several other detailed points as succinctly as possible. If I inadvertently miss any of them, I shall make sure that hon. Members are written to. I promise that I shall not deliberately evade any of the matters that have been raised in the debate.
I do not believe that a £15 deposit is any insurance against candidates who may wish to come forward to gain publicity. The decision that the Government had to take was either substantially to increase the deposit for local government candidates, or to get rid of it. We looked at both possibilities and decided that on balance it was easier to get rid of it and, again, bring Northern Ireland into line with practice in local government elections on this side of the water. I entirely accept that there can be two views about that, but I would not have thought that simply maintaining the deposit at £15 made much sense.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East and many others raised the fundamental question whether there should be a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration of nonviolence before they took part in an election, designed to exclude Sinn Fein candidates from the electoral process. I acknowledge that the proposal, in the view of those who suggested it, was very much a second best. They preferred that the Government should proscribe or ban Sinn Fein, but in the absence of that came up with a second best way of excluding Sinn Fein from the electoral process. Of course, the Government looked at both propositions. The one that has been put forward tonight is the signing of a declaration.
1230
The reason why the Government have turned their back on that proposition is that we believe that in practice it would have no significant beneficial effect on the electoral process. There would be formidable difficulties of definition in any such operation. There would be nothing to stop a candidate from making such a declaration at nomination stage and being lawfully nominated, and subsequently announcing that he had changed his mind. Some hon. Members said that Sinn Fein would then be shown up to be dishonest. I cannot imagine members of Sinn Fein blushing hard at that.
One way round would be to make the advocacy of violence before or after an election ground for disqualification, but there are great difficulties in devising criteria as to what could be regarded as supporting violence, and perhaps even what constituted violence, in this context. I emphasise that powers already exist which prohibit membership of a proscribed organisation and deal with criminal offences such as incitement to violence. Those sanctions apply as much to candidates at any election as to others. In addition, people who have served significant prison sentences in the recent past are debarred from standing at elections. Therefore, although I can understand the reasons that have prompted the hon. Member for Belfast, East and others to make that proposal, I do not believe that it would have a beneficial effect on the electoral process in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McCusker: I presume that the Minister is now giving us the Government's considered response to Sir George Baker's suggestion. However, let us put the matter in perspective, although I acknowledge the comments, that the Minister has made. Some people think that somehow or other Sinn Fein is the controlling body. In fact, it is the creature of the IRA. For whatever reason, the Provisional IRA decided publicly two or three years ago at its annual conference to ensure that it mandated Sinn Fein unambiguously to support its violent campaign. It had some psychological or propaganda reason for doing that. The IRA insisted that its creature should publicly state its support for violence and violent means of overthrowing the state. Is the Minister saying that it is not worth while challenging the IRA on that psychological or propaganda point and at least forcing it and its creature, if necessary, to climb down from that position?
Mr. Scott: If we were going to do that the answer would be to proscribe Sinn Fein, but that would not be a practical way forward. We shall give a considered response to Sir George Baker's report in due course, but for the purposes of the order we take the view — I do not believe that it will change — that to go down the road of asking for a declaration opposing or renouncing violence would not be a practical possibility.
Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a very important issue, perhaps the most important issue that we have discussed. The Minister says that he does not believe that the IRA is honest, but there are some things about which Republicans are absolutely honest. One could not find any Sinn Fein IRA man who would not identify himself with the campaign of violence. Anyone who says anything different has not studied the mentality of Irish Republicanism. That is why Sinn Fein will say, "We will never make that declaration for a British Government." Therefore, the Government would be effectively weeding them out. Those of us who are involved in elections know

1231
that. History proves it. One has only to look at the irregulars, led by de Valera at one time in the South, to know that in those things they are basically, honest. They are dishonest in other things, but on that issue — the quick of the matter — they will stand by their guns, literally.
Mr. Scott: Obviously we took that into account in coming to our decision, and we came to a different view. Even if we were successful in proscribing Sinn Fein, there would be nothing to stop Republicans, even those who privately support the armed struggle, as they choose to call it, from presenting themselves for election under another banner, such as H-block candidates or whatever, as they have done in the past. My argument against that is based on the practical difficulties of translating anything like that into a law that would bring about the effect that hon. Gentlemen wish to achieve.
There appears to be some confusion about polling stations and polling places. Rule 22(3) of the local elections rules, which have been referred to many times in the debate, is in the same terms as the equivalent provision in the rules for parliamentary elections. The school premises, if we take that as the usual example, are the polling place, and within that polling place there can be one or more polling stations. A polling stations is not, as it were, the ballot box but the area within which there are a number of polling booths, the ballot box, the presiding officer and his assistants. I hope that that will resolve the confusion between polling stations and polling places.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) referred to order within the polling station itself and asked about the advance guard of people coming in. In regard to maintaining order within the polling station, the power to remove people from a polling station would be vested in anyone who was given written authority by the presiding officer to do that. It would be possible for a member of the security forces other than the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be so authorised.
In regard to the advance guard, I do not envisage anything like the picture that was painted by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I hope that the Chief Electoral Officer and the presiding officers under his guidance will be at pains to direct the staff who are available to them in such a way as to minimise any delay or inconvenience that might be caused to electors during polling hours. The presiding officer might station a clerk at the entrance to inquire of electors as they arrived, "Are you sure you have one of the prescribed documents with you—otherwise it will be impossible for the presiding officer to give you a ballot paper when you get in?" That would be sensible. There would be no question of infringing the law if a gentle, oral reminder were to be given to an elector as he arrived at the polling place and before he got to the polling station.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister refer to the expression "polling district" in rule 22, which does not appear to be defined?
Mr. Scott: As I indicated, I shall try to deal with as many points as possible.
In regard to the standing list for European Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, which was
1232
raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), by virtue of regulations made under the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, the standing list for parliamentary elections applies also to European elections, but it does not apply to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As, in the normal course of events, there will be an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly in October of next year, we shall consider that and see whether we can have a common standing list to apply to all elections in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked whether the Chief Electoral Officer would contact all voters on the standing list of postal voters as soon as the order was made. He will be doing that and will ask them whether they wish to be placed on the standing list for local government elections.
Let us be as clear as we can about polling districts. District electoral areas are divided into polling districts. They are conterminous with what is frequently called a ward, but for the purposes of this exercise it is the local polling district which matters. That is the area referred to in the rule to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Each of those polling districts which have been defined by the Boundary Commission will have one polling place. Within that it will be possible to have more than one polling station.
Mr. McCusker: Does that mean that the Chief Electoral Officer can make a decision which will create immense problems for everyone concerned? I have talked to the local police about this, and it is important.
Mr. Scott: The Chief Electoral Officer has published a draft scheme dealing with the siting and the number of polling places. Representations have been made about that scheme. The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that. There will be changes in the final scheme. My impression is that there will be an appreciable increase in the number of polling stations and polling places. I hope that most of his worries will be resolved. I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer about the one that he mentioned in Lurgan.
Mr. William Ross: When the changes are being considered will there be meetings with objectors, or will consideration be given only to written applications for changes?
Mr. Scott: The Chief Electoral Officer has published a draft scheme. Some people have made objections. Objections had to be in by yesterday. The Chief Electoral Officer will make up his mind about the disposition of polling stations and polling places. We must get that settled as soon as possible.
I wish to cover two more important points, one in rather more depth than the other. In reply to a query by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I can tell him that there is no law requiring or forbidding the flying of the Union flag at polling stations. It may be flown at discretion, but there is no law which requires or forbids it.
I shall deal with proportional representation briefly, not because there are not detailed arguments to be made on both sides of the coin, but because the Government have for some time made absolutely clear their view that the best means of ensuring the representation of minorities in Northern Ireland is through the vehicle of proportional representation. I do not believe that the House will be

1233
surprised to hear that the Government retain their commitment to a belief that for local elections, European elections and Northern Ireland Assembly elections proportional representation is the best way of doing that.
Several hon. Members raised, in a sense, the subsidiary issue of multi-member wards. As I have said, there are plenty of examples on this side of the water where electors find it perfectly easy to cope with multi-member wards.
The right hon. Member for South Down has displayed great patience over proportional representation for the past eight years, since Ray Carter stood at the Dispatch Box and implied that things might change some day. However,
I would not wish to hold out that hope to the right hon. Gentleman. If we ever return to devolved government in Northern Ireland, which is this Government's aim, the decision about that in relation to local government elections, at least, would be a matter for the devolved Government of Northern Ireland.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 17.

Division No. 152]

[8 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Ancram, Michael

Dunn, Robert

Arnold, Tom

Durant, Tony

Ashby, David

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Evennett, David

Bellingham, Henry

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Benyon, William

Fallon, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Favell, Anthony

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gale, Roger

Bright, Graham

Galley, Roy

Brinton, Tim

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Gow, Ian

Bruinvels, Peter

Gregory, Conal

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'tth N)

Butterfill, John

Ground, Patrick

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chope, Christopher

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Harris, David

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Hawksley, Warren

Conway, Derek

Hayward, Robert

Coombs, Simon

Heddle, John

Couchman, James

Henderson, Barry

1234

Hind, Kenneth

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Holt, Richard

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hume, John

Murphy, Christopher

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Newton, Tony

Jackson, Robert

Nicholls, Patrick

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Norris, Steven

Kennedy, Charles

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Pawsey, James

Key, Robert

Portillo, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Powley, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Raffan, Keith

Knox, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Lang, Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lawler, Geoffrey

Rowe, Andrew

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Scott, Nicholas

Lester, Jim

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lilley, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Sims, Roger

Lord, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Lyell, Nicholas

Stern, Michael

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Stradling Thomas, J.

Macfarlane, Neil

Thompson, Donald (Calder V

McQuarrie, Albert

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Malins, Humfrey

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Malone, Gerald

Wheeler, John

Marland, Paul

Wiggin, Jerry

Marlow, Antony

Wolfson, Mark

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Wood, Timothy

Mather, Carol

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Maude, Hon Francis

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Mr. John Major and

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Mr. Michael Neubert.

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Powell, William (Corby)

Beggs, Roy

Proctor, K. Harvey

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

McCrea, Rev William

Skinner, Dennis

McCusker, Harold

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Murphy, Christopher

Nellist, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholson, J.

Mr. Ken Maginnis and

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. William Ross.

Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
8.11 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It might be helpful if I made it clear that the debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. The police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
Dr. Boyson: The Order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Ths purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1984–85 Spring Supplementary Estimates and the 1985–86 Vote on Account of Northern Ireland Departments.
Part I of the schedule covers the issue of a further £68 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in respect of the Spring Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments and appropriates this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. This sum is in addition to some £2,872 million, which has already been approved by the House for the 1984–85 financial year. It brings the total Estimate provision for 1984–85 to just over £2,940 million.
Part II of the schedule gives details of the issues for which the Vote on Account of £1,323 million for 1985–86 is required. This provision is necessary to enable services to continue until the 1985–86 Main Estimates are debated later in the year. The sums required on account are based on the standard calculation of 45 per cent. of the total provision for the current financial year, except in those classes where it is known that the pattern of expenditure will differ significantly in the incoming year.
The main Estimates for 1985–86 will, of course, be framed within the total public expenditure provisions set out in the Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure, which was publised in January.
As hon. Members will be aware, the public expenditure allocation to Northern Ireland Departments for 1985–86 is some £30 million higher than had been originally planned. This is further clear evidence of the Government's continued commitment to tackling the Province's economic and social problems, particularly coming at a time when public expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole is being held at the previously planned levels.
Full details of all the provisions sought in the draft order can be found in two volumes, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. These are entitled "Spring Supplementary Estimates" and "Statement of Sums Required on Account".
Before coming to the main points of the Supplementary Estimates, it is important that I should comment on the economic prospects for Northern Ireland. This is particularly relevant because the draft order includes increased aid for industry. Some of the alterations have come about because of the need for extra money for the development or changes in respect of factories, as I shall explain.
It is clear from recent economic indicators that Northern Ireland, in common with the rest of the UK, is experiencing a revival of economic activity, and the signs
1236
are that this will continue. In Northern Ireland, the trend for total industrial production and manufacturing output remains upward, with output for these sectors in the first three quarters of 1984 up by 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively when compared with the same period in 1983.
It is particularly encouraging to note that the recovery is broadly based, with most sectors now displaying some improvement. The most recent employment figures provide further evidence of this recovery. Indeed, the number of persons employed, as I mentined earlier at Question Time, rose by 4,170 in the third and fourth quarters of 1984.
Nevertheless, unemployment remains the major economic problem in the Province, as hon. Members will be aware. As in Great Britain, the trend is still upwards, although there are clear signs that the rate of increase is moderating. For example, the increase in unemployment was only 420 between February 1984 and February 1985, according to figures published today. That compares with over 7,800 in the preceding 12 months.
That represented a loss of employment — nobody wants any loss; there will be nothing to cheer about until there is a gain rather than a loss — but the figures are significant in that, between February 1983 and February 1984, there was a loss of employment of 7,800. To put it correctly, there was an increase in unemployment — the two are not necessarily the same — of 7,800 between February 1983 and February 1984, and for the 12 months ended on 18 February of this year, on figures published today, the increase in unemployment was 420, as against that figure of 7,800.
We have a distinct problem in Northern Ireland which does not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. I refer to the higher birth rate and, therefore, the need to find additional jobs. The birth rate is between 40 and 50 per cent. higher than in the rest of the country. Accordingly, the percentage of 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland is that much greater than the average for the United Kingdom.
Linked with that is a decrease in emigration. No disrespect is meant when one says that the biggest export from both parts of Ireland for a long time has been manpower and womanpower. However, unless people can offer distinctive skills—the very people we want to keep — it is unlikely that they will be able to go to other countries. Thus, with decreasing emigration and the birth rate being between 40 and 50 per cent. higher, the problem of finding work as the additional people grow up is a serious one.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister may feel encouraged if I share with him an experience of mine in the last four weeks, when I have met no fewer than seven constituents who have returned, having previously emigrated, they thought permanently. They have returned to Northern Ireland on the grounds that it is not such a bad place after all.
Dr. Boyson: That helps to illustrate the problems that we are facing. By all means encourage people to return, but let us be sure that we can absorb them in the economy when they come back. I accept that there is a distinct tendency in the direction to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—and he spoke of having talked to seven people. But the story he related can be found at other than what one might call ordinary levels of employment.
A distinct number of people are coming back to Northern Ireland to senior managerial posts. Basically,

1237
that is a vote of confidence in the Province, and in that respect I support what the right hon. Gentleman said. About three weeks ago I met the new personnel director to John Parker at Harland and Wolff. Having worked elsewhere in Great Britain, the new personnel man has returned to the Province. The more people return, the more work we have to find, but we want them to come back.
Unemployment is stabilising, but the high birth rate and lack of emigration cause problems. The internal migration figures are interesting. This time next week I shall have the figures so that we shall know where we stand. The figures represent a vote of confidence in the Province. A number of overseas company representatives, particularly from America, say that they have difficulty in persuading people to go to Northern Ireland, but that once they are there they cannot get them out. They like the education system, the leisure facilities and the warmth and hospitality offered by the people. Co-operation exists at all levels in the companies based in Northern Ireland.
The House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to speak about all provisions sought in the Supplementary Estimates. I shall concentrate on the major items. Hon. Members can ask questions about any issues covered in the order and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply later. If he cannot give the answers today, he will write to hon. Members.
I draw attention to a common element in six of the 24 Votes which the Estimates cover. I refer to receipts from the European Community under the urban renewal regulation. The order provides for the receipt of £14·2 million of the second tranche of aid which in full amounts to about £19·8 million and which was approved by the European Commission in November. The assistance has been earned by 91 publicly funded infrastructure projects in the greater Belfast area and has enabled the Government to increase their planned expenditure on urban renewal, including housing.
The previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made housing a priority, particularly in Belfast. The present Secretary of State has maintained that priority.
Only this week my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) took a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House to Northern Ireland. Two of them spoke to me during the Division tonight and said how different the housing situation was now compared with four years ago. Northern Ireland has a lot going for it. I agree that it is a time of disaster and alarm and the last few weeks have brought sadness to all of us, but there is much that can be said in favour of Northern Ireland.
Under Class II, £3·5 million of the £4·4 million extra sought under Vote 1 is to fund an increased number of alterations and extensions to existing factories. The policy in Northern Ireland has been to build advanced factories so that when outside employers come in, or a firm expands in the Province, a factory is available for rent or sale. Many of those factories are open and nobody works in them, so I queried that Vote. I wondered whether we should be building more factories when many were not being used. However, there has been a higher than expected level of investment by a number of companies in Northern Ireland, including the American company AVX which is now Europe's leading manufacturer of multi-layer ceramic capacitors. I trust that everyone knows what they are.
Some additional funds are also required following the Industrial Development Board's decision to proceed with
1238
the development of a new science park near Antrim. That development is designed to encourage, in particular, new investment in high technology in Northern Ireland. The extra money is needed for the adaptation of existing factories. I am sure that all hon. Members will approve of that expenditure.
In Class II, Vote 2, an extra £6·9 million is sought. A total of £1·9 million is for interest grants on borrowings for industrial modernisation and reorganisation and about £3·8 million is required by the IDB to meet loan commitments arising from a number of major new investments during the year. Again, the money is being spent on existing firms to give them help. Aircraft Furnishings and Vantona Viyella are examples of the companies which will benefit from that movement of money.
Under Vote III, expenditure on standard capital grants will rise from £37·5 million to £54 million. This reflects a continuation of the trend for a higher level of investment in manufacturing, indicating once again improved business confidence in the Province. I have quoted from a report by PA Management Consultations which says that firms in the sample taken invested 17 per cent. more this year than last year in their plants. Next year they expect to employ 2 per cent, more workers. Signs of optimism are there.
However, part of the increase can also be attributed to investment being brought forward in the knowledge that the standard capital grant scheme is under review. That scheme in Northern Ireland is analogous to the former regional development grant scheme in the assisted areas of Great Britain. A new regional development grant scheme was introduced in Great Britain in November 1984. The Northern Ireland scheme has been reviewed in the light of the significant changes already made in the Great Britain equivalent. I hope to be able to announce the outcome of that review in the near future.
Class III of the Spring Supplementary Estimates covers energy. Following the decision not to proceed with the Kinsale gas project, a new sub-heading, B3, is being introduced in Vote 1 to enable the Northern Ireland Gas Company Ltd to repay loans issued during the financial years 1983–84 and 1984–85.
In September 1984, the Government announced chat they would not be proceeding with proposals for natural gas to be supplied to Northern Ireland from the Kinsale field in the Republic of Ireland because the project no longer afforded the prospect of economic viability. Provision is being made to enable the orderly rundown and closure of those gas undertakings which decided themselves that they were unable to continue without financial support from the Government.
Under Class III, Vote 2, an extra £5 million is sought to increase the electricity tariff subsidy to the Northern Ireland electricity service. This service is heavily dependent on oil for electricity generation. Since oil is priced in dollars, the movement in the sterling-dollar exchange rate sharply increased the price of that fuel and there has been a consequent increase in electricity service costs.
The Government remain concerned about the ever-increasing cost of the tariff subsidy, and about the extent to which it restricts the funds available for other Government programmes in Northern Ireland. In the Estimates for next year we are calculating that £95 million will be required to subsidise the electricity industry so that

1239
it can peg the price to the highest tariff in Great Britain. If one calculates that the Northern Ireland block is about £4 billion, that means that the subsidy is 2·5 per cent. It escalates each year.
For that reason, we are looking urgently at the options for altering the primary fuel for electricity generation at Kilroot, which would reduce costs and thus reduce the demand for the subsidy.
The Government and the electricity service are also actively following up the potential for reducing the cost of electricity generation through use of the indigenous lignite. The first firing of lignite from the Province took place yesterday. Certain lights and bars on electric fires in Northern Ireland for the first time now take their energy from the native lignite. We hope that that will be a success. The House will be united about that.
In west Belfast, 200 tonnes of lignite, which comes from Crumlin, is being fired. Lignite is black bricks and looks like coal. We have paid for the experiment to be done in Yugoslavia and the material is then brought back to be fired. The experiment will prove whether hard lignite from Crumlin can be made into bricks by a process that is used in other European countries. It could then be used in the west Belfast power station. It could also be used in the Kilroot power station if we decided to change to coal and then to lignite. The experiment has no bearing on the use of soft lignite in a possible minemouth station in Crumlin. It would be moved directly into the power station. The making of the bricks — we cannot send lignite to Yugoslavia, although committees may visit regularly to see how it is done—means that we, private enterprise or the Northern Ireland electricity authority will have to build a plant to make the bricks if we use lignite in the Kilroot and west Belfast power stations. The experiment has no bearing on whether we can build the minemouth plant. That will have to be tried elsewhere.
Northern Ireland has a highly developed roads system which is of great importance to the industrial and commercial life of the Province. In order to maintain this valuable asset, the roads programme requires, in Class IV Vote 1, a net supplement of £4·2 million for both capital expenditure and the operation and maintenance of the roads, bridges and lighting.
I should now like to turn to housing, to which I have referred already, which continues to be the top priority among Northern Ireland's social and environmental programmes. The net increase in Class V, Vote 1 of some £9·5 million in the provision for housing services can be attributed mainly to an additional sum of £6 million to enable the Housing Executive to repay certain building society loans, and to an increase in the level of expenditure on house renovation grants in response to rising demand.
On education, the supplementary provision sought for the education services in Class VIII, Vote 1 relates primarily to the increased salary costs arising from the teachers' April 1984 pay award of 5·1 per cent. The overall number of approved teaching posts in schools, including the voluntary grammar schools, in the current school year is 18,615, which will permit the existing overall pupil-teacher ratio to be maintained.
Increased provision of just under £1 million is also made in this Vote for capital grants to schools under voluntary management, and will allow further progress on certain essential minor works, including health and safety
1240
schemes, at these schools. The bulk of this increase, £750,000, has been made possible by the new carry-over arrangements introduced last year, which have permitted a proportion of unexpended capital funds in the Northern Ireland block as a whole to be brought forward from the 1983–84 financial year into 1984–85. Under the scheme, underspending of up to 5 per cent. of the total eligible capital provision may be carried forward from one year to the next.
This year is the first time that that carry-over facility has been in full operation. It is extremely useful because there is nothing worse than having to spend up by the end of the year. In the past, in schools, I had to circulate messages that we would have to spend up by the end of the month and asked for suggestions. It is not an ideal situation, especially when two weeks later one discovers that one wants something desperately after one has just spent money on something much less important. In all Votes, 5 per cent. of the total eligible capital provision can be carried forward from one year to another. That means money is spent as it should be spent and not in haste at the end of March.
The carry-over facility has proved to be a most welcome addition to the Secretary of State's flexibility. As well as the Department of Education, three other Northern Ireland Departments have benefited this year: the Department of the Environment carried over into this year £1·6 million, the Department of Economic Development carried over £2 million and the Department of Health and Social Services carried over £500,000. Those amounts are included in the additional provision being sought now for those Departments.
Returning to Class VIII, Vote 2, additional provision of £1·8 million is required to make good a deficiency in the anticipated level of receipts from the European social fund in the current financial year. The EC contribution relates to the cost of certain courses of vocational training in the further education sector, expenditure on which is borne both in this Vote and in Class VIII, Vote 4, where a similar adjustment is required. I would emphasise, however, that that does not imply any change in the underlying volume of activity or in the level of EC support, but relates simply to the timing of the receipt of certain contributions now expected to fall in the next financial year.
Indeed, many hon. Members ask why certain moneys have not been paid to their constituents. In many cases we must wait for the EC to give us money before we can pay it out. The fact that we had to transfer receipts from this to next year shows that that is true — not that anyone doubted. All the letters that I have sent to hon. Members—I have sent two this week—are true.
Finally, in this class, may I refer to the supplementary provision of £5·2 million required in Vote IV for grants to the education and library boards. The major element of the increase in this Vote relates to recurrent and capital expenditure on this year's youth training programme, details of which were not finalised until after the Main Estimates were prepared. The increase will bring the total expenditure on the educational element of the youth training programme to more than £10 million, and will allow the further education colleges to offer 2,500 full-time places and 7,500 part-time places. I am sure that every hon. Member is anxious that we should provide all the youth training that we can. We are also anxious that it is the right sort of training and that it helps the young

1241
people to get jobs afterwards. It is not merely a case of filling in time for one or two years to keep young people off the streets, as we used to say in the north of England; it is important that there is a purpose attached to training. It is helpful to link such training with further education colleges. The Vote will allow 10,000 more people to be involved this year.
On health and social services, the supplementary estimate for Class IX, Vote 1 seeks net additional resources of £3·2 million. The main reason for the increase is to take account of pay settlements the additional costs of which have attracted, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, partial assistance from the contingency reserve. Within the provision, an additional £800,000 net has been provided for capital projects and £500,000 has also been made available which will permit the replacement of medical equipment for regional specialties at the Royal Victoria hospital.
Vote 2 is one of a number of Votes in which the House will find a "token" provision of £1,000. In this Vote there has been an increase of almost £3 million in the cost of medical and ophthalmic services, due to the extra cost of providing those services, and increased demand for them. However, this £3 million increase is offset by a reduction in the provision for pharmaceutical services, and also by higher receipts than expected from the contributions paid by employers and employees towards the cost of the Health Service.
The overall effect of these pluses and minuses is that the original provision is adequate. However, in order to draw the attention of the House to the significant changes in the costs of the elements within the Vote, it is necessary to seek a token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000. The fact that has been included shows that we have open government in Northern Ireland. If it had not been included, hon. Members would not be able to debate the items. Perhaps hon. Members may not wish to debate them — Ministers do not wish to. We have included these items as a service to the public and to open government, and so that hon. Members can rise to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I appreciate how this is fully understood by all hon. Members who are present.
Finally, in the social security programme, an additional £2·7 million is being sought in Class X, Vote 4, for administration and miscellaneous services. Additional provision is required for salaries and wages, charges for agency services and for the additional costs of the inquiry into children's homes and hostels.
I have tried to outline briefly the main features of the draft order and to give hon. Members an appreciation of the reasons for the changes in provision. I shall listen with great interest to the points raised by hon. Members, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply. I commend the draft order to the House.
8.39 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: Debates on Appropriation Orders occupy, to some extent, the same place in relation to economic affairs in Northern Ireland as the Budget statement, the debate on the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill occupy for the United Kingdom as a whole. We may argue whether it is sensible to review the United Kingdom economy and to decide financial policy as part of a mystic ritual once a year, but it is right that the Government should give some account of their stewardship and answer debates from time to time. I would
1242
have hoped that the Government's business managers would have accorded Northern Ireland something more than half a Thursday evening for that purpose.
The Minister predicted that I would destroy the harmony in the Chamber. His predictions are not always justified in the event, but on this occasion he is 100 per cent. accurate. The provision which the order seeks to make and the needs for which it is intended to provide must be assessed against one all-pervading fact: that the much-heralded economic recovery never made a personal appearance. It has been replaced by alibis, scapegoats and grasping at straws. For the people of Northern Ireland, the better future has not materialised.
In January, 123,105 people were claiming unemployment benefit, and even the laundered figures cannot conceal that that is 861 more than a year earlier. If I understood the Minister correctly at Question Time this afternoon, and again this evening, the figures are a little better for February, as we would expect. This time, we are only 420 worse than last year. He made the most of that information. I do not blame him, because he does not have much good news to announce, but we had all that song and dance about the fact that we are only 420 jobs worse off than we were last year.
If we compare the number of job promotions by the Industrial Development Board and LEDU with the number of people qualifying for statutory redundancy payments, we find that they are running hard but failing to maintain the same place. In 1984, 7,214 jobs were promoted, while 8,378 people qualified for redundancy payments. No doubt I will be told that I am spreading alarm and despondency. But there is alarm and despondency in Northern Ireland, and we must face the fact in this debate. The people I meet, who are not company executives, are worried about their future, and if the malady is not diagnosed, we shall continue to be short on prescriptions.
What is especially worrying is the failure to absorb people qualified in the new technologies. On 22 February, the Belfast Telegraph reported that, last year, there were 72 graduates from Queen's university in electrical studies and electronic engineering. Twelve were overseas students who returned home. Of the remaining 60, only 27 found jobs in Northern Ireland. Yet they are the people on whom an economic recovery will depend.
A measure of the waste can be found by comparing expenditure on the social programme with expenditure on industrial development. The Government's expenditure plans, which, as the Minister said, were published in January, reveal that, since 1979, the Government have spent more than £5 billion on social security in Northern Ireland. Of course, we do not complain about the Government meeting people's needs, given that those needs exist. But in the same period they spent less than £2 billion on industry, energy and employment promotion. Had they tackled those problems more effectively, the need would not have reached anything like those proportions. This is the philosophy of spending money to keep people unemployed instead of spending it to get them to work.
We still hear the argument that to attract industry to Northern Ireland the Province must be able to offer what is euphemistically called "wages flexibility", which means that people must be so desparate that they are prepared to work for less than employers must pay anywhere else. That has been put to the test in Northern Ireland. In 1982, 27 per cent. of men in full-time employment earned less

1243
than £100 a week compared with only 17 per cent. in Great Britain. That did not bring jobs crowding into Northern Ireland. Everyone agrees that in skills, willingness to work, loyalty and perfomance, the workers of Northern Ireland bear comparison with workers anywhere. But if the Government abdicate their responsibilities in favour of market forces, there will be no rewards for those workers.
May I put some concrete suggestions to the Minister as to how the Government could help Northern Ireland to break out of that vicious downward spiral? First, has he seen the 1983–84 annual report of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which points out that the incentive schemes for employers are not always incentives to create jobs? The capital grants scheme is dispensed with no apparent assessment of its impact on job creation, and the congress suggested that the Government should replace it with an employment grants scheme, where the grants would be based on the number of employment years that would result from each pound spent. It also suggested a tighter monitoring system to ensure that the money was not siphoned off to associated companies or to outside creditors.
Secondly, the Government could match the need of the unemployed for work with the need for work to be done in the public sector. The proposals in Class V, of which the Minister spoke, reflect the Government's intention to reduce by 750 the number of housing starts made by the Housing Executive as against starts in the previous year. This is at a time when the Housing Executive's waiting list is apparently growing. There were 1,000 more names on the list in September 1984 than there were in March 1984. The Housing Executive states in its annual report that one third of its applicants have been waiting for at least four years.
As I understand it—the Under-Secretary of State will tell me whether it is right when he replies — the Government explain that by saying that, instead of undertaking an energetic house-building programme, they are concentrating on improving the existing stock. We would not complain about that if the Government showed more energy in enforcing standards in the private sector. It is true that the tenant of a house in need of repair may apply for a repair grant, but in practice it will not be provided unless the landlord consents. Many landlords are not prepared to consent because they will not be permitted to increase the rent if they have made no contribution to the cost of the repairs, and because some of them are anxious to make the tenancy as unpleasant as possible in order to obtain possession.
The Belfast law centre has proposed to the Government several changes in the law to make such enforcement more effective. If I were to reherese them today, my speech would be inordinately long, but I hope that the Government at least see the merit of paying people to build or improve houses in preference to paying them to eat their hearts out on the dole.
May I offer a further example of matching jobs to needs? The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten)—admitted in a parliamentary answer on 5 December that the entire class of 41 nurses who were due to complete their training at the Royal Victoria hospital in December would face unemployment, and that of 13 nurses who recently completed their training at Ards hospital, only four have
1244
been offered permanent jobs. That is not because hospitals in Northern Ireland are over-manned, but because there is no money to pay the nurses. The number of people provided with home helps by the Eastern health board fell by 1,231 in 1983–84, not because people have less need for home helps, but because the authority could not provide them out of the money which the Government had made available.
The problems of the Eastern health board are known to Ministers and to all hon. Members. It must provide £1·;2 million for the 1984 pay award; it has been asked to make efficiency savings of £1·4 million; it will need a further £1 million to cope with population changes; and it has a bill for a further £1 million from the north and west Belfast districts. The Government have provided some new money, but it will be completely absorbed by the costs imposed by reason of the new tower block at Belfast city hospital. So there will be growing unemployment among Health Service employees at a time when the sick, measured by the number receiving sickness and invalidity benefits, is 66 per cent. higher than the number in Great Britain, when the incidence of severe disablement is 35 per cent. higher, when the rates of infant mortality, congenital deformity, mental handicap and mental illness are all higher than in Great Britain.
If people were paid to meet those needs instead of being paid to remain unemployed, the Government would be going some way towards dealing with both problems. Until then, there is a vicious circle. Construction workers, nurses and home helps are unemployed while health and housing needs are not met. And because so many people are unemployed, Northern Ireland is an area of deprivation. That, in turn, is reflected in further strain on the health and housing services.
Until employment opportunities are provided in Northern Ireland, it will remain an area where very many people are living on very low incomes. In 1982, the average gross income per head in Northern Ireland was only 70 per cent. of the average for the United Kingdom. It is against that background that the House has to judge the proposals in Class III, particularly items 1 and 2 which the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) mentioned in his speech.
We are indebted to the report of the Assembly on social security parity, to which I should very much like to pay tribute, for some illuminating information on the cost of domestic fuels. Of the four most readily available sources of fuel — coal, oil, gas and electricity — two, coal and oil, cost about the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. But coal is no longer very widely used in Great Britain, partly because it is not an efficient method of heating domestic space. Of coal burned in fires, only 35 per cent. of the heat generated is consumed usefully. So, although coal is a cheap fuel if we calculate it in terms of the therms generated, if, instead, we calculate it in terms of the therms usefully consumed it compares badly with other fuels for domestic heating. Yet in Northern Ireland coal takes 42·4 per cent. of the market in domestic fuels, compared with 10·4 per cent. in Great Britain. So we begin with householders in Northern Ireland largely committed to an inefficient and therefore an expensive method of heating.
The next most widely used fuel is electricity. We have discussed the price of electricity so often that I shall not presume to relate to the House facts of which it is obviously well aware. Suffice it to say that the price of

1245
electricity in Northern Ireland, as the Minister of State reminded us, is equated with the price in the highest priced region in Great Britain. That means 10 per cent. higher than the average price for Great Britain. The consequence was that in 1983, while the average household in Great Britain spent £8·80 per week on fuel, in Northern Ireland the average household spent £13·10—49 per cent. more out of a substantially lower total income. This impinges most heavily on the most vulnerable groups, particularly pensioners. In January, the Belfast Voluntary Welfare Society estimated that one third of Northern Ireland's pensioners live in inadequately heated accommodation and that about 20,000 are at risk from hypothermia.
What proposals have we had from the Government tonight, or any night, to deal with this tragic situation? Their document, "Northern Ireland Energy Issues", published in July 1983, which we have discussed on previous occasions, contains this revealing indication of their view of the Government's role:
"to set a framework which will ensure that the market operates in the energy sector with the minimum of distortion and that energy is produced and consumed efficiently."
That is a classical definition of monetarism — the abdication of the Government and the magic of the market.
I should like to commend to the Minister, if he has not seen it, a publication called "Fuel Poverty in Northern Ireland". It is published by the Northern Ireland Right to Fuel Campaign. It suggests a number of measures which could help. First, it suggests a fuel allowance, payable to members of those groups which are knows to be most vulnerable: those in receipt of retirement pensions, invalidity benefits and the severe disablement allowance. Secondly, it suggests that efforts should be made to bring natural gas as an option to consumers in Northern Ireland. I was a little disappointed with what the Minister said about that tonight.
Following the Government's announcement last year that they were not proposing to proceed with the Kinsale project, the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board and the gas trade union group prepared a report suggesting a less ambitious project. As he will recollect, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman urging him to give it serious consideration, and in the course of a courteous reply he said two things. First, he said that he was not happy about the assessment of the operating costs and the marketing prospects, but he said that he accepted that the working group wished to take independent advice on the proposals. Secondly, he said that he was not prepared to countenance any option which entailed a continuing subsidy towards the price of gas.
Independent advice was taken, taken from Coopers and Lybrand and from Congas Engineering. That report confirms that the scheme could offer gas to the people of Belfast at a price 25 per cent. below the current price. It confirms that over a period of five years the scheme would be self-financing, with a positive return of £159 million. I heard today from the hon. Gentleman that he had not yet officially seen that document. I hope that he will make arrangements to try to see it.
Dr. Boyson: It would help if that report were to be sent to us, but we are still waiting for it. It is very difficult to be attacked for disagreeing with a report when we have not even seen it.
Mr. Archer: Far be it from me to attack the hon. Gentleman in any sense for disagreeing with the report. I
1246
did not say that he disagreed with it. I am grateful to him for pointing out that he has not yet seen the report. I believe that the group intend to base further recommendations upon it before they submit it to the hon. Gentleman. However, when the time comes I hope that he will give very serious consideration to it.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the order provides for closures in the gas industry. If the gas industry has to be closed down, the cost to the Government, in addition to the penalty imposed on consumers in Northern Ireland, will be between £100 million and £120 million. It would swell yet further the ranks of skilled, loyal workers who are eating out their hearts on the dole. So a short-term commitment to the public financing that is necessary far this purpose would bear a double fruit. It would make available to consumers an attractive option at prices that they could afford, and it would ensure employment for the work force.
Thirdly, the Right to Fuel Campaign report suggests that the Government might assist further with the cost of insulating homes and that that should be restructured from the present system. There are two problems about the existing grants. First, since the householder has to find a proportion of the cost, those on the lowest incomes are unable to take full advantage of them. Secondly, it is less cost-effective to insulate the odd house here and there than to cover a whole estate in one project — in fact, about half as cost-effective. It would be a saving in the medium or long term to provide proper insulation for all houses which fail to meet basic standards, irrespective of any means testing of the occupiers.
Finally, a restructuring is proposed of electricity prices to ease the burden of standing charges, especially for those who are dependent upon district heating. Some tenants are paying £11 a week in electricity bills before they consume one unit of electricity.
If the Government were prepared to take some or all of those measures, it is unlikely that we would see many decent families, not lacking in honesty or providence, getting into loads of debt which become unmanageable.
But if we are discussing human misery and despair, there is a further measure which needs to be taken in relation to those who fall into debt. In 1971 there was a rent and rates strike. The occasion and the merits of it are now matters for the historians but the consequences of it are still with us. The Government of the day responded by placing on the statute book the Payment for Debt Act, or, to accord it its full name, which is now without significance, the Payment for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. It is a draconian measure which provides that any Government or public authority which is owed money by an individual may pay it and shall pay it, if the Department of Finance and Personnel so directs, in settlement of any sum appearing to be due—not proved to be due or even shown to be due—to anyone, in respect of sums due for rates, taxes, payment of public services or payment for accommodation.
The authority, or the Department of Finance and Personnel will be the sole arbiter of whether the debt is owed, how much is owing and what the debtor can afford to pay. The only concession to the judicial process is that the debtor may go to the county court after the event. If he can satisfy the court that no debt was owing, the court may order the money to be refunded, apparently without interest. The burden of proof that money was not owed is

1247
on the debtor and if the court finds that the bureaucracy took money that was not owing, it may — not must — order the bureaucracy to pay it back out of the goodness of its heart, or to credit the sum against some future debt. It would be hard to envisage a measure which placed citizens more completely at the mercy of the bureaucracy. It applies without qualification to those who are dependent for their incomes on payment from the Government or public authorities, many of whom are by definition those on low incomes.
Those who are employed by public authorities are subjected to a liability which is not shared by those in private employment. No limit is set on the proportion of the payment which may be appropriated or on the minimum which should be left for the individual to live on. There is no procedure for examining a person's means before a decision is made. The court has power to intervene only if the debt itself is disputed, and then only after the event. The only duty to give notice is that the person concerned must be informed by post that a deduction is to be made.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The House may think that there is some validity in many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. However, many hon. Members will recognise the need for some provision to stop the state paying money to those who owe money to it. If the Act to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is so bad, why did the Labour Government of which he was a member do nothing to remove it from the statute book?
Mr. Archer: That question was not wholly unexpected. The reason for my own inactivity is that I was unaware of the Act at that time. If I spent my time trying to defend every measure which the Government of which I was a member left on the statute book, not very much progress would be made in Northern Ireland. The same could be said by any member of any previous Government. I am not suggesting that Governments should continue unreservedly to pay money week after week, month after month and year after year to those who owe money to them. I am merely suggesting that there might be a more compassionate and fairer approach. For example, some judicial process might intervene at an earlier stage. I hope to carry the hon. Gentleman with me to that extent for I believe that he is a compassionate man.
Reverend Ian Paisley: Surely the blame rests on those politicians who said, "Go on a rent and rates strike and you will never have to pay." That advice was in their literature. It is those politicians who need to be castigated. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) helped to organise the rent and rates strike.
Mr. Archer: It is part of folklore that the English never remember and the Irish never forget. The strike took place a long time ago. I do not seek to join issue with the hon. Gentleman on matters of history. We are in 1985 and some of those who are suffering were children or were not even born when the strike took place. The emergency provisions for the payment of debt distinguish Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. If one lives in Birmingham or Halifax, the Act cannot apply to one. If one lives in Belfast or Derry, one is subject to it.
1248
The dangers are not wholly theoretical. I have been quoted the case of a woman, who is a single parent, being left with £20 a week to keep herself and one child, and that is only one example. The Assembly — again I pay tribute to it — passed a resolution in May 1984 calling for
"a review of the debt legislation in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the Payment of Debt Act".
So far as I am aware, there has been no response from the Government to that invitation. If I am wrong, I shall be happy to be corrected.
My criticism of the order is that it reflects a whole package of policies that offer no comfort to the Northern Ireland people. They are already disadvantaged in comparison with Great Britain because of what happened many years ago. Those policies do not add up to a remedy. Worse, they are the very policies which, during the past six years, have resulted in the present state of industry and employment.
It is true that the order reflects a substantial subvention by the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland, but the subvention is necessary largely because the Northern Ireland people are denied the right to work producing the goods to meet their needs. Of course we shall not divide against the order. It would be silly to register a protest against inadequate provision by voting against any provision at all, but we share in the indignation felt by so many people in Northern Ireland. Unemployment, poverty, deprivation and frustration are not inevitable; they are the consequences of Government policies and political decisions. While direct rule continues, the decisions are made by a Government which was in no sense chosen by the Northern Ireland people. The peoples of both traditions have a common interest in finding a better way of ordering their future.
9.6 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: In speaking to the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, I once again acknowledge the Government's efforts in financing activities in the Province and the dedication of their various Northern Ireland Ministers to their respective portfolios, in spite of the sometimes unreasonable criticisms to which they are subjected from time to time.
The subjects in the order are wide and varied. They reflect the scope of the requirements of the Province, but I am more interested in the matters relating to the city of Belfast, especially to my constituency of Belfast, North, which has suffered considerably as a result of civil unrest causing serious deprivation in many areas.
Class II, Vote 1, section D details current expenditure in relation to the Industrial Development Board. I would be naive or dishonest if I did not appreciate the financial help and advice that the board has given to many industries. I am concerned that the board, in its enthusiasm to help, can be severely criticised for not inquiring sufficiently into some of the applications. There is evidence that vast sums of money have been granted to companies to set up businesses which then competed with similar business already in operation and which were more than able to cater for existing market demand. As a consequence, there have been redundancies and short-time working in these businesses, and sometimes there have been closures.
In my constituency, a long-established chemical works has suffered because of grants given to one of its former

1249
employees. There is another case where an entire door factory has closed, and another factory is now considering a three-day week because of grants given to a company to start up this type of business outside Belfast. Cheap imports from Spain, Portugal and the Irish Republic have decimated the door market in Northern Ireland. When the Government are not seen to be protecting the working population from the effects of these pirates, who are dumping goods on our markets, the activities of the Industrial Development Board, in adding to the problem, are to be condemned. Such incompetence does not produce any new jobs.
I am pleased to note that in Class II, Vote 3 the Government have recognised the value of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries to our Province. The provision of consultancy and advice to those industries must be welcomed. We all know that those two industries are competitive, and the record and dedication of their management and work forces must be admired. They are worthy of our full co-operation. I was somewhat alarmed to see in Vote 5 that the number of shipbuilding redundancies has been larger than anticipated. We must streamline operations to increase competitiveness, but there can be a hidden danger if we lose too many skilled operators through voluntary redundancies.
In Class II, Vote 3, I fully support the energy efficiency and other support services. The loft insulation scheme has been a success in Northern Ireland, and minimising heat loss has contributed to the economy in real terms.
I am sorry that the Local Enterprise Development Unit has not had the response for its services that was expected. That unit has been one of the most successful in creating jobs. The widening of its scope to cater for the service industries is welcome and has given a great uplift to my constituency by helping those who are setting up in the enterprise zones and providing much needed jobs in what was originally a virtual wasteland.
In Class II Vote 6, I am glad to note that recognition has been given to the fact that, because of their insular position, small private companies in Northern Ireland might not have the knowledge and business application to make the best use of their resources. The provision of consultancy grants through the European regional development fund is welcome. It will make such companies more viable in the present economic climate.
Class III deals with subsidies to electricity tariffs. The Secretary of State said when announcing the subsidy:
"This commitment is becoming an increasing strain on resources, and the demands of the electricity subsidy compete directly with other programmes for resources within the Northern Ireland block."
I remind the Minister that the high cost of electricity generated in Northern Ireland is due to many factors of which he is aware and over which we in the Province have no control. As citizens of the United Kingdom subscribing to the Exchequer of our mother country, we are not to be treated as beggars. We are paying far more for fuel of all descriptions than are our fellow citizens in Great Britain. Although electricity is subsidised, it is still more expensive than in most other regions. The Government have the power to introduce cheaper energy. I am glad that they have tried that with lignite, but they should not patronise a population which suffers more than most from its energy consumption.
In Class IV, Vote 1, it is encouraging to note that the Minister has responded to the pleas of many public
1250
representatives about the condition and lighting of some of our roads. Provision is being made for extra expenditure on those necessary works. As the Minister is aware, there have been many complaints about those matters. It is a point that has been recognised by providing in section E for hefty sums of compensation for damage to property or injury to persons arising out of the Department's responsibility as a road authority.
There are several headings under Class V about which one could speak. The housing grant system has been successful in updating and preserving the Province's housing stock. It is reassuring to note that that fact has been recognised by the provision of extra resources to cater for the existing demand. Unfortunately, there are still what many applicants will say are unacceptable delays in the processing of applications. That causes great frustration for all concerned.
In connection with the grants, I am still very concerned about the cowboy element in the building trade. That element is being encouraged by the addition of 15 per cent. VAT on all building alternations. I agree with a recent suggestion by the Building Federation Association that the VAT net should be widened to take in all firms in the construction industry, no matter how small. That would help to stamp out this area of the black economy—the growth of unfair competition by unscrupulous builders who are avoiding registration for VAT.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When a constituent has difficulties in obtaining a grant for what, on the face of it, seems to be perfectly proper work, the reason often is that the person whom he intends to employ has given him bad advice and drawn up plans not calculated to comply with the requirements of the Housing Executive.
Mr. Walker: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It is the cowboys who are not able to cope with the trade who create such situations.
I note that the Housing Executive proposes new controls to govern the employment of subcontractors, to try to ensure higher standards of workmanship. If the new rules were extended to include builders involved in grant work, there would be more protection both for the executive and for the owner who lacks the necessary experience to ensure that the job is completed to a satisfactory standard. Such work should be awarded only to a contractor who has a valid tax exemption certificate and is registered for VAT.
I am still concerned about the lack of progress in many areas of North Belfast of the building and rehabilitation programmes. I do not criticise the Under-Secretary of State, who has always been very helpful in all housing matters. I am concerned about that bureaucratic and monolithic organisation known as the Housing Executive. To my mind—I suspect that many other hon. Members and public representatives would agree with me—that organisation is not fulfilling its function in the community.
Over 75 per cent. of the complaints that I receive from long-suffering constituents relate to the Housing Executive. There are allegations that controllers are not controlling and that managers are not managing. The only office with a record of sympathy and understanding is the one at 71 Royal avenue, Belfast. I wish to pay a personal tribute to the manager and staff of that office, who have

1251
never failed to answer queries and to take up points made by any public representatives. That office's provision of new build and upgrading is the best in north Belfast.
A new formal system for dealing with complaints has now been set up, but to date I have received no evidence that the system is working. A constituent advised me the other day that she had had to wait five weeks to see a housing officer at the Housing Executive office. I am concerned that by introducing such formality we will penalise the elderly and confused who may not understand the formal requirements for lodging a complaint. We need mannerly and co-operative housing assistants who will listen attentively to the problem and process it through the system in a workmanlike manner.
During the Appropriation debate last year I mentioned some plots of land in north Belfast which I believed could be developed for housing. The land is still there, but there seems to be a reluctance to develop it, at least for housing. The situation is especially bad in the Shankill area, where large tracts of land originally vested for housing are still dormant and desolate, especially in the areas RDA 11/33 and RDA 12/13. Public representatives have vociferously condemned the executive for dragging its feet in providing well-designed and good quality homes for Shankill families who are still living in unfit houses which were built at the turn of the century.
I am also worried about allegations that plans are afoot to use housing land to provide hospital facilities and large car parks around Eglington flats in the Crumlin road. That would permanently deprive 50 to 60 Shankill families of a home of their own in their own area. The Belfast housing strategy has greatly increased the number of Shankill dwellings that are due for demolition. So far, the Housing Executive has failed to tell the community where the redevelopment victims will be housed. It is only right to highlight the housing shortage and the imminent crisis in the Shankill area arising from redevelopment proposals.
Will the Minister ensure that Shankill housing land is used to provide homes, and is not used as wasteland for dumping, large car parks or, more ominously, to support schemes for the use of non-residents? Woodvale and Shankill housing association applied for permission to develop a prime piece of land on Agnes street for a small sheltered development. The land is close to all amenities and would be ideal for such a development. On investigation, it was revealed that it has been reserved for environmental works. That revelation only strengthens the belief that there is little Government commitment to provide for the people of the area. I trust that the Minister will investigate the allegations, and I hope that the land will be transferred back to housing. Open spaces and environmental works in that area are havens for hooligans, drinkers and glue sniffers, who practise their nefarious activities and then go forth to terrorise the neighbourhood.
I am pleased to advise the Minister that, after some time, site clearance has at last commenced in RDA87 in the Bray street—Ohio street complex. The district needs a crash programme of housing and rehabilitation to alleviate the terrible deprivation there. The Minister knows that many accusations of religious discrimination have been levelled at the executive for its inaction in that Protestant enclave. That is especially so when brand new houses are being supplied for Roman Catholic neighbours on the other side of the Crumlin road. The efforts of the
1252
Woodvale and Shankill housing association to solve the problems of the area are being thwarted by the minions of Stormont. That adds further to the impression that there is a conspiracy to deprive that section of the population of its basic rights. I hope that the Minister will respond to my plea to meet the officers of that association so that the many and varied complaints can be aired at first hand.
When the Minister announced his housing budget, he said that private developers were to be responsible for building the bulk of Ulster's new homes and that the executive's primary role would be to maintain and improve existing stock. Although I encourage home ownership, I am aware that current levels of unemployment in the Province mean that many families do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of home ownership. They have no option but to register for Housing Executive accommodation or to become tenants in the private rented sector. It is generally recognised that private tenants suffer the worst housing conditions in the Province.
I welcome the setting up of a private tenants association and hope that the Government will assist it to help those who are forced to live in accommodation such as I have mentioned, which often has a poor level of amenities and no proper standards of repair and safety. Enthusiasm to support the private developer and to encourage him to take Housing Executive land is not altogether satisfactory. I am led to believe that the development in Northumberland street is not coming up to expectations, in that there appears to be little interest from the community. However, there is a long list of applications for housing in the public sector at the local executive office. The executive has also handed over land at Manor street for private development. I predict that there will be little interest in that as well.
It would be much better if people could eventually purchase their executive home, which is built to a high standard, by applying the historic cost of the age of the house, as opposed to the date of the letting.
I now turn to Class VI, Vote 2, and mention the grant to community advice groups. While this grant could be beneficial in connection with advising the community on take-up benefits, care will have to be exercised to ensure that such grants cannot be applied and used by minority political parties in their desire to ingratiate themselves with the electorate.
In the same Vote, mention is made of itinerant caravan sites. There have been many problems and difficulties in Belfast in trying to help this section of the population. It must be accepted that itinerant populations have a wandering inclination, and the experiment of providing the settlement in Springfield road was a dismal and costly failure. Full and frank discussion with these people should be the order of the day to ascertain whether anything can be done for them and whether the community in the areas where their camps are to be put will accept them.
I refer now to Class VIII, section B, where provision is made for nursery schools. The decision to integrate nursery schools into neighbouring primary schools is not always the best one, for many reasons. I am particularly concerned about the transfer of Edenderry nursery school to Glenwood primary school, which I feel is a retrograde step. It would have been much more acceptable if the Minister with responsibility for education had at least inspected the school himself before taking his decision, especially as the inspectorate had recommended that the school should be allowed to remain. The Minister has been misinformed regarding the play area to be provided for

1253
these children. The headmaster of Glenwood school cannot give any more space, and the space available does not conform to the established criteria.
Parents and teachers in north Belfast have suffered traumatically through the rationalisation of their schools, and this further step in destroying nursery facilities is causing great dissention in the community, to the detriment of the Government. The Minister will, I am sure, forgive me if I say that this scenario is reminiscent of a "Yes Minister" episode.
Teachers are one of the most supportive influences in the early lives of our children. Now, on top of what they have suffered as a consequence of rationalisation, they are not being recognised in monetary terms. They claim that during the last decade they have fallen about 34 per cent. behind the salary levels of people in similar jobs. There is no doubt in my mind that they have a just case. Salary levels do not reflect the importance of their job or the demands that the community makes on them. Low pay, coupled with falling school rolls, deprives teachers on the bottom pay scale of promotion opportunities. They are very conscious of university contemporaries following careers in commerce or industry who are now earning more and enjoying far better prospects. Is it any wonder that morale is at rock bottom? The Government should show sympathy and understanding to our teachers in what is a legitimate claim. They should recognise that they are being treated unfairly and take steps to redress the imbalance in their salaries.
In winding up my speech, I make reference to Class IX, under health and personal social services. I had the privilege of reading recently a speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who is responsible for health—to an invited audience at Queen's university. It was an excellent and most informative speech about the future of the Health Service. It is the future of the service, especially relating to the activities of the Eastern health and social services board, responsible for Belfast, which concerns me. I am perturbed to hear that that board is to protest to the Minister about a shortage of cash that is forcing it to find £4·6 million to meet its bills for 1985ߝ86. That naturally poses the question: is the board capable of managing its affairs? The suggestion that radical action would be considered, in the form of job cuts, does not auger well for the future of the service. There is talk about 1,000 ancillary jobs being axed before the end of the year, which would involve staff in catering, laundry, portering, domestic and home help services. Such cuts, if implemented, will further erode health care standards and, in my view, result in ward closures. There will also inevitably be longer waiting lists, and patients in desperate need may not receive treatment.
Within the eastern board the restructuring process has been a ghastly error, which has led only to vastly increasing costs in administrative levels, without providing better service. How anyone could hope to cut costs by creating eight extra units of management defeats me. I understand that there is now extreme dissatisfaction because of the creation of so many senior administrative posts, with the whole run of supporting positions under them, which has resulted only in spiralling costs and a top heavy administrative structure which does less work in a contracting service.
With regard to general medical services, I feel that I must protest at the suggestion that the Government are set
1254
to announce a steep increase in prescription charges. It is suggested that it may be as high as 20 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation. Such an increase will coincide with a rise in charges for dental treatment and is likely to result in a tenfold rise in prescription charges since the Government came to power in 1979. There can be no justification for such methods. To capitalise on the sick and ailing in an attempt to bolster a declining Health Service would be deplorable.
In conclusion, I refer again to the Under-Secretary's speech at Queen's university, when he said:
"Investment is also required in services for the mentally handicapped and in particular the provision of more residential homes and adult training centres."
Provision for that has also been included in Class IX. Knowing the Minister of State's concern for the problems of the mentally handicapped, and in particular the great sacrifices made by the parents in their care and support of those unfortunate members of their family, I shall relate to him what I believe is the most blatant act of discrimination and criminal negligence ever perpetrated by the eastern board against that underprivileged section of our community in north Belfast. The Minister is aware that north Belfast contains the greatest proportion of' mentally handicapped people in the Province. The parent groups have been trying vainly to obtain a proper adult training centre for the past 10 years and have been involved in discussions with the board over that period. In the meantime, to my knowledge, two beautifully equipped training centres have been built, one in Newtownabbey and one in south Belfast.
During the period of office of the last Labour Government — and that was not yesterday — Lord Melchett, who was Minister at the time, set aside the sum of £300,000 under the Belfast areas of need programme especially for the provision of an adult training centre for north Belfast. He instructed the board to proceed with the identification of a site, with subsequent building. Perhaps it proceeded, perhaps it did not, but certainly nothing materialised. It must have been a welcome relief when that Government went out of office and the board could again prevaricate and adopt a negative attitude to the project. Eventually, the intervention of the media embarrassed the board and it roused itself sufficiently to acquire a rundown clinic at Mountcollyer which, at minimum cost, was converted into something which the board presented as a sop to the parents. By superhuman efforts they transformed this so-called facility into an acceptable temporary compromise.
After many more years of feet dragging the board identified a building in York lane which was presented to the parents on a "take it or leave it—there is nothing else" basis. Some parents were so demoralised that they were ready to accept anything, but they should not be forced to take such an unsuitable building as the one now proposed. Bearing in mind that most of the people using such a building are severely handicapped and in constant need of help and support, how can anyone justify a decision by board officers to purchase a building which has the following serious shortcomings?
It is three-storey, requiring emergency evacuation procedures which could not possibly be relied upon with this type of usage. It is situated in an area of Belfast with a high traffic density and restricted parking. It is almost impossible to gain access or egress. More road development is scheduled, which will compound the

1255
problem. There are security problems in that high-risk area which has had more than its share of emergencies. There is very little natural light in the building. There is no outside area for physical education programmes. There is also an electricity sub-station in the building, which in the past has been a terrorist target. I appeal to the Minister to treat this matter with the utmost urgency. There are many properties, including ground floor school premises in north Belfast, which would be much more suitable. The parents deserve the same facilities as those supplied with Government finance by other agencies. I fully support them.
9.36 pm
Rev. William McCrea: The people whom I represent have told me that they are sick and tired of hearing about how much Northern Ireland is subsidised by the British Exchequer. We recognise that the public expenditure in Northern Ireland is higher than in other regions of the United Kingdom but we must remember that the position is the same in other parts of the mainland where the less well-off regions receive more in Government expenditure than is gained from the tax revenue from the area.
Attempts to help the less well-off regions through regional policy and the distribution of Government funds have been the mainstay of economic policy in the United Kingdom. Since the second world war, the weaker regions have been helped by the better-off. There should be a redistribution of resources to seek to alleviate regional differences.
The appalling unemployment in the Province and the necessary expenditure on security, as well as the other problems of high infant mortality and appalling housing conditions, can be alleviated only by high levels of public expenditure. We are not asking for special treatment for Northern Ireland. We are simply asking for equal treatment with the rest of the United Kingdom—in other words, the provision throughout of basic British standards for all British citizens.
Some elements of Government policy and the application of Government policy in the Province give grave cause for concern and have caused hardship. Under Class V, in regard to housing, Northern Ireland has been treated very generously. The amount of public expenditure on housing has been welcomed by all elected representatives. However, I am not convinced that those funds are being used in the most efficient manner. My party has always been critical of the way in which the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has used the funds which have been made available to it.
This year, despite the fact that we have a waiting list of more than 22,000 people in the Province and that a large proportion of the houses have been declared unfit, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive could not manage to spend all the money allocated to it. It has already handed over at least £11·3 million of this year's budget. By the time April comes, that £11·3 million may be nearer £15 million. That is equivalent to nearly 600 new houses. I can assure hon. Members that such houses are in great demand in some areas of the Province, and especially in Belfast. Indeed, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker).
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that those houses are most needed in east Belfast, which has the highest waiting list in the whole of the Province?
Rev. William McCrea: I am happy to have that information from my hon. Friend, and I trust that this debate will draw the problem to the Housing Executive's attention. I believe that the excuses made by the Housing Executive do not stand up to close scrutiny. With better managing of its resources, the money could have been used on schemes which have been delayed time and time again.
It is ironic that in a year in which the Housing Executive could not spend all the money allocated to it, it had to declare that enveloping schemes which had been planned for the beginning of the next financial year would have to be shelved because of financial difficulties. There should be an administrative shake-up in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Indeed, I should prefer the Housing Executive to be removed and completely abolished, and its affairs returned to the local representatives in our Province.
In order to deal with situations such as those that have developed this year, the Housing Executive should be instructed to hold a number of schemes which could be immediately activated if and when it became apparent that there would be an underspend of the funds allocated by the Government in a particular year. The present system seems to be that, when an underspend is discovered, there is a panic trying to identify ways in which the money could be spent. As significant sums are involved, that simply is not practical. Given the Province's terrible housing problems, that is not an efficient way to deal with the resources allocated for housing. Inevitably, it will lead only to great disappointment, anger and frustration among those who have been kept waiting for many years for a house.
Mrs. Anna McCurley: Is my hon. Friend talking about whether it would be equitable for the Housing Executive to be disbanded, or is it just a question of wanting more political influence over it?
Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I served as a member of the board, and was the first member of my party to serve on it. But I believe that the Housing Executive is too large and unwieldy. It is too distant from the general public, and so cannot necessarily give it what it needs. Therefore, I believe that its affairs should be returned more to the local authorities. I do not hear anyone on this side of the water suggesting that all the powers should be taken from local authorities and given to some massive and unwieldy housing executive for England, Scotland or Wales. However, it would be interesting if that suggestion was made.
A formal review should be conducted into the housing programme to ensure that the correct levels of resources are devoted to the building of houses, and that valuable resources are released for high priority areas at the earliest opportunity for whatever housing area most needs them.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the highest priority must be given to provision for the elderly, for those with ills and for others who need ground floor accommodation with adequate

1257
central heating? If priority were given to that sector of housing in Northern Ireland, many two and three-bedroomed houses would become available for younger families.
Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I accept that this section of the community need a large proportion of public housing, yet they do not have adequate provision for their needs. Indeed, real increases should have been made to the maintenance expenditure of the Housing Executive. In my constituency, work is needed at Watson Park and Camowen Bungalows, in Omagh, and other schemes which need urgent attention include Knockloughrim, Carson Villas, Tamlaght O'Crilly and Upperlands. I hope that the Minister will give careful thought to those places, and he might care to write to me about them.
Like me, other hon. Members will have been approached by constituents about problems concerned with response maintenance. I wish that the Housing Executive would be more caring and sympathetic about the maintenance issue. Time and again constituents complain that whenever they approach the Housing Executive, they are told, in effect, "You are at the bottom of the list. The repairs will he done some time."
However, some people in the Province seem to be knocking on the door of the Housing Executive every other day and getting the work done. That group of people seem to be able to wreck their houses and have the Housing Executive van at their homes practically all the time. Against that, a good, honest, honourable citizen who has a problem with his home and has urgent need of response maintence is told that his problem is not urgent.
Time and again I have found that the good tenant seems to be overlooked, while the irresponsible one gets the attention of the staff of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I hope that that situation will change and that people will be encouraged to be good and honourable tenants.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North spoke of cowboy firms who are doing housing repairs. Many of the cowboys are doing what is known as "the double", and their standard of workmanship is deplorable. I have brought to the attention of the Housing Executive the workmanship at Coagh and Stewartstown in County Tyrone. I hope that something will be done to improve the general standard of workmanship and that clerks of work will be employed to watch over the work.
Putting in tenders are firms which employ people who are not tradesmen but who just collect their pay and leave work half done. Too often, such workmen leave behind a mess for others to clear up.
The increasing numbers of elderly and others with special needs make it vital that the voluntary housing effort is maintained and, if possible, enhanced. That sector of housing provides a commendable and worthy contribution to alleviating suffering among a valued section of the Ulster community, and we should pay tribute to the housing associations.
Will the Minister provide an up-to-date report on Orlit homes and aluminium bungalows, both of which are causing tenants grave concern?
Under Class IV, another sector of public expenditure needing an injection of money is capital construction and the improvement of roads and bridges and the maintenance of the road network throughout the Province. The
1258
Northern Ireland Economic Council estimates that money spent on capital works and maintenance has declined in real terms by one third since 1973–74. Anyone can see that if anything needs an injection of finance in Northern Ireland it is road maintenance. That money is needed to protect the capital already invested in our road system and to alleviate all other problems.
The money available to maintain 14,683 miles of road is not extravagant compared with expenditure in Great Britain. Steps should be taken to carry out proper repairs to our roads instead of resorting to inadequate patching.
The Under-Secretary of State recently made a vist to Northern Ireland and he is well aware of the need for urgent provision of the Castledawson bypass, the Magherafelt-to-Moneymore road and the Magherafelt bypass—to name but a few. Several of those roads have been on the list for many years and promises have been made to provide money for them.
One of Northern Ireland's problems is education. The inspectorate's report shows that the present curriculum is being restricted by shortages due to expenditure cuts. Paragraph 38 of the report, published over a year ago, states:
"The curriculum for 11–19 year olds is being restricted to some extent by the curtailment of outside activities, by shortages of equipment and the materials for practical subjects."
Of the building programme necessary to upgrade secondary schools, the report states:
"There is a need to make provision which will enable schools to implement the balanced and broad curriculum through the addition of special spaces for science, craft, design, technology or physical education."
If there are shortages of material, equipment, teachers and buildings for the present curriculum, how do the Government envisage broadening the curriculum through the introduction of new subjects, new teaching methods and new methods of study?
I trust that the programme will not become another cynical exercise in diverting attention from the real plight of education in the Province, but that resources will be allocated to improve the quality of education.
Many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I have prepared comments on many other subjects, but I shall mention only two further simple matters. I come from Mid-Ulster, the area with the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom—indeed, the highest unemployment in Europe. I plead with the Government to introduce more attractive incentive packages for prospective investors. In the face of such overwhelming unemployment, the bodies entrusted with providing jobs have a gigantic task which I do not under-estimate. However, I am convinced that, with the Mid-Ulster work force—one of the best in the United Kingdom — and the dynamic sales initiatives, we can be brought from the depths.
I will not under-estimate the figures given to us, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) did. I am delighted that the increase in unemployment has dropped. In February 1983–84 the figure was 7,800 and in February 1984–85 it was 420. I trust that we shall see a dramatic turn in the figures and that the people of Ulster will be allowed to do a simple job, and work and provide for the Province as they have done in the past. I spoke to the Minister privately today and asked him to visit my constituency to see some of the problems at first hand. He readily accepted that invitation. I welcome that and trust that the visit will take place soon.

1259
The problems facing our elderly, our unemployed, those who are urgently needing home helps — all of them among my constituents—should be a burden on both my heart and that of the Government. I earnestly
1260
appeal to the Government to listen carefully to the representations from the elected representatives of the people so that we may dispel the problems and bring a bright and happier future to the whole of this part of the United Kingdom.
9.56 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: In his speech the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) spoke of not going back over history. The tragedy is that in a House and from a profession steeped in history, Government and Opposition indubitably have failed to learn the lesson of history and to listen to the voices of Ulster Members. We have already seen evidence of that tonight.
I draw to the attention of the House the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on 11 June, which is published in the Official Report, Vol. 61. He pointed out our traditional antipathy to this method of dealing with Northern Ireland business. Even tonight there have been suggestions that Northern Ireland is served more beneficially than other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not doubt that we have benefited in some areas, but if the appropriation order for the rest of the kingdom were dealt with on this basis, we would all see how other areas of the United Kingdom were dealt with specifically. We discovered in the publication of a breakdown into regions that Northern Ireland normally comes about fifth in the areas of benefit rather than first. Therefore, I advise the House that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the order on the principle that we should be treated in the same context as the rest of the kingdom.
I take up the point of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and ask the Minister to spell out the figures. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West may have missed the good news at that point, when he said that that was the only good news that the Minister had. I believe that I am right in saying that about 7,000 people come on to the employment register each year, so even to mark time we must create that number of new jobs each year. I hope that the Minister will re-examine those figures, because the important point was made that, although none of us can be satisfied with unemployment in Northern Ireland, constructive steps have been taken from which we should derive encouragement.
When the Minister deals with energy, will he say whether the Government have decided to allow those who have been using town gas for cooking — it looks as though the onward march of events means that comparatively soon there will be no more town gas—and who wish to convert to liquid gas to have the same rights as others who will convert to other forms of fuel? I fear that the Government may be tempted not to do so. Since they are the Government of choice, they should give those older people the opportunity to have cheaper fuel and not to have to rely on electricity.
While I am on the subject of fuel, will the Government give a little more publicity to the fact that the coal advisory service, which to the uninitiated seems to be a benevolent society to guide people on how to get the best from coal, may in fact be a cover for the coal importers and is more concerned with arguing their case? We have already seen press releases defending the fact that there will be no reduction in coal prices, although the miners' strike is over, because we have been trading in dollars and there has been advance trading. It appears that the service is already preparing an argument to force the people of Northern Ireland to continue to pay a high price for coal.
1262
Can the Minister confirm the figures given by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West for the employment of graduates in engineering from Queen's university? I may be more sceptical than others, but I do not normally take as hard facts the figures that appear in the press. There can be printers' errors and sometimes reporters get the wrong end of the stick. Only last week, I had the privilege of travelling in an aeroplane with a senior professor in this area at Queen's university, who said that graduates from the electrical and engineering faculties were being snapped up not only by overseas companies but in Northern Ireland. I understand that about 27 graduates annually from Queen's are automatically taken on the payroll of Shorts, which is moving forward with new technology.
As we are trying to improve employment in Northern Ireland, is enough being done to co-ordinate the Industrial Development Board's initiatives and finance with the research work carried out at Queen's university and other establishments in Northern Ireland so that the creative engineering skills latent in Northern Ireland can be harnessed to new industries? At present, many research projects are financed by overseas industrialists from Japan and America, and the outcome of the research is going across the oceans. We live in a global village, and we are happy to share our knowledge with others, but I believe that we should try to do more to create job opportunities of that kind in Northern Ireland.
I turn to a few points which arise directly out of the order. Class IV deals with street lighting. I do not think that we have been fully satisfied with the maintenance of street lighting, especially in Belfast, since the changeover from the Northern Ireland electricity service to the Department of the Environment. Are the supervisors looking after street lighting properly? Where there is community unrest, I believe that it is unwise for street lights not to be functioning for long periods. I question whether the money that is provided for this purpose is being spent wisely and properly. I notice that there has been a decrease in the amount of money set aside for new installations and improvements.
Will the Dunmurry bypass be completed this year? In particular, when will the stretch to bypass Areema be started and completed? Three years ago, I was assured by a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office that this stretch of the bypass was to be started that year. To my knowledge, work upon it has not yet begun. It is important that it should be started, and completed at the earliest possible opportunity.
I welcome the fact that money is to be provided for the development of Belfast international airport. However, is the Department satisfied that the money is being spent in the best possible way? I declare an interest. It seems to me that the marketing director of the airport has a strange way of attracting business to Aldergrove. He criticises in the media those who are trying to build up the traffic between Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. The firm concerned has managed to get "slots" into Gatwick and it is servicing Belfast. To do this and meet security requirements at Gatwick involves two landings. The marketing director criticised the company for the efforts that it has made to improve business.
In that context, is it wise for the Department to continue to subsidise a very fine bus which rarely carries more than two passengers? Would it not have been wiser a long time ago to provide a minibus rather than a large bus? I am sure

1263
that it impresses those passengers who are brought into the centre of Belfast, but if insufficient people use it, it is foolish to use such a large bus. It is a shameful waste of money to spend £100,000 a year on this service.
Turning to Class IX, may I say a few words about the provision of new buildings, the financing of the staff council and the overall development of the health service? Can the Minister assure the House that money to cover growing administrative costs is not hidden within these figures at a time when we are being asked to cut back on the provision of health and social services?
I know that there is great concern within the nursing profession. This may have arisen because at an earlier date the nurses opted out of their traditional role of managing the ward and the hospital. We now have administrators. Perhaps the time has come to examine again the growth in administrative costs and to urge that more facilities be provided for patients instead of allowing administrative costs to continue to rise.
I ask the Minister to supply us with a list of voluntary bodies and the grants that are made available to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) has expressed some misgivings on this score. I know, too, that the Community Advice Bureau has been asking questions. In and earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) expressed similar misgivings. Unfortunately, we have not yet had a proper response. I should like to know whether Action MS is included in the voluntary bodies and whether its grant has been upgraded to meet the tremendous work that it is doing. I should like to know also whether Lifecare has been admitted at last to the grant system to asssist it in the work of caring for those who need help.
In dealing with expenditure decreases, I ask the Minister to explain why there has been a decrease in the number of student radiographers. There is concern about unemployment and I understand that there is still a need for radiographers. Is the problem linked with that of providing a college or school of radiography in Belfast? Is this a recurring problem? Would it not be better for funds to be spent on training? There has been tremendous development at Shorts recently and I understand that it has had to advertise abroad for avionics engineers because of a failure to train local young people. The company has had to look to Great Britain to find trained personnel. Could it be that while we are providing money for unemployment benefit, we are not providing enough to enable local people to be trained to take up job opportunities as they arise?
Is the Minister satisfied no over-age workers are still being employed in social services when they could be drawing the retirement pension? I know of one case where more efficient work could be done in the office concerned, for the good of the community.
I ask again for the Secretary of State to tell us what relationship exists between the provision of bursaries for the training of radiographers and social workers and the staffing targets that are set by the various Northern Ireland health boards. I have been probing along that line. I am concerned that we are not providing sufficient staff to deal with the community's needs.
Is the Under-Secretary of State prepared to lend support to a call for an early debate on the recent report by the Select Committee on Social Services on care in the
1264
community? We should remember the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North about the lack of provision for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. Those Select Committee members who visited Northern Ireland were impressed by what was happening, but they recognised the need for more community provision. The figures in the order do not encourage me to think that adequate provision has been made.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might help the House if I say that the first of the Front Bench speakers hopes to catch my eye at 10.50 pm.
10.15 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: It comes as a surprise to hear that the Front Bench replies are to begin so early. Many of us have other things to say. I should have thought that the replies would begin at 11 pm and take half an hour. That would give hon. Members an opportunity to participate. I am glad that there is agreement between the Opposition and the Government. I shall be as brief as I can. I do not wish to go over the ground that has already been covered.
I agree with much of what has been said, but disagree with some of the points of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I shall vote for the Appropriation. I am amused to find that the hon. Gentleman will vote against his own Assembly salary. That is his business, and on his head be it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Declare an interest.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall say something at another place at another time.
I am grateful for every penny that comes to Northern Ireland. I do not accept that the money comes because we have a begging bowl. We have a right, as part of the United Kingdom, to a fair share of the cake, and we are entitled to the moneys that we receive. We in Northern Ireland are at the same level, pay the same type of income tax and carry the same responsibilities as any other citizens of the United Kingdom.
The emphasis in the debate has rightly been an unemployment, especially the dark shadow of unemployment in the Province. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that I shall confine my remarks to agriculture. We have talked about creating jobs, and teat is very important. To some extent I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South, but I believe that the figures give us some encouragement. There seems to be at least a halt to the disastrous unemployment trend. I trust that it is a real halt, but we shall have to wait and see. It would be churlish if we did not emphasise that matter.
I am anxious that we should retain the jobs that we already have. There is a great danger in not preserving what we have. There is a slogan in Ulster, "What we have, we have" and I believe that we need to hold on to the jobs that we have, especially in agriculture, which is the largest employer in Northern Ireland.
The Under-Secretary of State should know that there are certain problems in Northern Ireland, some of which we are meeting face on and some of which—if the EEC has its pernicious way with us—we shall have to face in the future.
I wish to mention three matters briefly. First, Northern Ireland dairy farmers feel—I believe rightly—that they

1265
should have received the 65,000 tonnes of additional quota allocated under the milk regime by the EEC. We are coming to a new year, and the Commissioner has made it clear that he will be making a similar proposal. Can the Minister give us an assurance tonight that if the United Kingdom gets an extra 65,000 tonnes of quota he will see that it comes to us in Northern Ireland? That was its purpose.
I should like to point out to the Minister an interesting figure that has been released by the Milk Marketing Board. If we were put on a par with the Irish Republic, we would receive 190,000 tonnes. We have not been allocated much, but we should receive what we are entitled to. What will the Minister do about the matter? Will he allow the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to rob us of what is rightfully ours? Of the tribunal awards for development claims, 45 per cent. are likely to be met. Scotland will receive 57·5 per cent. and England and Wales 65 per cent. of their respective claims. That is another problem that faces the Northern Ireland dairy industry.
With regard to the outgoers scheme, exceptional hardship cases in Great Britain will be met in full, but in Northern Ireland the quota so far surrendered under the outgoers scheme is only 1 per cent., whereas the Government expected that it would be 5 per cent. That is yet another difficulty for the Northern Ireland dairy industry. What will the Minister do about those problems, because as they increase jobs are being lost?
Secondly, I want to deal with the beef industry. As the Minister is aware, the Commission has proposed to the Council of Ministers that the beef variable premium scheme should he done away with. That would mean that we would have one support scheme only—intervention. We do not produce beef to store—we produce it for the consumer. That proposal is looming ahead of us. It would be disastrous to do away with the variable beef premium scheme.
The United Kingdom will be expected to rely solely upon the intervention scheme. There are already 680,000 tonnes of meat in store in the Community. The full effects of the introduction of the milk quota have not yet worked through the system. A significant level of cow culling may be expected in 1985–86. The market will be further depressed by the release of meat presently in store. There is no proposal for any planned initiative to stimulate market demand or to dispose of the stocks already in store. We shall therefore have a further problem.
To compensate for the loss of the variable beef premium, it is estimated that about 40,000 tonnes of beef in Northern Ireland would have to be bought under the intervention scheme. At best, Northern Ireland has only 20,000 tonnes of storage space available. Such space will not be available for 1985–86 because of the beef already in store and because of the anticipated high level of cow culling. It will prove impossible both to take sufficient volume of beef off the market during the normal intervention period and to find sufficient storage capacity if the variable beef premium is abolished, and there will be a problem even if it is retained, because the stores are already choc-a-bloc full.
How will the Development Board and the Department of Economic Development handle the proposition, already laid before them, for the building of a large blast-freezing store in Northern Ireland to provide sufficient storage in Northern Ireland to cope with the meat? Last year, when
1266
there was a change in the beef variable scheme, intervention buying increased dramatically. That was evidenced by the fact that the United Kingdom accounted for 75 per cent. of increased Community-wide purchasing, and Northern Ireland accounted for some 80 per cent. of total intervention purchases in the United Kingdom. In addition, 12,700 tonnes of beef were accepted into private storage in Northern Ireland, out of a Community total of 275,000 tonnes. Even if we retain the scheme, we shall be in grave difficulty. If it is abolished, there will be a spin-off affecting the meat processing plants and so on, and we shall be in great difficulty in retaining employment.
I ask the Minister to put it on record tonight that the Northern Ireland Office will fight tooth and nail to retain the premium scheme. I hope that he will not come back to the House with a diluted scheme and tell us that Ministers could not get all that they wanted but that they have got a little. It is vital that we should know and that it should be spelt out here tonight, where the Northern Ireland Ministers stand on this issue. It is not enough to say that Ministers will fight for us. We want to know that they are totally committed to the scheme. To lose it would be a disaster. Even if we do not lose it, we shall face many serious problems.
I ask the Minister to give us some assurance on those points. There seems to be an effort by Europe to change the traditions of the United Kingdom. The beef industry is largely concerned with heifer beef. As the Minister will know, heifer beef does not go into intervention. It is the steers that go into intervention. He will also be aware that the premium is paid on the whole carcase, but that it is only certain quarters—and at certain times of the year only parts of those quarters—that go into intervention. I ask the Minister for a full commitment on that issue.
This is a debate in which one can wander from Dan to Beersheba. I want, thirdly to wander to Kilkeel for a moment. What is the Minister doing about the proposal for a new dredger for the Kilkeel fishermen? The Select Committee on Agriculture was informed on Tuesday that an application was made in February 1984 with regard to that dredger. The Agriculture Department approved it, and it is now with the Finance Department. The Fishery Harbour Authority says that if it is not approved by 1 April it will be curtains for the Kilkeel fishermen. What is happening to the proposal? Can the Minister announce that he will do something about it? I am glad that the authority has put the order out to tender in the hope that there will be a favourable answer from the Department. I am also glad that Harland and Wolff is interested in the tender, and that if its bid is no more than 5 per cent. higher than a non-United Kingdom producer it can win the contract. The benefits would therefore be felt by more than the Kilkeel fishermen.
As a constituency Member, I know that there is only one large island with a population off Northern Ireland — Rathlin. At the turn of the century, 1,000 people lived there, and there are now fewer than 100. They have serious difficulties. I know that the various Departments are doing something for them. Perhaps we can have a progress report on the schemes, which I do not want to go into for reasons of time, so that we might know how they are going. I have already spoken to the Minister about an educational problem. I hope to be able to speak to my constituent about it. I trust that it will be resolved satisfactorily.

1267
I have spoken of some of the issues on my mind and on my constituents' minds, and I trust that we shall have some profitable answers.
10.32 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: This is a wide-ranging order. As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall leave out the padding and get to the nub of what I want to say. I might sound a little disjointed, but I will have to risk that.
Parts of my constituency have problems when designated and undesignated waterways flood and damage houses. When we make inquiries about compensation, we are told that we must prove that there has been negligence on the part of the Department. In one part of my constituency, road drains, which belong to the Department of the Environment, run into a watercourse. Great flooding has been caused by water coming off the road and drainage work done on farmland. They drained farmland and put the water into the watercourse, which promptly flooded. When my constituents tried to get compensation, they were told that it was an undesignated watercourse and there was no way that they could be given any.
In one part, Housing Executive houses were flooded from a watercourse. People were told that they would have to prove that it flooded because of negligence by the Department. One of the families concerned was on supplementary benefit, with no household insurance. The Housing Executive had no insurance which covered this, and the department refused to pay any compensation.
I would ask the Minister how one is expected to do something for one's constituents in that sort of instance. The whole question of designated and undesignated watercourses should be looked at.
Street lights have been mentioned, and they are a favourite topic of certain people in Northern Ireland. I will not go into this because it would take too long, but in one instance I was used as a shuttlecock between the Department of the Environment and the electricity service, and it took me five days to get a rapair done. I never discovered whose fault it was that the repair was not done more quickly —I was only too pleased to get it done eventually.
Mr. Beggs: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that when a Member takes up any problem for a constituent with any Government Department it should be resolved by the Department concerned, not handed back to the Member so that he has to shuttle round the Departments to find which is responsible. It is about time that Departments knew where responsibility lies in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Forsythe: I agree, of course, but, since I have been in business in the past and have been used to lifting telephones to resolve problems, perhaps part of that difficulty was caused by me.
Everyone is getting very excited, quite rightly, about the lignite that we have in Northern Ireland. Part of that lignite is in my constituency an there are people living in the Crumlin area who are uneasy about some of the developments in connection with this and the envisaged new power station. I have not had the greatest response from the private firm which is looking after the operation, and I am very disappointed about this.
Dr. Boyson: The operation of the mining is under a contract laid down by the Department and the firm has to comply with that. If there are problems concerning the mining, these should be taken up, so that the conditions laid down for mining there or elsewhere in the Province do not put people at risk. The firm will be taking out the lignite within the terms which have been stipulated by the Department, which, as far as I am concerned, has heard nothing whatsoever about this.
Mr. Forsythe: I told the Minister on one occasion that I wanted to speak to him about the lignite operation, and he said that I could certainly do so. I was endeavouring to look after the interests of my constituents and deal with the matter between them and the firm. I will not go into the matter now, but will explain to the Minister what I mean.
When all this comes to fruition and we are looking to use the lignite in our area, I will do my best to see that my constituents are not disadvantaged in any way, although we welcome this operation.
Will the Minister explain why there is a decrease in current expenditure on public transport and other services? I notice that money is allowed for airport services. While on occasions the bus may not be used to go to the airport, Aldergrove airport is one of the most up-to-date and finest airports in the whole of the United Kingdom, with tremendous facilities. It would be unfortunate if, in criticising the bus service, the impression was given that the airport itself was being criticised. I am sure that that was not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
One could speak for hours about Class V, which I promise not to do. Heating is put into old people's dwellings, but I remind the Minister that old people also live in ordinary dwellings. We have the unfortunate situation where old people living in old people's dwellings have heating put in, but next door to them, someone who is just as old does not get heating put in because the house is not an old people's dwelling. The Minister should consider that.
District heating has also been mentioned. The difficulty with that system is that people who have radiators are not using them but are being charged pounds every week. They get into arrears, not because they are doing anything to get into arrears, but because of the fixed price charged by the Housing Executive. If they try to move out of their home, and get a transfer, because of the arrears that they have built up by not using the heating, they cannot move. That is a tragedy for people, and one should look at it.
In one case I know, the heating system broke down. The old people were told that the system would have to be replaced. However, that was not done. They were told that they would have to wait until a scheme was devised to cover all the houses that were the same as theirs, then the heating system would be put in their home and all the others—regardless of the fact they they had no heating and that they were bringing in Super-Sers and electric heaters that were costing them a fortune to run because they were not designed for the job.
One has criticised the Housing Executive. At times it does a good job. It builds homes, although perhaps not the right ones on occasions. We should not give the impression that we are continually criticising it for the fun of the thing. But these are human beings, who are living in what is supposed to be a home. They should be treated properly by the body that has been put there by statute to

1269
look after them, consisting of people who are sitting in a comfortably heated office all day and who on occasions will not answer the phone. Constituents' Members of Parliament have to phone up to get an answer. This is a democratic and understanding House. Even civil servants have a little sympathy, although at times it appears as if they do not.
It is not a laughing matter, or a funny matter for someone who is in a disadvantaged position in life, and who finds it difficult to live, never mind heat his home, or get food to live on. For whatever reason, if such people are put at a disadvantage by a statutory body that is supposed to be there to assist them, that is a disgrace not only to the body concerned but to those who are answerable in the House. The Minister is here to answer. When we ask questions we are told by the Minister that it is a matter for the Housing Executive. When public representatives ask the Minister to do something for those who are disadvantaged he should take notice of them. If we had much more time we could raise many more problems for Ministers to deal with.
10.46 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) referred to the heating of old people's houses. I do not know whether he was aware of it, but there was a mass lobby from the National Pensioners Convention at the House today. One of the requests placed before Members of Parliament was for a higher heating allowance so that they might have some relief from the cold winter. Many senior citizens in my constituency spend between one quarter and one third of their weekly income on trying to keep themselves warm. They pray to survive the winter so that in the summer they may save money for clothes. The Minister should show compassion for the senior citizens who have done so much to pave the way for the youth of today. I trust they will not be forgotten in their later years.
Another way in which the Government could help senior citizens is to allow them to travel free on buses. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Antrim, South about empty buses driving up and down from the airport. The same thing happens in the city centre, yet I know senior citizens who have to walk to their destination with the aid of a walking stick because they cannot pay the concessionary rate on the buses. I do not often refer to what happens in London as an example, but the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment would do well to emulate its system of free transport for the elderly.
The pensioners today raised other matters, including a realistic pension allowance. As that concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall not go into it now. The Government should deal sympathetically with the petition which was lodged with Members of Parliament by the senior citizens who came to the House today.
I have had consultations on education with the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), to whose constituency I am about to refer. He gave me some papers so that I might speak on his behalf, because he is ill and unable to be here. The matter refers to the second largest housing estate in Northern Ireland, the Ballybeen housing estate at Dundonald. The hon. Member for North Down and I have a common interest in the area, as it forms part of my Assembly constituency. Indeed, I formerly represented it when I came to the House in 1979. The
1270
estate has two schools within it. One of them is Ballyoran primary school. Many of us were amazed when the South Eastern Education Library Board proposed to close that school. We could see no logical reason for closing it. We recognised that more children attended that school than attended many other schools which the board was happy to keep open.
We also recognised that that school's educational standards were much higher than those of other schools in the board's area. We knew that there would only be a minimal saving, in that the board had already suggested that the school should be used for some other purpose, such as for nursery education or for youth provision. It now appears that the saving amounts to £25,000. For £25,000, the board has decided to close that school
I must charge the South Eastern Educational Library Board with being guilty of an act of blatant discrimination and of bias of a most sectarian nature against the predominantly Protestant area of Ballybeen. I have documents in my possession, and in my hand, which clearly show that the school is being closed for one purpose and one purpose alone—to obtain £25,000, so that the board can fund another primary school, which happens to be St. Kieran's primary school in Poleglass. That relatively new housing estate on the fringes of West Belfast — which is small compared with that of Ballybeen—is to be given the money to have a primary school. Those who are to be punished are the Protestants of the East Belfast and North Down area.
As if that was not bad enough, it was appalling to discover that, although the board has for years recognised that there is a need for nursery and youth provision in the area, it has given additional money, not to Ballybeen for that provision, but to St. Kieran's for nursery provision in the Poleglass area. Thus, a primary school will be taken away from Ballybeen, and instead of giving the nursery provision to Ballybeen in its place, it is being given to St. Kieran's.
I know that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for the board's day-to-day affairs, but he has overall responsibility for its actions. Under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which forbids such religious and political discrimination against my constituents and those of the hon. Member for North Down, I hope that the Minister will look into the board's activities and ensure that it makes provision for the need which it has already recognised, instead of making provision for the Roman Catholics, Republicans and IRA supporters of the Poleglass area.
10.53 pm
Mr. James Nicholson: I was prepared to condense a half-hour speech into one of 15 minutes, but now I find that I shall have to condense it even more. I shall do my best. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), I may have to make a somewhat disjointed speech, but I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
I turn first to the employment, or lack of employment, in my constituency. Once again I must castigate the Industrial Development Board, and to a lesser extent the Local Enterprise Development Unit, for the total failure to bring any employment to my constituency or to provide any jobs. They have shown a lack of interest in the area, and have been unable to provide anything. The IDB has

1271
been a dead loss, and although LEDU has been somewhat of an improvement on that, that does not say an awful lot for it.
I am concerned about employment in the area. I am only too well aware, however, that the events of last Thursday night in Newry cannot enhance the area's reputation and might deter employers from setting up in it. The Government and others will have to cope with that in due course.
I shall have to dispense with much of what I had intended to say about the roads in my constituency. I regret that the Under-Secretary of State is not here tonight, because I was looking forward to crossing swords with him regarding the Damolly customs post. Or perhaps he was aware of that, and that is why he is not here.
The hon. Gentleman was led up the garden path. He came to Newry one afternoon in a blaze of glory and went on television to tell the whole of Northern Ireland that he had solved the problem of the customs station in Newry. He was led up the garden path by the SDLP-controlled council on his visit to Newry. The people of Damolly were left high and dry and the vast majority of the elected representatives in the area do not agree with the Under-Secretary's decision.
He capitulated, first to the SDLP and secondly to the Provisional Sinn Fein, the latter of which challenged him not to put the customs post where it should have been put, which was on the border. I feel strongly about this issue, especially for the people of the Damolly area. It is a mixed community and every member of it is up in arms about the decision over the customs station and the fact that the new link road is to go through the area. I look forward to crossing swords with the Minister on the issue on another occasion.
Time does not permit me to raise various matters concerning the Housing Executive. I will confine myself to appealing for more old people's dwellings in the Armagh area. They need accommodation much nearer to the city centre than where the Housing Executive is currently building houses, which is almost one and a half miles outside the town; and the elderly do not have a bus service to get into the centre.
Housing Executive grant officers are seeing people throughout the Province, but they are interpreting the rules differently in almost every area. One will tell people that they do not qualify for renovation grant while a second officer will tell people living nearby with similar problems that they do qualify for grant. Alternatively, an officer will tell somebody that grant is payable, and another officer will appear on the scene later to say that grant is not applicable. Indeed, people have to put up a hard fight to obtain grant. If we are to have grant officers, they should interpret the rules correctly and Members of Parliament should not have to be called in almost daily to resolve difficulties.
Hon. Members will be aware that I frequently speak about agriculture. I will restrict my remarks, because of the time, to saying that I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the milk quota. With regard to the beef variable premium, not enough is being done for that sector and the Government have not lived up to what was expected of them in trying to obtain cheaper grain for that sector of agriculture in Northern Ireland.
1272
I urge the Government not to ignore the importance of animal health in Northern Ireland. Strict control is needed.
There are 70 miles between Newry and the entry post at Belcoo. Cattle are in danger because of that distance. I know of one man who sat for 10 hours in a queue at Belcoo at the beginning of this week with cattle on his wagon. He had travelled for hours before that. If that is not to the detriment of the animals I do not know what is. Something is wrong. It is disgraceful.
11.1 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am pleased to be able to reply on behalf of the Opposition. I shall not be able to comment on all the speeches. The Minister will be able to do that better than I can. I shall not be able to emulate the blaze of glory in which the Minister visited the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson).
The Minister talked about the economy of Northern Ireland and about unemployment and employment. He rightly took credit for the fact that public expenditure for Northern Ireland would be £30 million higher than the level planned. It is not that he has got blood out of a stone: he did better than that. He extracted money out of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Minister declared that this was further evidence of the Government's determination to tackle the economic and social problems in Northern Ireland at a time when public expenditure elsewhere in the United Kingdom is being held.
The Minister rightly said that, whereas between February 1983 and February 1984 the increase in unemployment was 7,800, between February 1984 and February 1985 the increase in unemployment was 420. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, that means that an extra 420 able-bodied people are looking for work.
The Minister spoke with compassion about the unemployed. I accept that compassion. I accept his view that no one wishes to see the scourge of unemployment in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. The Minister is a compassionate man. He also made my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West an offer which he almost could not refuse. He offered harmony and bipartisanship, but my right hon. and learned Friend was not in as harmonious a mood as that.
Industrial production in Northern Ireland has increased by 3 per cent., and manufacturing output is up by 4 per cent. A further sign of recovery is the increase in employment of 4,170 in the third and fourth quarters of 1984. We welcome the increase in industrial production and manufacturing output, and the increase in the number of those who are employed, but that does not mean that the storm cloud of uncertainty is any more dissipated in Northern Ireland than it is on the mainland.
Independent commentators and job creation agencies in Northern Ireland appear to be agreed on another aspect of the Northern Ireland economy—that unemployment will remain high for years to come. Indeed, when I read the forecasts earlier, I was reminded of the 1933 Budget of Neville Chamberlain. He predicted for both Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom that unemployment would remain high for years to come. I hear echoes of that speech in most of the statements made by Government spokesmen on Treasury and economic matters. Neville Chamberlain said that there was a limit to what Government could do. I do not suggest that those

1273
views were put forward by the Minister tonight, but they are the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they attach to the economies of Northern Ireland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The two most recent surveys carried out in Northern Ireland show that jobs will be lost more rapidly than they will be replaced, and that unemployment is likely to reach a total of 140,000 by 1989. At Question Time today, I wondered out loud whether those who find work in Northern Ireland are part-time or full-time workers. The Minister replied that while they may be part-time jobs, they are better than no jobs, and that part-time jobs may be converted into full-time jobs. However, it is recognised that because employers do not pay national insurance on part-time workers, but do pay on full-time workers, there is a cost-cutting incentive to employ part-time rather than full-time workers. The surveys show that there are in excess of 100,000 people working part-time in Northern Ireland. In 1978, part-time work accounted for 17 per cent. of the total work force, but it now accounts for nearly 22 per cent.
We cannot distinguish this order from the consequences of the medium-term financial strategy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is not present tonight, and he has that in common with our colleagues in the Social Democratic/Liberal alliance. I make no criticism of that. They are rarely present for these debates. The Labour party is present, with solid ranks on the Front Bench.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Only two.
Mr. Bell: Those two may be the great talent of the Labour party in years to come. Two are better than none, and no hon. Member from either the Liberal party or the SDP is present.
The medium-term financial strategy affects Northern Ireland as it does the mainland. That strategy is a sort of ghost that runs through this order. The Chancellor is seeking to squeeze inflation from the economy and at the same time to create growth and jobs. The Opposition believe that those objectives are mutually exclusive and will no more work for the Northern Irish economy than they will for that on the mainland.
Housing has been mentioned tonight. The Minister referred to a visit by hon. Members from both sides of the House, who were encouraged by what they had seen being done about housing. I am no expert on housing in Northern Ireland, but on my visit I spoke to members of the Housing Department, visited houses and was impressed at the progress made, considering the problems.
Housing remains the Government's top priority on social and environmental programmes, and we welcome that. We recognise that the immediate environment of a person is part and parcel of his way of life. That is as true in Northern Ireland as it is on the mainland, but there has been a shift in emphasis away from new public sector house building towards the improvement and maintenance of existing stock. The preliminary results of the 1984 house condition survey show that the level of unfitness has fallen from 14·1 per cent. in 1979 to 10·4 per cent. last year. In 1981 the unfitness level in Great Britain was 6·2 per cent. In Northern Ireland, more than 51,000 houses were still unfit. The number of homes lacking at least one basic amenity has also descreased, from 19·9 per cent. to 9·2 per cent.
The worrying feature of the survey is disrepair in the private sector, which increased from 8·6 per cent. in 1979
1274
to 15·4 per cent. in 1984. As I understand it, the Government propose to reduce new Housing Executive construction from 3,000 new starts last year to 2,250 for 1985–86. The Housing Executive will concentrate instead on the improvement and maintenance programme. The expenditure on housing services is planned to increase from £149 million in 1984–85 to £169 million in 1985–86.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council questioned this change in strategy and made the following comment in its annual report for 1983–84:
"The available statistics do not show clearly whether this switch is justified. On the one hand, the census results suggest a housing surplus; on the other hand, the Housing Executive sti11 has a waiting list of 20,000."
The council suggests that a mismatch may exist in terms of location or type of accommodation between the supply of and demand for, public housing. The latest Government figures show that the Housing Executive's waiting list is getting longer. There were 23,482 people on the list in March 1984, and 24,543 in September 1984.
In the 13th annual report of the Housing Executive, the chairman stated:
"Whether this shift in policy"—
away from new build—
"will prove to be correct must depend to a large extent on the willingness and ability of the private sector to fill the gap by providing a sustained programme of new low-cost housing of acceptable quality."
Experience gives little cause for optimism on that front. In 1982, 4,487 new starts were recorded in the private sector, but only 2,672 new dwellings were completed. In 1983 there were 6,892 new starts, and only 3,571 completions. We can see the comparison. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the Houseing Executive's target of an annual reduction of at least 1 per cent. in the unfitness level has not been met. Therefore, while we scrutinise the figures in Class V, as we scrutinise all of the elements in the order, we shall continue to examine these matters carefully in the months to come.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman might wish to know that the Department of the Environment has accepted that the comparative statistics for the commencement and completion of houses are seriously inaccurate, and that the picture given by figures such as the hon. Gentleman has just read to the House is inherently misleading. It hopes to be able to produce correct figures for completions, which will put the picture in a different light.
Mr. Bell: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. If that is the case, we shall look forward to a different perspective on the figures that we have before us now.
May I refer briefly to the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He is worried about the implications for Northern Ireland of the price proposals of the Commission for 1985–86 as they relate to beef. In addition to the persistently high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is about 22 per cent., there is the employment potential of the agriculture industry, which employs 10 per cent. of the work force directly, and which provides employment for a further 3 per cent. in ancillary industries. Therefore, what the European Community proposes to do about beef is important to Northern Ireland and we shall give to the hon. Member and to all those who are worried about this issue all the support that we can.

1275
We shall not vote against the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, but we shall continue to ride hard on the Government on this issue as it relates to Northern Ireland as we will on the economy as a whole.
11.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Clearly it is impossible, in the time now available, to cover all the points that have been raised during the debate. However, I hope that the House will agree that it was right that we should allow as many contributions to be made from the Back Benches as possible. I shall ensure that either I or my colleagues reply in due course to the detailed points which have been made that I am unable to cover. I say in particular to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I shall ensure he receives a co-ordinated reply on the approach of the Government to the undoubted problems facing the community on Rathlin as well as on the narrower educational point that he raised.
May I begin by saying a word about the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), which I understand forms the basis of the decision of the Ulster Unionist party to vote against the order. The arrangements which he criticised for the financial management of Northern Ireland are not new. He must know that Northern Ireland has had separate legislation and a separate Consolidated Fund for the last 60 years. There is no secret or hidden reason why the Government decided to continue with these arrangements. I know that there are those who assert that there is, but I can assure the hon. Member that that is not so.
We continue to believe that a devolved Government would best meet the future needs of the Northern Ireland community. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is engaged in talks with the parties to find out whether it is possible to work out mutually acceptable arrangements. I know that some hon. Members have reservations about that policy, but that is what this Government, with the support of this House, are seeking to do. Viewed in that light, I believe that the financial and legislative arrangements for Northern Ireland are appropriate and sensible.
A number of hon. Members raised detailed questions about the roads programme. I shall make sure that they receive replies. In particular, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) asked about the maintenance programme. Within the £48·4 million which was provided for this programme, priority is given to the structural maintenance of the existing network. The budget allocations for this work to each division are closely correlated with the annual data on the condition of the entire roads network in Northern Ireland. A system known as the maintenance assessment rating and costing of highways, or MARCH, which is used on this side of the water in order to make an objective judgment of the needs of the roads system, is used in Northern Ireland. I believe that in general it gives us very good value for money. There is an appropriate allocation of the limited but still substantial resources that are available for highway maintenance.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North made three separate points under the broad heading of agriculture and fisheries. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that
1276
Northern Ireland has received the full benefit of the 65,000 tonnes of milk from the Community reserve, plus an additional amount from the United Kingdom total. The percentage amount by which the Northern Ireland quota was less than the 1983 deliveries would be no more than in other regions of the United Kingdom, even though deliveries of milk in Northern Ireland increased proportionately more between 1981 and 1983 than deliveries in England and Wales. Northern Ireland received a quota about 12·6 per cent. above wholesale deliveries in 1981 and 2·5 per cent. above that for 1982, which was a record year. In England and Wales the quota represents an increase of only 1·5 per cent. on 1981 deliveries and a reduction of over 3 per cent. on 1982 deliveries. I do not think that Northern Ireland can claim that it has not received the full benefit of the 65,000 tonnes. If this is continued for 1985—I believe that it will be—Northern Ireland can look forward next year to similar treatment.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the beef variable premium scheme. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be pressing strongly for the scheme's continuation. We are conscious of its importance to the agriculture industry in the Province. He spoke also of the Kilkeel dredger. I am told that the project is being appraised in terms of the normal procedures for a project of that nature. We have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for urgency and speed in considering the matter. I can assure him that the appraisal will be completed in the very near future.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made great play about the treatment of those who owe money to public authorities in Northern Ireland. He seemed to imply that we were being unduly harsh and unsympathetic. I urge him and the House to recognise that public debt in Northern Ireland at the end of 1983–84 was about £45 million. That is an absurdly high figure for a province the size of Northern Ireland. It is one that has been the subject of criticism by the Public Accounts Committee. It was essential that we took urgent action to get debt to public authorities under control. The right hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to mention that many of those who are in debt to the authorities avail themselves of the opportunity to enter into voluntary repayment agreements. It is only those who decline to enter into such agreements who are subject to the scheme to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
Mr. Archer: Is the Minister saying that no one is subjected to the Payment of Debt Act if he subjects himself voluntarily to a repayment agreement?
Mr. Scott: If they comply with the conditions of the scheme, there is no reason why they should be subjected to the last-resort mechanism. I can assure the House that the mechanism is operated as humanely as possible. It includes a review procedure to ensure that excessive hardship can be avoided. Given the scale of the problem that is faced by the Government in Northern Ireland, we have tried to tackle it in a humane and compassionate manner. However, we are responsible for public money and the PAC has criticised the Government for allowing the level of debt to reach such a level.
The House will be aware of the cancellation of the Kinsale gas project. The subsidy was running at £12

1277
million a year and there was not even a distant prospect of the project becoming viable. There was a possibility of the subsidy, and even an increased one, continuing indefinitely. The gas industry's joint working party has proposed a revised option that is confined to greater Belfast and its satellites. It involves much lower capital costs than the cancelled project. We have not received the scheme officially. When it is received, we shall have to consider how it can he evaluated. We are told that there is a possibility of European Community support for any such scheme. We shall have to appraise it carefully, as will the Commission, to ascertain whether it is viable. I cannot see that we could possibly enter into any commitment for a continuing subsidy for the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
A number of hon. Members' comments on health and social services in Northern Ireland might have led some listeners to believe that in some way we were cutting back on health and social care in the Province. That is the reverse of the truth. Over the four years from 1979–80 to 1983–84, expenditure on those services has grown from £353 million to £600 million—some 70 per cent. in cash terms and 8 per cent. in real terms. This is the clearest possible evidence that, despite our economic problems and the inevitable constraints on public expenditure, we are committed to the maintenance and development of health and personal social services to meet the needs of the whole population.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South — it is important that we spend that money as wisely as we can. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has asked the health and social service boards to make what I regard as modest efficiency savings of 0·5 per cent. per annum—not so that that money can be cut, but so that it can be put into vital new developments in health and social services and to meet the new needs that are emerging. By making the system more efficient and by not allowing administration to burgeon, we can provide a better service to those who need it.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made serious allegations about the motives of the South Eastern education library board in closing the Ballyoran primary school. The matter had to come to me to approve the closure. The closure was not carried out on anything like the grounds that the hon. Gentleman described. In fact, there were two schools on that estate. The closure occurred not to ensure financial savings but primarily to ensure that the children at the school got the proper spread of curriculum necessary for their education. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he can substantiate those serious allegations, he should without hesitation or delay let me see the evidence that he claims is in his possession.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster drew attention to the critical findings of the inspectorate report on the effect of expenditure policies. He did not draw attention to the fact that the report concluded that, by an large, educational standards in schools are being maintained. I am as aware as anyone of the pressures on the education system in Northern Ireland, but I still think that education is a feature of life in the Province of which teachers, administrators and others involved can be extremely proud.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) talked about the dangers of integrating nursery provision with primary schools. Nursery provision is extremely close to my heart. I hope that in due course it will be
1278
possible to have an expanded programme of nursery education in Northern Ireland, but in the meantime I believe that joint provision of the sort that the hon. Gentleman was criticising can play an important part in nursery education for many of the young people who need it.
Many hon. Members rightly expressed their concern at the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) recognised, the Government fully share their concern. I assure hon. Members that the overall strategy is designed to create the circumstances in which the private sector will develop and thus create new job opportunities for people in Northern Ireland.
We do not have endless resources in Northern Ireland. Public expenditure already amounts to 70 per cent. of the gross national product of the Province. With limited resources, it is important that we optimise the use of those that are allocated to us. One of the most useful contributions that Northern Ireland Members can make to these debates is to address the priorities and the way in which we are using these resources. It is easy and tempting for hon. Members to identify gaps in provision. Doubtless there are gaps representing needs which should be met, but they are to be met within limited budgets. Hon. Members have to identify also what can be done less lavishly or with less money.
Northern Ireland will never be able to flourish simply on the basis of a massive public expenditure injection of funds.
We must provide a safety net for the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that we do that effectively, efficiently and with compassion, but we must also provide a springboard. I hope that public money can provide that springboard, but eventually it is the people of Northern Ireland and private enterprise that will have to turn the springboard into a reality in terms of increased living standards for the people of the Province.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 9.

Division No. 153]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Ancram, Michael

Forth, Eric

Ashby, David

Galley, Roy

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Gow, Ian

Bellingham, Henry

Gregory, Conal

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ground, Patrick

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brinton, Tim

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bruce, Malcolm

Hayward, Robert

Bruinvels, Peter

Heddle, John

Burt, Alistair

Hickmet, Richard

Butcher, John

Hind, Kenneth

Butterfill, John

Holt, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Conway, Derek

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Coombs, Simon

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cope, John

Jackson, Robert

Couchman, James

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

Dunn, Robert

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Durant, Tony

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Evennett, David

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fallon, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Favell, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

1279

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Portillo, Michael

Lord, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Lyell, Nicholas

Powley, John

McCrea, Rev William

Raffan, Keith

Macfarlane, Neil

Rhodes James, Robert

McQuarrie, Albert

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Major, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Malins, Humfrey

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Marlow, Antony

Rowe, Andrew

Mather, Carol

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Maude, Hon Francis

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Scott, Nicholas

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Stern, Michael

Murphy, Christopher

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Neubert, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Newton, Tony

Wolfson, Mark

Norris, Steven

Wood, Timothy

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pawsey, James

Mr. Ian Lang and

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

McCusker, Harold

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholson, J.

Mr. William Ross and

Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

Mr. Ken Maginnis.

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) and the Order [7th November] relating to Business of the House, the ballot for private Members' notices of motions which are to have precedence on Friday 22nd March shall be held on Tuesday 12th March, and that notice of a subject to be raised on any motion following that ballot may be given not later than Friday 15th March.—[Mr. Major.]

  Miners (Police Records)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Roy Mason: The aim of this debate is to obtain justice for those coalminers who, during this long dispute, have been arrested, photographed, fingerprinted and either discharged or taken to court and acquitted. They are all innocent men who now want to be fully satisfied that their names are clean and that their characters are without blemish: in short, that they have no criminal record. All of them, to date 1,416 men, have the right to witness the destruction of their photograph and fingerprint records.
  According to the Attorney-General's figures, which were given to the House on 25 February, another 2,456 cases remain to be heard. There could therefore be hundreds more such as I have described. Why has all this come about? I believe that it is because of indiscriminate mass arrests. No fewer than 9,750 people have been arrested. The police, perhaps fearing riotous assembly—having spent a few years in Northern Ireland I well know the meaning of it— have dispatched snatch squads to take out the front men. They are not necessarily agitators, but men who happen to be in the front line of the mass picket. Indiscriminately, scores per day have been picked up and processed like sausages. That is one method of defusing the situation. There has then been conveyor-belt justice at almost every stage of their journey through the courts.
  Home Office statistics supplied by the police provide substance to the claim that blanket arrests have been made among legal pickets and without proper evidence. Of the 7,223 arrests recorded until 9 October 1984, 1,354 miners were released from police stations without being charged. National and provincial newspapers have been full of stories of miners being taken to court in their hundreds, and being cleared. The Sheffield Morning Telegraph for 10 October 1984 ran the headline:
  "Miners cleared of unlawful assembly" and continued:
  "Seven miners accused of offences during a blockade of the M1 in north Derbyshire were acquitted by a jury yesterday after a fortnight-long trial. The jury at Derby Crown Court took more than four hours to clear the South Yorkshire miners who faced 13 charges, including the centuries-old offence of unlawful assembly."
  The Guardian of 9 February 1985 reported:
  "Striking miners cleared of picket charges. Eight striking miners were acquitted by a jury yesterday of unlawful assembly during the pit dispute … The defence claimed that the men were arrested as a result of a police order to take prisoners rather than because of unlawful behaviour on their part."
  The Guardian of 27 February 1985 reported:
  "Arrests questioned as pickets go free. The police yesterday dropped charges of unlawful assembly against 23 South Yorkshire miners among 87 arrested during a mass picket at Harworth colliery in north Nottinghamshire last August … Mr. Craig"—
  the men's solicitor—
  "said that since August the men 'have been prevented from picketing except at their own place of work. Now the cases are being dropped wholesale. It makes the defence, the defendants and the union wonder why they were arrested in the first place. It suggests that the powers that be decided to use wholesale bail conditions and wholesale arrests as a device to keep people off picket lines."'

  1281
  The Yorkshire Post of 27 February 1985, under the heading "Picket cases dropped", said:
  "Police were yesterday accused of using mass arrests, and rigid bail conditions to prevent picketing after charges of unlawful assembly against 21 South Yorkshire miners were formally dismissed."
  Their solicitor, Mr. Alan Craig, said:
  "This case is likely to make legal history in Nottinghamshire. I know of no other case where men facing such serious charges have had them all dropped. It is completely extraordinary."
  Provincial paper after provincial paper said the same. The Sheffield Telegraph, in the heart of the Yorkshire coal field, under the heading "Unlawful assembly charges are dropped", referring again to those 21 south Yorkshire miners, said:
  "Mr. Craig criticised the circumstances in which the men were arrested. 'They were battle-charged, chased and eventually rounded up in a field, arrested willy-nilly and brought to Mansfield court in the dead of the night to face extremely harsh charges."
  So there we are—mass arrests, it cannot be disputed, and all innocent men. Those police methods were suspect, are suspect, and must be challenged in future, especially by an inquiry. Therefore, one can understand the National Union of Mineworkers' call for an amnesty.
  Of the 9,750 people arrested, 1,416 were acquitted of all charges, and there may well be many more. The nature of the charge was that 4,089 of them were likely to cause a breach of the peace—they were stopped on the Queen's highway. We all remember the nonsense of the Dartford Tunnel, when 1,682 men were arrested for obstructing a police constable—old-fashioned picket-line pushing, a shove at a bobby, resulting again in mass arrests. These were not criminal acts, but just the normal activities of picketing now well known and established in Great Britain. Yet many hundreds of these men have been sacked by the NCB, their future ruined, thrown on the dole — and in many mining communities that means for good.
  These police methods of mass arrests were the cause, and that is why there is legitimacy in the demand for an amnesty. There is no doubt that the methods of strike policing will have to be reviewed. Although the Government may well feel happy at the outcome, there is no doubt about the bitterness in our mining villages and towns over the methods used against the miners. It will take time for the wounds of the conflict between our mining communities and the police to heal. An inquiry only into what lessons the police can learn from the strike is of no use to the NUM, or indeed to society at large. There is need — indeed, an urgent need — for an independent public inquiry into the whole of police activity during the past 12 months of the coalmining dispute.
  This is also true of clearing the records of the 1,416 innocent men. Solicitors on behalf of the men have written to me, and I shall quote from one of the letters:
  "The taking of fingerprints by the police is not of course, peculiar to the miners arrested in the NUM/NCB dispute but the strike has highlighted the present unsatisfactory situation.
  Upon arrest all miners were automatically finger-printed by the police. The men were not allowed to see a solicitor at this stage and were not, until later on in the strike, aware that they could object to having their fingerprints taken. Most miners were charged with minor offences of police and highway obstruction and threatening words and behaviour (e.g. shouting `scab')—the sort of offence where fingerprints are not needed…
  It is worth noting that there is no such thing as a photograph order—despite this when taking fingerprints the police also take a photograph of the defendant…
  1282
  A number of Chief Constables have stated publicly that they would like to have the whole populace finger-printed. By fingerprinting everyone who is charged (even though that person may later be acquitted) this helps the police a little nearer this goal.
  The widespread taking of fingerprints by the police is an infringement of civil liberties. Parliament has not yet legislated that the whole country must be fingerprinted and it is, therefore, wrong for the police to endeavour to achieve their ends by this back door method."
  That is just not good enough. Miners were photographed, some of them twice, and fingerprinted without permission. It is all wrong. Nor have they been given the opportunity to see their photographs and fingerprint records destroyed. That is wrong, too. They are on file in a police station. They might also be on the police national computer, staying there for ever if there is not destruction of their records. None of those men and their families will have a chance of getting a credit card, of being able to borrow money or of buying goods on hire purchase. They will be listed as a credit risk, men with a criminal record.
  What of the senior police officers asking the Home Office to allow the use of the police national computer to store a special register of criminal incidents in mining areas? The Association of Chief Police Officers is interested in new categories of offences and may want to use the computer register to identify new categories of agitators — the political agitator and the industrial agitator. Hence the first national list compiled with help from the chief constables in the coal mining areas of political and industrial agitators. If the records remain of some of those 1,416 innocent men, and are so recorded on the national computer, they will be blackballed for life.
  The Home Secretary is, I believe, in sympathy with my objective. Indeed, in a letter to me on 4 February 1985, he said in answer to representations from Owen Briscoe, the general secretary of the Yorkshire area of the NUM:
  "At present there is no legal requirement that fingerprints and photographs should be destroyed if a person is acquitted or the case not proceeded with, nor is there any requirement that a person should be given the opportunity to witness destruction."
  But the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
  "It is, however, general police practice at present to destroy fingerprints and photographs if a person is acquitted or his case is not proceeded with and also to allow him to witness destruction."
  In the light of those words, I now ask the Minister and the Home Secretary to make sure that the men can see justice done and that all chief constables are asked to send all the acquitted men's records to the police station nearest their homes, inform them, and allow them to go and see their records destroyed. That will be the first step to restore a good, healthy working relationship in mining communities, between police and public, between bobby and miner, and will create an atmosphere in which progress can be made on an amnesty between the area boards and the local unions. By that means the police can play a positive part in bringing peace in our coalfields. The Minister and the Home Secretary can give a lead. I hope that they will take this opportunity of doing so.
  11.54 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), who is both courteous and well-informed on these matters, has raised a serious issue to which I hope that I shall be able to give a reasonably serious response. He has brought the debate before the House at a time when a

  1283
  major dispute—the longest-running dispute of all time in United Kingdom industry—has now come to an end. It is appropriate that this evening we look at steps that should now be taken to return both policing and the industry to the normal terms of reference to which the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the entire House, would fully subscribe.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the dispute had seen some of the largest police operations ever, but operations against some of the most intimidatory and vicious tactics ever. Every police force in England and Wales has either provided or received aid and on occasion as many as 8,000 officers have been deployed on mutual aid.
  I must use this occasion to pay tribute to those who have ensured that intimidatory practice — not normal picketing, as I am sure the right Gentleman would agree —did not succeed in preventing from doing so those miners who wished to exercise their right to go to work. Given the scale of the violence and the intimidation and the number of pickets involved in the dispute, the police have had to use their powers to arrest offenders and, where possible, to prosecute them.
  The extent to which the police have had to have recourse to the use of powers is an indication of the very scale of the violence they have met. As the right hon. Gentleman said, nearly 10,000 people have been arrested in connection with the dispute; nearly 8,000 have been charged; over 5,500 have been dealt with by the courts. Of the cases dealt with to date there have been some 1,400 acquittals as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. Of course, there are cases, including some of the most serious charges, still to be heard by the courts. As these figures show, the fact of arrest by no means indicates certainty of prosecution. Let me briefly describe the courses which can be taken after someone is arrested.
  To arrest a person for an offence, the police must have reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence for which a power of arrest exists. When a person has been arrested, the police have three broad choices: they can take no further action against him; they can caution him formally; or they can charge and prosecute him. To issue a formal caution the police would need to be satisfied of three factors: that there was sufficient evidence to justify prosecution; that the person admitted the offence; and that he consented to the issue of the caution. To charge someone, the police would have to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to justify the prosecution. It is important to make the point that a higher standard of evidence is required for prosecution than for arrest.
  The Attorney-General's guidelines on criteria for prosecution lay down the test that the evidence should be such that there is a greater prospect of conviction than acquittal; it must also be in the public interest that the person should be prosecuted. But even when a person has been charged it is still possible that the charges will be dropped at a later stage.
  Perhaps I should also mention at this point the future role which the Crown prosecution service will have. Legislation to create this service will shortly be coming before this House, having completed its passage in another place. The new service will have the duty to review cases
  1284
  where prosecutions have been initiated by the police; if will have the power to alter or drop charges and it will have responsibility for the conduct of the case in court.
  Now let me turn to some of the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. Perhaps I could relate the sequence of events to the records which are made by the police. When a person is arrested, he will usually be photographed and fingerprinted. Often two photographs may be taken, particularly when a large number of arrests are made at the same time. In such cases, one will be a Polaroid photograph taken of the arrested person and the arresting officer. The purpose of this photograph is to avoid any doubt about which officer arrested which person. The other photograph would be a conventional photograph taken for local criminal records. There is at present no legal provision governing the photographing of suspects, but there is no bar to the police taking photographs so long as they do not use force.
  The police will also usually take fingerprints. The purpose of this is to link the person with any previous criminal record and to provide for the future a definite link between that person and his conviction, should that be the result of the case. There is at present no general power for the police to take fingerprints, but if a person who has been charged refuses to allow his prints to be taken, the police may apply to a magistrates court for an order to take fingerprints.
  There are at present no legal obligations on the police as to what they must do with fingerprints and photographs if a person is cleared or if his case is not proceeded with. But it is, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, standard police practice that fingerprints and photographs should be destroyed in these circumstances. Furthermore, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear to the right hon. Gentleman, it is usual for the police to allow the person to witness the destruction of these documents if this is requested. That latter facility was, I understand, temporarily withdrawn in Nottinghamshire because of the administrative pressure placed on the police, but I can say that as from the end of the dispute the force has reverted to the practice of acceding to requests to witness destruction. This will apply not only to persons acquitted after the end of the dispute but to any other cases where fingerprints and photographs are still with the police.
  I said that at present there was no legal requirement on the police to destroy fingerprints and photographs, or to offer the facility to witness the destruction of these documents. But there will be such a requirement in the future, with the implementation of the main provisions of the new Police and Criminal Evidence Act at the start of next year. Section 64 of the Act will require that fingerprints are destroyed if the person is cleared of an offence or if he is not proceeded against and not cautioned. The Act will give a specific right to the individual to witness their destruction if he so requests. The police will be required to keep the fingerprints for a set, but short, period of about a month, in order that the person concerned has the opportunity to witness their destruction. After that period they will be destroyed by the police.
  That requirement will be repeated in the code of practice on identification. The code will also govern the taking of photographs and provide similar obligations and duties on the police in relation to photographs as in relation to fingerprints. Failure to comply with the provisions of a code will render a police officer liable to disciplinary

  1285
  proceedings. I believe that underwriting these obligations and duties by law backed up by disciplinary sanctions is a significant and important step forward, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, and will regard these provisions at least as progressive and helpful in relation to the problems that he has outlined to the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the right to witness the destruction of fingerprints. That subject was clearly given substantial attention during the dispute, and tonight's debate will obviously give it further publicity. I have no doubt that the NUM will take whatever steps it considers necessary to keep its members informed of their rights. Again, the code of practice will formalise the suspect's rights, by requiring those fingerprinted or photographed to be told of their right to witness destruction at the time when the fingerprint or photograph is taken.
  I do not see that it is necessary, beyond that, to require the police to go through the process of highlighting those rights on each and every occasion after acquittal or after the decision not to proceed, whether or not it is of the slightest interest to the person concerned. We already place substantial burdens on the police, and I am reluctant to do more where it is not specifically needed.
  The question of returning the prints to a station at which it would be convenient for the person concerned to witness destruction is, however, a different matter. I fully take the right hon. Gentleman's point that an offer to witness destruction at the other end of the country would contain within it a pretty powerful disincentive against taking up the offer. I have no doubt that, if a chief constable in one part of the country received a request to witness destruction from somebody living in another part of the country, and the prints had not already been destroyed, he would consider sympathetically any suggestion that they be forwarded to a police station that was more convenient for the person concerned. I am sure that the police will accept the sort of proposition that the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House, and I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have reason to believe that it will agree to accept it.
  I come to the question of records. The records at Scotland Yard are kept only in relation to recordable offences. These are offences which, broadly speaking, carry liability to imprisonment. Local records are kept in relation to a wider spread of criminal offences. Let me explain first what happens with the national records. When a person is arrested for a recordable offence, the local police notify Scotland Yard of the fact of his arrest. If the person has no previous convictions, a new file is opened in his name and a Criminal Records Office number is allocated to him. If the person is subsequently not prosecuted or is acquitted, that file and the CRO number are destroyed. If, on the other hand, the person does have a previous criminal record, the entry in respect of the offence for which he is arrested has marked against it clearly that he has been acquitted, or the offence has not been proceeded with. I understand that similar arrangements apply in relation to local records.
  Let me also say something about the police national computer. The criminal names index on the PNC is, in effect, no more than an index to the central collection of criminal records at Scotland Yard. Although steps are in hand to computerise conviction records, these are not in operation at present. A person will not be identified on the PNC as having a criminal record unless he has a record at Scotland Yard and a CRO number. I have explained that
  1286
  a person with no previous record and who has been acquitted would have his file at Scotland Yard and the CRO number destroyed. At the same time, his CRO number and name would be removed from the police national computer.
  I have explained the circumstances in which police records are destroyed and those in which they are kept. The allegation that those records which are kept will be disclosed to credit brokers and other such people is totally without foundation. Police records are confidential and their improper disclosure is an offence against police disciplinary regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support his view that police information has been disclosed, he should report it to the appropriate chief constable concerned.
  I hope that that detailed explanation of the position will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that the systems and procedures for the retention and destruction of police records are adequate and that they take account of the concerns that he expressed.
  I do not believe that it would be right to make any special provision or arrangement in respect of criminal records related purely to offences connected with the miners' dispute. Safeguards are already there and further protection is at hand when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is implemented.
  Moreover, there is no reason why criminal records of offences committed during the dispute should be treated in any different fashion to criminal records in relation to any other criminal offences. Those who have criminal convictions will, however, benefit from the protection which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will afford them after the passage of the requisite time. In the case of minor sentences, the rehabilitation period will be relatively short. In the case of heavier sentences, particularly sentences of imprisonment, the rehabilitation periods will be much longer, and a conviction which results in a prison sentence of over two and a half years will never become spent.
  In conclusion, I make a simple point. Those who are cleared of criminal offences have a right to expect that police records will not be kept. Those records will not be kept. But those who are convicted of criminal offences can expect that there will be a police record kept on them. That is one of the prices to pay for behaviour which led to their conviction in the first place.
  I hope that what I have said will do two things. First, I hope that it will assure the right hon. Gentleman that proper steps will be taken to deal with the specific issues he raised about destruction and the prospects of witnessing such destruction. Secondly, I hope he will agree that, in providing such encouragement to chief police officers to make this an easy proposition now, that will provide a modicum of assistance to achieving the right lion Gentleman's overriding concern, which is to bring a sense of healing and community back into those areas which have been so heavily afflicted by this ghastly dispute.
  I think that he will also agree that, in the longer term, the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will provide the statutory backing for the kind of process he would like to see.
  Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the Minister for that sympathetic and understanding reply.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o' clock.

ENERGY
  Energy Prices
  Energy Prices
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd.
  National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd.
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Industrial Research and Development
  Industrial Research and Development
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Software Products Scheme
  Software Products Scheme
  Manufactured Exports
  Manufactured Exports
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Companies Act 1980
  Companies Act 1980
  Spain and Portugal (Agriculture)
  Spain and Portugal (Agriculture)
  Clothing and Textiles
  Clothing and Textiles
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Polytechnics (London)
  Polytechnics (London)
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Sign Language
  Sign Language
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Mr. I. Bufton
  Mr. I. Bufton
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dollar-Pound Exchange Rate
  Dollar-Pound Exchange Rate
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Industrial Society
  Industrial Society
  £1 Coin
  £1 Coin
  Allowances
  Allowances
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Extra-statutory Concessions
  Extra-statutory Concessions
  Non-transferable Tax Allowance
  Non-transferable Tax Allowance
  Family Taxation and Benefits
  Family Taxation and Benefits
ENVIRONMENT
  House Building (Bolton)
  House Building (Bolton)
  Vacant Urban Land
  Vacant Urban Land
  Housing Needs (South-East)
  Housing Needs (South-East)
  Central Berkshire Structure Plan
  Central Berkshire Structure Plan
  Housing and Development (South-East)
  Housing and Development (South-East)
  Land Releases
  Land Releases
  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Rate Capping (Personal Files)
  Rate Capping (Personal Files)
  South-East (Office Supply and Demand)
  South-East (Office Supply and Demand)
  Local Government Bill
  Local Government Bill
  GLC (Property Auctions)
  GLC (Property Auctions)
  London Planning Commission
  London Planning Commission
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Metropolitan Green Belt
  Metropolitan Green Belt
  London Boroughs (Strategic Planning)
  London Boroughs (Strategic Planning)
  London Boroughs (Green Belt Development)
  London Boroughs (Green Belt Development)
  Government Car Service (Parking Offences)
  Government Car Service (Parking Offences)
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
  Cruise Missiles (Sweden and Finland)
  Cruise Missiles (Sweden and Finland)
  Israel (Arms)
  Israel (Arms)
  Mr. Yasser Arafat
  Mr. Yasser Arafat
  New Zealand Farmers
  New Zealand Farmers
  ANZUS Treaty
  ANZUS Treaty
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Rape Case (Cardiff)
  Rape Case (Cardiff)
  Social Security Commissioners (Decisions)
  Social Security Commissioners (Decisions)
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
DEFENCE
  European Defence Co-operation
  European Defence Co-operation
  RAF Molesworth
  RAF Molesworth
  Sexual Offences Act 1967
  Sexual Offences Act 1967
  Service Personnel (Rights and Restrictions)
  Service Personnel (Rights and Restrictions)
  Trident
  Trident
  Air Crew (Drugs)
  Air Crew (Drugs)
WALES
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Contaminated Land
  Contaminated Land
  Baglan Industrial Estate
  Baglan Industrial Estate
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Women (Unemployment)
  Women (Unemployment)
  Mid-Wales Development
  Mid-Wales Development
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
PRIME MINISTER
  USA (Visit)
  USA (Visit)
  Intelligence Accountability
  Intelligence Accountability
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Oil and Gas Revenue and Unemployment Benefit
  Oil and Gas Revenue and Unemployment Benefit
  Channels Islands
  Channels Islands
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fingerprints
  Fingerprints
  Private Security Vans
  Private Security Vans
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Entry Clearance Applications
  Entry Clearance Applications
  Prisons (Babies)
  Prisons (Babies)
  Murder (Sentences)
  Murder (Sentences)
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Crime Watch
  Crime Watch
  Satellite Television
  Satellite Television
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Policemen (Rates of Pay)
  Policemen (Rates of Pay)
  Immigration and Nationality
  Immigration and Nationality
  Public Disorder (Wolverhampton)
  Public Disorder (Wolverhampton)
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Prisons (Diets)
  Prisons (Diets)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Grain
  Grain
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Products (Costs)
  Agricultural Products (Costs)
  Farm Holdings
  Farm Holdings
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Field Beans
  Field Beans
  Agricultural Output
  Agricultural Output
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Salmon Tagging
  Salmon Tagging
  Wages and Employment
  Wages and Employment
  Agricultural Products (Prices)
  Agricultural Products (Prices)
  European Community (Net Value Added)
  European Community (Net Value Added)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Lobsters
  Lobsters
  Research
  Research
  Agricultural Trade Policy
  Agricultural Trade Policy
  Mediterranean Products
  Mediterranean Products
  Livestock Shipments (Falkland Islands)
  Livestock Shipments (Falkland Islands)
  New Zealand Produce
  New Zealand Produce
  Sea Fisheries Statistical Table
  Sea Fisheries Statistical Table
SCOTLAND
  Disciplinary Cases
  Disciplinary Cases
  Better Business Services
  Better Business Services
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  House Purchase and Repossession
  House Purchase and Repossession
  Lanarkshire Health Board
  Lanarkshire Health Board
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Sea Fisheries Statistical Table
  Sea Fisheries Statistical Table
  Rating
  Rating
  Scottish Council (Development and Industry) Conference
  Scottish Council (Development and Industry) Conference
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
TRANSPORT
  Gas Mains
  Gas Mains
  Regional Airports
  Regional Airports
  Airports (London)
  Airports (London)
  A3 (Lighting)
  A3 (Lighting)
  Railway Sidings (Grants)
  Railway Sidings (Grants)
  Roads (London)
  Roads (London)
  Urban Trunk Roads
  Urban Trunk Roads
  Roads
  Roads
  Traffic Management
  Traffic Management
  London Planning Commission
  London Planning Commission
  Transport Boards (London)
  Transport Boards (London)
  GLC (CR6 Project)
  GLC (CR6 Project)
  GLC (Taxicard Scheme)
  GLC (Taxicard Scheme)
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Gas Supply
  Gas Supply
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Walthamstow
  Walthamstow
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Area Manpower Boards
  Area Manpower Boards
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security Forces (Killings)
  Security Forces (Killings)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Business and Employment Prospects
  Business and Employment Prospects
  Political Situation
  Political Situation
  Bank Deposits
  Bank Deposits
  Room Heaters
  Room Heaters
  Security
  Security
  Vehicle Thefts
  Vehicle Thefts
  Converted Terrorists
  Converted Terrorists
  Public Expenditure (EC Contribution)
  Public Expenditure (EC Contribution)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Assembly Members (Salaries and Allowances)
  Assembly Members (Salaries and Allowances)
  Area Health Boards
  Area Health Boards
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Molins Engineering Factory, Maydown
  Molins Engineering Factory, Maydown
  RUC (Newry)
  RUC (Newry)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Private Residential Care Homes
  Private Residential Care Homes
  Ambulance Service (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Ambulance Service (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Resettlement Units
  Resettlement Units
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Drugs (Licences)
  Drugs (Licences)
  Flora Margarine
  Flora Margarine
  Computers
  Computers
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Management Information System
  Management Information System
  Pharmaceutical Companies
  Pharmaceutical Companies
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Pharmaceuticals (Prices)
  Pharmaceuticals (Prices)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Medical Students (Revenue Contributions)
  Medical Students (Revenue Contributions)
  Postneonatal Mortality
  Postneonatal Mortality
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Factor VIII
  Factor VIII
  Haemophilia Society
  Haemophilia Society
  Vaccine Damage
  Vaccine Damage
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Macclesfield Health Authority
  Macclesfield Health Authority
  NHS (Senior Administrators)
  NHS (Senior Administrators)
  Opticians (Prescriptions)
  Opticians (Prescriptions)
  GPs (Private Prescriptions)
  GPs (Private Prescriptions)
  Sickle Cell Disease
  Sickle Cell Disease
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Spastics Society (Correspondence)
  Spastics Society (Correspondence)
  Tumour Necrosis Factor
  Tumour Necrosis Factor
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Trident: Independent Deterrence
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an indication of the circumstances, referred to by Lord Trefgarne in answer to Lord Beswick (Official Report, 17th December 1984, col. 429), in which the United Kingdom would be prepared to use the Trident nuclear missiles independently of her NATO allies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, to discuss in advance when Trident might or might not be used would be tantamount to suggesting to our adversaries the circumstances in which they could attack us with impunity. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I decline to do that: Neither our nuclear, nor any other, weapons will of course ever be used save in response to an attack.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and more for its courtesy than for its content, may I say that I sympathise with him in being in the difficult position of having to put forward a credible scenario in what is a quite impossible situation? However, may I ask the noble Lord, since he contradicted me so firmly on the 17th December, whether, if it ever came to an exclusive bilateral exchange of nuclear weapons, there would be a sufficient pause to enable our American allies to withdraw from their United Kingdom bases to escape destruction? Also may we take it that we already have an agreement with the German Government which will enable our forces in Germany to operate from that territory in the event of this independent war which the noble Lord is suggesting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the whole thrust of our policy is designed to avoid the kind of scenario which the noble Lord describes. The question is therefore hypothetical.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention to assign the Trident fleet to NATO, as is done with the Polaris fleet?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords; on the same basis as the Polaris fleet is assigned.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the more we consider the possibility of the independent use of this weapon, does it not become apparent that the thing is absolute nonsense?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the whole purpose of our independent nuclear deterrent is to add to the deterrent posture of the Western Alliance, and that it has succeeded in doing for more than 40 years.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that perhaps the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is in not viewing this matter from the perception of a potential aggressor in 1995 or later—perhaps because he is not an aggressive man and is a good democrat? But would my noble friend agree that if one does look at it from the viewpoint of a potential aggressor, it must be obvious to such an aggressor that his only hope of taking over another part of the world—which might be his intention—would be if nuclear weapons were not used? Finally, does my noble friend agree that if it is clear that on that long-far-off day preferably more than one democratic defender is prepared to defend freedom with whatever weapons are necessary, the tragic situation will never arise?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that we have the political will to respond in whatever way appears appropriate at the time. The Argentinians made a mistake about that in 1982.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, the Minister has been careful to say that there are circumstances in which he could envisage our nuclear weapons being used independently. Can he say whether he envisages circumstances in which they would be used independently?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, I decline to speculate upon circumstances of which I cannot yet be aware.
Lord Beswick: But, my Lords, if the noble Lord is now shifting his ground and saying that the purpose of Trident is to add to the total NATO deterrent, does he not accept that the two main contestants in this equation—the Soviet Union and the United States—already have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all of us and that there really is no necessity to add this extravagant item, Trident?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord and I may understand that the NATO deterrent is indivisible, but what is important is to ensure that the Soviet Union understands that; and that is the principal purpose of our independent deterrent.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in my question I was not asking him to specify circumstances in which these weapons might be used, and that I recognise the point he made in that connection? I was simply asking him to say whether there were circumstances in which they would be used independently.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain there are.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government aware that while on these Benches we believe that Trident is absolutely the wrong nuclear weapons system for

1443
Britain to have, we nevertheless consider that the noble Lord's description of Britain's purpose in having one and the present policy of the Government in keeping it assigned to NATO—the same as the last three Labour Governments—is correct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am partially reassured by the question which the noble Lord puts to me; but if he thinks that there is some alternative to replacing the Polaris force, I have to say that I think he is mistaken in that view.

Animals in Schools: RSPCA Guidance
3.6 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the recent guidance of the RSPCA on the care of animals in schools, and whether they are satisfied that sufficient care is being taken to protect animals from pupils and pupils from animals.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government are aware of the recently-published RSPCA booklet entitled Animals in Schools, which was drawn up in consultation with advisers from local education authorities in England and Wales and contains helpful guidance for schools. Advice on the care and maintenance of living animals in schools and on the health and safety aspects involved has also been published by the Department of Education and Science. It is for local education authorities and individual schools to ensure that suitable procedures for the protection of both animals and pupils are followed.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful reply. Can he give some indication of the numbers of schools involved in looking after animals? In addition, will his department commend generally the use of this document to the schools concerned?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, so far as the numbers are concerned, I think I can best quote from News from the RSPCA, which is a brief that they published in conjuction with this booklet, in which they said that most schools in England and Wales keep animals. This fact was revealed by the RSPCA's education department from a two-year survey, the result of which led to the new publication.
Animals have been kept in schools for many years, and the advice published by the Department of Education and Science and other bodies has been made available to schools for some considerable time. The RSPCA's recent publication is helpful, and it should be read in conjuction with the other advice which has been published.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman whether the Government are aware that in schools in America, Germany, Switzerland and
1444
Scandinavia the ethical needs of animals, their treatment and care, are taught as part of the curriculum? Would this not help in giving us a more caring and less violent society in the long run?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must honestly admit that I have no idea whether the Government are aware of what is taught in other schools around the world. I would not know. For instance, I would not know whether they teach Baluchistani in Bulgaria. This seems to be somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are giving consideration to doing something about the large number of Acts which have to be respected by teachers who keep animals in their schools? There are six, according to this admirable publication Animals in Schools, one of them going back to 1876. It is quite a business for teachers to know exactly what they can do and what they cannot. It would perhaps be helpful if the law were to be brought up to date in this respect.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out what I think was going to be my reply; that the Acts are all referred to in this admirable document, and I hope that teachers will use it to see what the requirements are.

South Africa: Arms Embargo
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they are interpreting the 1977 United Nations embargo on arms to South Africa in their trade with that country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Security Council Resolution 418 of 4th November 1977 forbids the provision of arms and related material to South Africa and also the provision of equipment and technical knowledge for their manufacture. The resolution is mandatory, and the Government's policy is to comply fully.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him to elucidate a rather obscure situation that appears to have arisen? If the Government are holding to this United Nations mandatory resolution as he said, how is it that the South Africans are able to keep in the air aircraft which are dependent solely on spare parts provided in this country? I should like to refer to the Buccaneer, but I believe that that might be considered to be sub judice. Certainly there are other aircraft, such as the Impala, which use Rolls-Royce engines. How is it that the South Africans can keep their aircraft in working order when the only place from which they can get their spare parts is this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that I do not know the precise answer, since there is no precise question. If he likes to furnish me with more precise details, I shall look into it. There could be a number of sources. Aero-engines, for example, might be bought from countries which dispose of aircraft and there is a certain amount of cannibalisation of parts. However, in this country we take due regard of the end-use, and indeed of the end-user, of any material contained in the resolution. We control this through the Export of Goods Control Order 1981. We believe that this works well.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is a widespread impression, which is doubtless false, not only in South Africa but also in Namibia, which is illegally occupied by South Africa, that the British Government are helping South Africa in a military manner in general? Will they consider taking a suitable opportunity—perhaps in a speech to be made in the United Nations—to spell out in some detail all the measures which are no doubt in operation to ensure that this country and those who fall under the law of this country are abiding by the 1977 resolution?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that there is a widespread understanding that Her Majesty's Government are helping South Africa in this way. I had hoped in my original Answer to dispel that feeling. So far as making speeches in the United Nations is concerned, I can only say to the noble Lord that I take note of what he has said in that regard.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is it not time that we began to reconsider our policy towards South Africa in the light of the new circumstances? We perceive an Africa which is starving and a union in which the people of all races are well fed. Does that perhaps lead us to the thought that the South Africans may be better acquainted with the needs of their country than we or indeed the United Nations are—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Paget of Northampton: There is another factor. Is the noble Lord aware that the Soviet Union and her allies are poaching the fish off Namibia on a huge scale? Are we really going to refuse South Africa assistance in providing weapons to protect those fisheries which are so urgently needed by the African populations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall confine my response to the first supplementary question that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, asked: would we reconsider our position with regard to this embargo? Since the embargo is by virtue of a resolution of the United Nations to which we are a signatory, it would be necessary to get everybody else to agree. To turn to the noble Lord's other string of supplementary questions, I suggest that they are sufficiently wide of the original Question for me to avoid answering them.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, it will at least teach us not to sign such silly resolutions.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the original Question dealt with initial arms, and the supplementary question dealt with spares? Is it not true that the French are supplying spares for the submarines which they provided to South Africa, and that the Germans are providing spares for the radar which they have supplied to South Africa? Is it not reasonable when armaments have been supplied that at least one should honour the contract and provide spares so that they can be utilised in an emergency?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand what lies behind the question of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I think that I have answered this in sufficiently wide terms in an earlier response.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister make it quite clear that the original resolution of 1977 included spares, and also included trade in any kind of military items? May I ask him to go one stage further? Is he aware that there is widespread support for the Government's action in December last year in giving their support to Security Council Resolution 558, which refers to the purchase of military equipment from South Africa? Can he say how the Government are intending or have begun to implement this resolution which is supplementary to that of 1977?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will know that Security Council Resolution 558 of December 1984 is not mandatory. We take regard of it within the general context of the United Nations Security Council resolution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is true, is it not, that Her Majesty's Government have supported that resolution and supported it at the United Nations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that in my Answer I said exactly that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that several of us here have the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, thinks that the "Belgrano" was on a pleasure cruise? How can he possibly withdraw the tanks from South Africa, which are probably used as taxis for poor farmers around the Kruger National Park?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the impressions which noble Lords may have of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, are not within my competence. I would prefer that noble Lords receive the right impression from the answers which I gave to the noble Lord.

Honda: UK Production Discussions
3.18 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Honda Motor

1447
Corporation regarding that company's plans for the establishment of manufacturing and/or assembly facilities at Swindon; and what consultations they have had with other established United Kingdom automobile manufacturers about this project.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry holds discussions with Honda from time to time, as with any other potential inward investor in the United Kingdom. Such discussions are commercially confidential.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Can he assure your Lordships, when my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry told the Commons the other day that Honda have not asked for any grant in respect of this operation, that we can draw the conclusion that if they were to ask for any grant they would not get it, and above all that there would be no question in future Finance Bills of a Honda clause to replicate the Nissan clause in last year's Finance Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I confirm that Honda have not asked Her Majesty's Government for any grant, in so far as that is confirmation of what my right honourable friend said in another place. Regarding the other two points that my noble friend made, as these are hypothetical I regret that I cannot give him an answer.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that at present there are adequate production facilities for motor vehicles in this country to meet the present demand? If that is the case, is it the Government's view that there will be a very great increase in the demand for motor vehicles, both in this country and in Europe?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that really is rather wide of the Question. If I could keep my answer more in line with the original Question, there is no suggestion at this moment of time that increased and/or additional car manufacturing plants are to be erected in this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the negotiations that have been taking place in this particular instance concerning the possible future development of some 367 acres in Swindon with a possible development of a joint manufacturing capacity in terms of engines, and also possibly the future assembly of cars, have been between Honda and BL direct? Will the noble Lord confirm that in those circumstances, it is not incumbent upon the Department of Trade and Industry as such to hold conversations with other automobile manufacturers as stated in the Question put down by the noble Lord?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his question because it enables me to say that, so far as we are aware, the land at Swindon is to be used for buildings which will enable the pre-delivery inspection of the Cowley-produced Honda version of the XX car; pre-delivery inspections for their motor cars currently
1448
carried out at Sheerness; and possibly the sub-assembly of certain components for the Honda version of the XX car. The collaborative arrangements between Honda and British Leyland are matters confidential to those two companies. In so far as they affect the Government's interest in British Leyland, we welcome such collaboration.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that many Members of this House from all parties are interested in a high and stable level of employment? If Honda are prepared to take the risk then we welcome them.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, indeed we are immensely concerned with the employment of people in this country. If Honda's activities in Swindon which I have just outlined encourage some employment, however small, then they would be welcome to us.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, notwithstanding the welcome that one would certainly offer to incoming businesses of this kind, is not the real issue the question of taxpayers' support for such an operation? Since Swindon is not in a development area, will my noble friend confirm that, if there were any question of selective assistance being given to this investment from the taxpayer over and above £5 million, the Government would first seek approval from both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, again I have to say to my noble friend that that is quite hypothetical. It would be wrong for the Government to dictate to any company, whether it be a foreign-based company or a domestic-based comany, where they shall expand. Honda have chose at this moment in time an operation based in Swindon. There has been no question of grant or assistance. If that question arises, Her Majesty's Government will take into account all matters that would concern that issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that, in just the same way as Her Majesty's Government give a vast and selective subsidy to the agricultural industry of this country, they would not be averse in certain circumstances to giving some support to industry?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth; My Lords, there is no question here of a subsidy arising. Assistance is given in development areas for the encouragement of labour related projects. If in this instance such a circumstance arose—which I find difficult to envisage—the rules by which the Government give such assistance would thereby apply.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on revaluation and rate support grant in Scotland. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on commercial surrogacy.

Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On 28th February, when this Bill received its Third Reading and was passed, the usual privilege amendment was omitted. Such an amendment is necessary because of the financial implications of the Bill. The purpose of this Motion is to enable the error to be corrected by including the privilege amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings relating to the passing of the Bill on 28th February last be vacated.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this is an interesting example of the way in which our rules of procedure enable us to correct our errors, in however obscure a fashion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, one cannot avoid noticing the item following on the Order Paper. If we agree to this Motion, I take it that we shall not have to go through all the matters that were dealt with on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. So far as I was concerned there were only two matters; one related to private prosecution (or, rather, to restrictions on private prosecutions) which I would not desire to go into again because the noble Lord the Minister wrote to me a letter which was entirely satisfactory.
However, also on that Motion I desired to pay a tribute to the noble Lord and to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the way the Bill had been conducted. I would very willingly repeat, as I am sure other noble Lords would, the tributes that were paid, but I hope that they can stand on the Hansard record of our previous proceedings.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can reassure both noble and learned Lords that this is a relatively painless way of recovering mistakes, which we do not often make. While thanking the second noble and learned Lord for his kind remarks, may I assure him that they will remain in Hansard and not be vacated therefrom.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Films Bill
3.29 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provisions relating to termination of levy on film exhibitors]:
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("provided that he has first established arrangements to ensure that independent television contractors and the BBC recompense makers of cinematograph feature films for the exhibition of those films on television on a basis that is related to the size of the television audiences that view them and distributed on a basis that will favour indigenous film production.")
The noble Viscount said: This afternoon is peculiar in that it is "Viscounts' maiden amendment day". Neither I nor the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has ever moved an amendment before. So while I feel it would he going too far to crave your Lordships' indulgence, I would be obliged if either of us was quickly called to order should we break or bend the rules of the Committee stage in any way.
The thinking behind this amendment is simply this. Thirty years ago people saw films in their local Gaumonts and Odeons, and they paid for their seats. Today, they see films on television and do not pay for their seats, barring the BBC licence fee. Even if that is increased to £65, the cost per day will still be only 18 pence per family, not per person. The consequence of so much free or near-free viewing of feature films is, inevitably, that the British feature film industry is in dire financial straits.
When people patronised the Odeons and Gaumonts part of the seat price went back into British film production. This was called the Eady levy, and it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, in 1959 and supported by my right honourable friend Mr. Edward Heath 10 years later. It had all-party support. But now the average person goes to the cinema only once a year. We must scrap Eady; I believe that all agree on that. But I submit in moving this amendment that we must have a "Son of Eady" at the new point of sale: the television screen in the home. If we could achieve even a token levy of one farthing per viewer per film, that would, surprisingly, generate a central film fund of around £10 million. The effect on the economics of television would be minimal. For example, if the BBC chose to pass on their share of the extra cost to the licence fee, and therefore to the consumer, the very most that would be added to the licence fee would be 30 pence. We have not put figures into the amendment at this stage, as it is meant to establish only the principal of a levy at the point of sale; and some £10 million raised by levy could finance at least five low-budget British features a year.
Anticipating the reply of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I believe he will say that there is to be a new organisation called the British Screen Finance Consortium, which will have an income of £3 million a year, and with which they can back 10 feature films. I would say, with respect, that they are wildly optimistic. That works out at only £300,000 per film, and even the cheapest feature costs over £1 million nowadays. The central problem is that the British film

1451
industry cannot exist with a central funding agency. It has had one since 1950. Without it no young but promising directors could have got off the ground. Without it there would have been no launch pad for David Puttnam, Bill Forsyth or Carol Reed: and therefore no "Chariots of Fire", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Third Man" or "The Blue Lamp", as I said on Second Reading. I submit that such a central fund would be meaningless nowadays if it amounted to anything under £10 million a year, and I believe that the best way to raise it is by television levy.
Speaking from these Benches, I believe of course in the free market economy. The irony is that there is no free market economy between British feature films and the television companies. Independent film producers are up against a cartel or duopoly. Actually I rather dislike the word "duopoly" and prefer to substitute "duality", as in Noah's Ark. Sadly, the BBC-ITV duality lacks the consequent fertility achieved by Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their animals. Neither partner in the modern duality fertilises independent British feature films to any meaningful extent, for in the ITV companies' own submission the average price paid for a feature is in the lower tens of thousands of pounds—and that, for a product that cost more than £l million to make. No wonder people now have the luxury of watching features for next to nothing.
I will give one example of a low payment, though I cannot break confidence and name the film in question. It was a first-run film, sold to television for £50,000. It is a two-hour film and therefore its transmission costs per hour were £25,000. It was, however, repeated at prime time and so transmission costs per hour were only £12,500. Compare that to the cost of in-house drama; that is, plays produced by the television companies themselves. They cost at least £100,000 per hour; "Dr. Who" costs, I believe, an amazing £200,000 per episode. The television companies are on to a good thing so far as independent British feature films are concerned. Some call it TV Rachmanism. Others say, more mildly, that it is simple opportunism. It is, anyhow, a rigged market and my solution to the funding of this central film fund is to do so by levy, which seeks to ensure that the market mechanism overcomes the obstacle that has recently arisen on television. It creates in effect a freer market. Thus, this amendment is founded on the best Tory principles, though I welcome the fact that it has support from other Benches.
The amendment has a means and an end. The means is the levy. The end is the fund in excess of £10 million. If my noble friend Lord Lucas says to us, "I agree that the fund should exceed £10 million but I've found a way of achieving that even better than the levy", then I at least would be a happy man. I hope he does say that, but I doubt that he can better the levy, as it seems to me so equitable.
I should like to draw the Committee's attention to what was said about the levy by my honourable friend Mr. Tim Brinton in another place. He said:
"We are not talking of a tax or indeed public spending. We are simply asking the cinema fan to contribute something to his own enjoyment".
1452
I recommend as a good read the proceedings of Standing Committee B on this Bill in another place, from 29th November to 20th December last year. There one will find the other place operating at its best; there one will find that the other place also can forget party politics for a while and argue a case on its merits; and there one can find, too, the vote at the end of the debate, for this amendment was passed in Committee in another place. It was supported by my honourable friends Messrs. Gorst, Brinton, Gale and Hanley.
I found, too, at Report stage in another place on 5th February (col. 789) this forecast from my honourable friend John Gorst:
"At the end of the debate the Government will undoubtedly use their unspoken weapon—a Whipped vote—to get their way. For the time being we must accept any such verdict … but I hope that the other place will note our arguments and exercise its independent judgment on those arguments, without fear of the consequences of which we who must obey a different system must take cognisance".
Sure enough, the amendment now before your Lordships' Committee was thrown out by a Whipped vote in the other place at Report stage. Surely it is now our duty to exercise our independent judgment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and to which I and others have added our names. He has set out far better than I could, from his own specialised knowledge, the nature of the film industry's needs for financial support. It is worth reminding the Committee that the need for financial support from government is not unique to this country. Indeed, virtually every country in the civilised world, and some countries in the less civilised world, provide support of one kind or another for their indigenous film industries because they appreciate the necessity for a film industry as an essential strand in their national culture. That, I believe, is behind what appears to be the financial plea made in this amendment by the noble Viscount and others.
I disagree with the noble Viscount on one or two points of detail, but they do not affect the wording or the strength of the amendment. I do not believe that there is necessarily implicit in the amendment the assumption that television companies pay too little for films. On this matter I am content to accept the market mechanism. I should like it to be less rigged than it is, but the important point is, as the noble Viscount said, that there is, quite apart from what is paid by the television companies to the film production companies, a need for some replacement of subsidy from the viewers who are now sitting in their living rooms rather than in cinema seats.
The really difficult issue raised by this amendment is, who should the money go to? The noble Viscount has added to the amendment, as it was passed in Committee in another place, the phrase,
"distributed on a basis that will favour indigenous film production".
I am conscious of the point that the Government will make play with the use of the word "indigenous". I am conscious that there is in the Schedule to the Bill a definition of British films which, in fact, is no such thing. It is a definition of Common Market films, in order to conform to European Community regulations. It may be thought that the word

1453
"indigenous" is a way to get round that. Clearly this definition will need further investigation if it is to have full effect in statute. But the principle is sound. The principle is that money raised by a levy in this way with so little effect, as the noble Viscount made clear, on the economics of the television industry, or on its viewers, should go to the British film industry and for the purposes associated with it.
The amendment uses the phrase, "favour indigenous film production". I confess that I should like to see it go wider than that. It does not exclude going wider than that, but to my mind it would be desirable to use this opportunity, if it finds favour with the Committee, to provide finance for, for example, as they do in France, refurbishing cinemas and increasing the number of people who actually see films in cinemas as they were intended to, and as I am sure the noble Viscount and I would prefer to do if we had the choice, because that is the only way in which to get the full effect of cinematographic art. I am pleased that the amendment does not exclude other kinds of subsidy but leaves it open for that subsidy to be extended, if it were thought fit, when the matter comes back.
The really important point is that we should not have the kind of distortions that arose from the detailed working of the Eady levy even at the time when the Eady levy was at its height. The number of people visiting cinemas and, therefore, paying the levy was at a level, as I said at Second Reading, in the late 1950s and early 1960s which would give an equivalent figure now not of £10 million, which the noble Viscount quoted, but more like £20 million at 1985 prices. The real trick, of course, in a levy of this kind is to keep it out of the hands of the Americans. You can be sure that if such a levy is introduced, the highly paid American lawyers will descend on this country, and their drafting abilities are far greater than those of Mr. John Gorst, the noble Viscount, or myself. It will certainly need the most intense scrutiny by parliamentary draftsmen to make sure that the money protects and supports the film industry in this country rather than goes across the Atlantic. We certainly want to avoid the kind of abuses that took place, for example, when film companies could sell off their right to the levy to the highest bidder, thus effectively frustrating the purpose of the levy.
3.45 p.m.
We are all agreed in this Committee, and we were agreed at Second Reading, that there is no future for the Eady levy. That was a common point among us all. Nevertheless, it would be unjust not to pay tribute to the work which the Eady levy did at its best, and with all the defects to which I have referred. I want to make a proposition to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The Eady levy was brilliantly named after the civil servant who first introduced it and was to administer it. I should like to propose that, if the noble Lord agrees to the new levy, it should be called the "Lucas-Lamont" levy or the "Lamont-Lucas" levy; I would leave it to the noble Lord to decide which would be the more appropriate. If the noble Lord shows the same sympathy for the British film industry which was exhibited in all parts of the House at Second Reading, and if he reflects what I believe was the feeling of the House then and will be the feeling of the Committee
1454
now, his name ought to be enshrined in this very necessary amendment to the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: As one of the signatories to this amendment I am, of course, happy to support it, though I am bound to say that I do not feel totally satisfied with the manner in which it is framed. It bears a somewhat uneasy relationship to the next amendment on the Order Paper. There are some aspects of it which, personally, I would not think represent the best ways in which to introduce a levy.
The inadequacies of the amendments flow from the very difficult situation in which Back-Benchers find themselves during the very short period which is allowed to them between Second Reading and the Committee stage. There is insufficient time, with the total absence of resources that such unaided Back-Benchers possess, for them to put forward adequate amendments on a very complicated issue of this kind. I hope that when the noble Lord the Minister deals with this matter he will not concentrate his fire on some of the inadequacies of the actual phrasing of the amendment but will address himself to the main thrust of this (and the succeeding amendment) which is, after all, propounding the view that the film industry should look to, and is justified in looking to, a levy on television, having regard to the extent to which televison uses feature films.
Of course, there is a market in relation to the purchase of films and I do not for one moment suggest that there is a kind of conspiracy between the two television parties concerned—ITV and BBC—to defeat the film industry. But it is a totally distorted market. Here again there is no blame to be attributed to any particular Government, because the Government have more or less created a monopoly, or duopoly—pardon the term, and with all respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey—in favour of two television interests and placed them in that unique bargaining position.
I venture to submit to your Lordships' Committee that the Government, having created these distortions in no improper way, as I said, should now regard it as incumbent upon themselves to see that the film industry is not irreparably damaged by reason of this anomalous situation. The thrust of these first two amendments and the argument for them is really very simple. We have television, which is a flourishing industry, and it has for years and years been living on the film industry by reason of its (if I may use the phrase) parasitic use of feature films on a grand scale. As a consequence of that, attendance at cinemas has shrunk and diminished to a tremendous degree. There is no need to quote figures on this; everybody knows the position. That having happened, and still continuing to happen, at the moment no adequate return is made to the film industry.
There are three sectors to which one might refer in regard to the production of films in this country—and I am talking about feature films, of course. There are, first of all, the blockbusters—those gigantic film undertakings costing innumerable millions of dollars which are on so lavish a scale that we can say comfortably that they can look after themselves. If they are successful, they make colossal fortunes: if they are unsuccessful, they can cause tremendous losses.

1455
But that is not the area with which we are really concerned.
It is the second area, mainly, with which we are concerned, and that is the area of low or medium budget films, which in present extravagant terms means a film costing something approaching, or indeed probably more than, £1 million. They are the cinema films, and they are the centre of this debate. There is also something to be said—and I shall deal with it only briefly—for what might be called the arts sector; but I reserve that for a moment and I concentrate on the second category, which, as I say, is the heart of the industry and is generally described (and, although the term is vague, I think it is generally well understood) as indigenous commercial films of quality, of which, happily, numerous examples can be cited from recent times: "Chariots of Fire", "Local Hero", "The Dresser", "Another Country", and so on. All of us could give many examples.
It is that area which needs, not just minor but substantial support. All the people who understand the workings of the industry are agreed that that means something in the region of £10 million to £20 million. That is a view which is widely held, not only in the film industry but in the City. Unless there is substantial backing to get films of that category launched, we shall not be able to attract the commercial money which is necessary to bring about the production of the films.
I have said that we have to look to television primarily to create this situation. Here, again, I think that everybody is agreed about this, with of course the noteworthy exception of the television lobby. It is a matter of sadness, I think, that the Government have always shown a tendency to accept the rather specious arguments of that lobby rather than to address themselves seriously to the problems of the film industry. Of course it will have repercussions on television if a levy is laid upon it, but surely, so far as independent television is concerned, any sums which it may cost could fairly easily he recouped from advertisers or, alternatively, might produce some very slight reduction in its profits, which most people agree are pretty ample already.
As for the BBC, here, again, we have had put before us harrowing tales of the decimation of other sectors—dramatists and others—which will lose their activities if a little more is given to the film world. I venture to submit that that is a very unrealistic view. The vast number of viewers who see feature films in the comfort of their homes, which they are perfectly entitled to do, and thereby are weaned away from the cinema, means surely that television must be brought into the equation of film earnings.
The background of this matter is of course that tax concessions have been removed and Eady has been withdrawn. So far as Eady is concerned, nobody disputes the fact that, whatever the merits of Eady in the past—and the highest praise is, I think, owed to those like Sir John Terry and, more recently, Mamoun Hassan, who operated that system within its narrow restrictions with great success—it was absurd in this latter day because it imposed a heavy demand on the one sector of the film industry which was totally incapable of supporting it; that is, the cinemas. So it
1456
was in its latter day an absurdity. Apart from that, the actual amount had shrunk to a very modest sum.
So when the Government say in answer to those of us who deploy these arguments, "What are you complaining about? After all, we are taking Eady away but we are giving you twice as much in return", surely the answer to that is quite simple: That it is geared to this latter-day, totally inadequate figure which the Eady money was ultimately producing. Of course, on the footing of that figure it is twice as much, but what we are all saying, as I understand it, is that we are starting from a totally inadequate base and we have to begin again with an adequate base.
Then the Government try to deploy other arguments which seem to me equally ineffectual. They say, for example, on the one hand, that television is losing its taste for films and that it we put further levies on it then it will cease to use films. If I may say so, the most effective answer to that was given by Mr. Lamont himself in the other place on the third day of the Committee stage of the Bill on 6th December, when at column 101 of Hansard (Standing Committee B) he said:
"There can be no doubt that demand for film is voracious and increasing, and supply is falling a long way short of demand".
That does not seem to provide much support for the idea that television is backing out of film or is likely to do so.
Then the Government refer to the fourth channel. They say that, after all, the fourth channel is spending a lot of money on film, and that is really a boost that it is getting from television. Surely the answer to that is that, despite the admirable job that Jeremy Isaacs and his team are doing on the fourth channel and the deployment of money for the making of film, the films with which he is primarily concerned are films for television. They are not films for the cinema, and it is films for the cinema that are the esential target for the whole of this debate.
Then it is said that we do not want a recycling mechanism; there is something inherently bad about a recycling mechanism. Of course, Eady did have some defects as a recycling mechanism, as I would heartily agree. It helped individual producers, but it did not help the industry as such, and, unfortunately, most of those individual producers turned out to be United States distributors of film—enormous corporations of vast wealth—and that was not, of course, the aim of Eady. I am not saying that it all went to them, but quite a lot did, and that was a great weakness of the Eady system.
What those of us who support this amendment want to do, as I understand it, is to see this money paid into a fund on the footing that it is appropriated to new production and is not just passed off to people who have already made a lot of money on films in England and therefore it is thought that they ought to have a bit more, which is hardly the object of the exercise.
4 p.m.
Then we have the other arguments that the Government have put forward, as I understand it. However, those arguments seem to me to consist very largely of mere assertion. They say, "We are not persuaded of this" or, "We are not convinced of that". They really

1457
do not tell us any reasons as to why they are rejecting the points made. For instance, Mr. Lamont in the other place, said, that we cannot say that the price paid for films is unfair. Television, after all, does not negotiate with pygmies. The people selling films can fight their own corner, and it is major distributors, after all, mainly from the United States who are selling old films to television.
Surely this totally falsifies the argument. The argument is really this. Of course the United States film distributors are very happy to sell their old films at knock-down prices to British television. They do not care and they cannot be blamed if the result is to destroy the British film industry. That is not their concern. I recall the brilliant speech that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made some little time ago in this House when he demonstrated so clearly, with his tremendous knowledge of these matters, the attitude of the American film industry and the devastating damage that it has caused to our own. So I really do not think this kind of argument can be allowed to wash.
I agree that it is a criticism of Amendment No. 1 in its present form that it is to provide for payment to makers of films and that quite a lot of this might eventually find its way into the hands of United States distributors. I think this is one of those points that I was making at the beginning,. That is that I think this amendment is unfortunately framed in so far as it is directed to producing money for individual producers rather than a fund which supports the film industry itself. However, that is a matter of drafting. If we could only persuade the Government—as I still have a faint hope that we might—that creating such a fund is what we are really about, then this matter should be put right quite easily at the next stage.
I do not propose to take up much of the Committee's time in talking about the third sector to which I have referred, which is what I have called the arts sector, though I hasten to say, as a one-time chairman of the British Film Institute, that I do not think and never have thought that the arts sector can in any way be separated by a clear line of demarcation from the commercial film. However, what I am referring to basically is the rather small-scale production of small, cheap films involving new talent and experimental ideas, the kind of things that the British Film Production Board have supported most valuably for many years.
In this area the Government have virtually done nothing except to provide for a final hand-out from Eady for the production board and then to say, "Go your way with our blessing and just get on with it".
I suggest that that is not good enough. This is a very important section of the industry. There is need for more to be done in that direction. Certainly some small part of a levy, if it were to produce a substantial sum, as most of us think it could do, could be diverted in that direction. My conclusion is that here you have no recycling mechanism, very little public money and the film industry is offered, as one may say, all aids short of help. The position compares most unfavourably with other eminent film-producing countries. If the Government fail to heed the warnings which have been sounded with a remarkable degree of
1458
unanimity from every quarter of the industry, I am afraid—and many far more knowledgeable than I have expressed this view—that films and cinema in this country will gradually fade out and will leave all our high hopes for a flourishing art and industry of the film totally disappointed. I am sure that it cannot be that sad day over which the present Minister would wish to preside.
The Viscount of Falkland: First of all I should like to thank, the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. I am encouraged by having an ally on the other side of the House, an ally in our fairly new approach to a very difficult task, which is to introduce amendments of this kind.
I support the amendment of the noble Viscount but with certain reservations. I think one can be quite brief about this. There has grown up, and there is implied in these amendments, a certain criticism of the BBC and the television companies. The first unjust criticism, which is often heard, is that the decline in the British film industry has been entirely due to the growth of television, which has somehow seduced the filmgoer away from the cinema and theatre to the comfort of his drawing-room or television room, so that there in some way a responsibility upon the BBC and the television companies to expiate their guilt. I should say that this is an unfortunate construction of an adversarial position between film and television.
I suggest that we have a good deal to be grateful for in the service of television over the years, in encouraging, or at least maintaining, an interest in the cinema. I do not mean an interest in what have been called in another place in discussions on this subject "easy" films or "commercial" films. I mean on all types of cinema. We have to thank particularly Channel 4, recently, and BBC 2 for introducing people who, without this kind of exposure, would have been quite unaware of the developments of film throughout not only the English-speaking world but also in other parts of the world the quality of whose films with subtitles and so on has sometimes been difficult to grasp. We have films from Poland, Czechoslovakia—particularly films from behind the Iron Curtain—and from India, Japan and so on. So I should say that television has, particularly recently, performed a very valuable service and we should hear that in mind.
Among people working in the film industry and in the television world there is not a deeply felt conflict of interest. There may be a conflict which is implied by the structures in which they work. But many of the technicians and creative artists who work in television also work in cinema. So this kind of feeling should be encouraged to grow. We should not dwell too much on who was responsible for the decline in cinema attendance. I know where the decline in cinema attendance has come from. I suggested that to the Chamber when we covered this matter at Second Reading. I persevere with that. That is one of my main criticisms of the whole inspiration of this Bill.
If blame is to be laid for the decline of cinema audiences, it must be laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the exhibitors in this country. The cinemas are in a disgraceful state and they have become more disgraceful over the years. These have been increasingly in the hands of one or two large

1459
companies. The ironic aspect is that these two large companies that have presided over the decline in cinema attendance are the proposed mainsprings of this new company. However, we shall come to that matter later on.
If we are to create a company which replaces the very excellent function performed by the National Film Finance Corporation, I would say this. Here one has to say—and I agree with other noble Lords—that it was time for something to be done. The Eady levy was totally irrelevant and produced a very small amount of income due to the decline in cinema audiences. I am optimistic about this. I hope that after we have churned this over, we can persuade the Minister to bring his influence to bear so that we can have a sensible body with sensible aims and a sensible realisation of its responsibilities—its responsibilities not only to the structure but also to the future of the film business in this country.
I hope that your Lordships will be persuaded to agree with me that the film industry, curiously, is on the doorstep of a new era. I do not say that merely in the light of recent awards for very excellent productions, many of them inspired by Mr. Puttnam, a supporter—I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of this—of those of us who sit on these Benches. With all thanks to him—because he is one of the driving forces—we are on the springboard of a new era. Young people coming out of schools and universities are well versed in film appreciation which is becoming a serious study. Many young people now study for A-level in that subject.
The whole business of film and its place in culture is much more readily appreciated now than it was 10 years ago. Certainly, when I started to go to the cinema it was perhaps relevant to talk about easy and commercial films and art house films. Now it is invidious to make this comparison. We have cinema. And cinema, although we have been slow to realise it in this country, is the art of the twentieth century. We are the only country in the world where those going about their normal social activities do not talk about films in exactly the same way that they talk about books, going to the theatre or anything else. It is a conventional wisdom here that the cinema is somewhere you go to laugh easily or perhaps to eat a bar of chocolate and disturb the enjoyment of everyone else. We have to thank television for encouraging a more serious approach to cinema even though it exists in the comparative freedom of the home with all the interruptions that this implies.
To stick strictly to these two amendments, the television companies have a duty to contribute to the funding of the new company, but this has to take place in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation with all those who put their endeavour into this industry in order to make it grow. One should be sympathetic to their problems. Those problems certainly exist. There are many noble Lords who are more expert about television than I am. They will interrupt me if I am wrong in saying that when the television companies negotiate to buy feature films they tend to buy them in packages. This means that there may be a good one in the bunch but possibly also some rough ones. Generally speaking, the negotiations take place—this
1460
will appeal to the noble Lord the Minister—in the atmosphere of a free market. No one complains about that. All the film people and television people with whom I have discussed this matter do not disagree that this is, the way things are done. I have not heard anyone in the business talk of rigged markets or anything of that kind.
We should encourage this sense of collaboration and go forward to the new era of cinema which is upon us looking sympathetically upon the ability of the television companies to pay and their responsibilities in this area, but at the same time bearing in mind the requirements of the new company. Basically, the new company, in every way that it has been described, is under-funded. This has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
The noble Viscount mentioned a figure. I would go even higher. If money is to be attracted from the private sector into film finance, there will first have to be some likelihood of success. No one in business will invest in films unless it is thought that there is a likelihood of success. As all noble Lords, even those with only a minimal knowledge of this business, will know, success is quite difficult to come by even when all the signs look favourable. It is a matter of encouraging people to invest in a very speculative business. We are not dealing with a commodity that comes off the end of a production line. We are dealing with a combination of art and industry. It is a fine, sensitively balanced product all the way through its manufacture. I would argue that any funding under £20 million to £25 million for the new company is unreasonable. The kind of money that we suggest the television companies should contribute will only represent a very small part of the amount that is required. It would be unfair to expect them to put into the pot an unreasonable amount on the basis that they have monopolised the potential audience. In the new era I hope that people will go back to the cinema theatres because that is where cinema really makes its mark.
4.15 p.m.
There is a difference—it has been mentioned already in our discussions this afternoon—between a film made for television and a film made for the cinema theatre which goes beyond the budget. The aims of a television film and how it tells its story in visual terms, without getting too technical, are limited. The film story is told in a different way. On the larger screen, in the cinema theatre, where a wider panorama, if you like, is the norm, you need money. Anything beyond four weeks' shooting on funding of around £1 million to £1·5 million for the small to medium budget pictures, so admirably done and financed at the moment by Channel 4, is unreasonable. And that does not include any shooting at night. For feature films, with a likelihood of success abroad, you need to think in terms of a budget in excess of £3 million. I support the amendment. I believe that the television companies will willingly make a fair contribution in relation to the part that cinema plays on the television screen but we do not want to make them feel that this is a position into which they have been kicked and booted.
Lord Willis: I indicated at Second Reading that the idea behind the amendment has my sympathy. I am, however, sorry to have to depart from my noble friends in saying that the amendment cannot have my support. I would add, in parenthesis, that I noticed that the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, quoted from Hansard in this place. I understand that this is against the rules of the House. It should perhaps be noted that I do not intend to quote from Hansard in what I wish to say.
As already stated, films in this country need two sources of finance. First, they need what is called the start money or the risk money. I should like briefly to explain to your Lordships—I have been in the business now as a writer for something like 40 years—the process that takes place. A producer reads a book, sees a play or sees a writer and an idea emerges for the production of a film. That producer then needs some start money. He needs to pay the writer to write a screenplay. He needs to pay an accountant to draw up a budget once the screenplay is written so that the cost will be known. He needs all kinds of other relatively small amounts of money to get the process started. That is needed before he goes to investors. Once he has that property, that product, then he can go to investors to start raising the rather large sums of money that are necessary to make a film.
In the past that start money has been provided by individual investors and by money from the Eady fund, though most of that found its way into the pockets of the Americans, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, and as I said on Second Reading. It came also from the British Film Institute, sometimes from television companies, and so forth. What is worrying the film industry is the fact that over the next few years that start money is going to be drastically reduced from all its various sources. It is that start money which is absolutely essential to the health of the British film industry.
I see behind this amendment a very worthy attempt on the part of my colleagues in the industry to scurry around to try to replace the money that is going to be lost. They look around and think, "Well, who can we best clobber? Who can we get it from?" May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, that I am not speaking here on behalf of the television lobby. It is my submission, looking at it quite coolly from our side—because it would in fact be in my interest if a fund such as this were set up—that the television companies are doing a very good job in regard to films.
Let me give one or two examples. They substantially underpin the British film industry at the moment, and have been responsible in the last few years for taking up the slack that arose because of the continuing decrease in the Eady levy. I should like to mention one or two figures. Channel 4 has already allocated £96 million to film and video. It will fund about 100 films by 1987. Although these are low-budget and modest-budget films, at least 50 per cent. of them are destined to be shown in cinemas. Of course as we know, if you can launch about 100 low-budget films, any one of these may become what we in the business call a "sleeper". The meaning of that is the very reverse of what it actually sounds like. A "sleeper" is a film of
1462
low budget which suddenly takes off and makes a great deal of money.
The television companies also provide a great body of useful work. I like very much the point the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made about the interchange between film and television technicians, writers, and so forth. In fact, there is very little difference nowadays. I am a member of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain. We represent television writers, screen writers and dramatists. But in fact you could count on the fingers of both hands the number of people in this country who actually earn their living simply by screen writing. I cross the frontiers every year of my life. Last year I wrote a television series, two film plays and also a play for the theatre. Nowadays there is very little distinction. If you are a craftsman in our area, you have to be skilled enough to cross those frontiers at a particular time.
In addition to the contribution that Channel 4 is making, ITV makes a large grant to the school, to the British Film Institute and to film and video workshops. It will amount to about £3½ million over the next five years. These are not insubstantial amounts. ITV has also pledged support for the new film consortium. Finally, many of the ITV companies have set up their own film production arms and are actively producing either mini-series, which are really another form of cinema, or feature films; so their contribution is pretty substantial. My feeling is that to clobber them again and to go back and ask them to contribute to a levy would be totally wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether my noble friend will permit me to intervene. The amendment does not actually refer to Channel 4, which he has been citing with such approval. It refers to the contractors and the BBC, and therefore it is not a question of clobbering those who, as he says, have been so effective in their support of the cinema.
Lord Willis: With respect, my noble friend is wrong, because Channel 4 is supported totally by subscriptions from the ITV companies and so the money comes indirectly through the ITV companies. I believe this is wrong. One of the arguments that has been advanced is that the payments made for films shown on television are unfair—that they are too low and sometimes they are too rigged. I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that, as has been said, there is a pretty free market in films. I cannot really believe that the Americans are so stupid as to sell films at low prices when they could get better prices for them.
What is more, we have to remember that satellite and cable are now beginning to take off and there will be increasing competition for the existing stock of films. At the same time this will also provide more money in one way or another for the production of films; so it is a two-edged sword. Certainly I do not think that the ITV companies will for long be able to say that they can fill an hour or an hour-and-a-half of television with a feature film which they bought for £8,000 or £10,000. The price is going up all the time.
There are other things I could say, but I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' Committee about the nature of the levy that is suggested in this

1463
amendment. It would be very unwieldy and very difficult. You would have to deal with a great mess of copyright owners, quite apart from the people who actually own the films. For example, I happen to own certain rights in one or two movies that I have made in the last 20 to 25 years. What happened was that I leased the rights—I did not sell them; I am too careful for that—to the film companies to make films from my stories. If those films are shown again or sold again, I have to have some money; and so if there was a levy, I and other people would say, quite rightly, "We want a piece of this, too". It would be unfair not to do that. There are all kinds of other people who have subsidiary rights which would complicate this kind of recycling mechanism. I come back to the point that I think this is a wrong-headed but well-intentioned amendment, and I am opposed to it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am greatly obliged to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. May I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Mersey on the first occasion on which he has moved an amendment. He moved it with a good deal of eloquence. I suspect that he has perhaps rehearsed his explanation of the amendment on a number of occasions. I should not want to quarrel very much with him about some of the figures in his speech; nor do I want, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, suggested I might, to argue about the inadequacies, omissions or technical deficiencies of the two amendments before us. I say "two amendments" because it was agreed that we were to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together, since essentially they fall into the same subject area.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State shall, by order made by statutory instrument, establish within one year from the passing of this Act arrangements for the levy from independent television contractors and the BBC of an appropriate sum of money to be determined by him for the showing of feature films on television.
(8) The Secretary of State shall, by the same order, determine the amounts of and the regulations under which the proceeds of the levy are distributed to makers of British films whose products have been exhibited on television during a qualifying period to be determined by the Secretary of State.
(9) The Secretary of State may appoint a person, or persons, or he may request the tribunal appointed under subsection (11) below to make recommendations to him and to provide other services in connection with the discharge by him of his functions under subsections (7) and (8).
(10) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under subsection (8), or for meeting any expenses under subsection (9), shall be paid out of money levied under subsection (7).
(11) The Secretary of State shall establish within one year of the passing of this Act a films tribunal to which any British film maker may appeal against an unfair price paid by an independent television contractor or the BBC for a feature film intended for exhibition on television.
(12) If, in the opinion of the tribunal, a below market or unfair price has been offered by the television operator the tribunal shall have the power to order that a proper price be paid, or any contract be nullified.
(13) The tribunal shall have the power to listen to a complaint from any British film maker whose product has been exhibited in a British cinema within the previous five years, regardless of whether he has been the maker of the feature film about which the complaint has been made.")
At the heart of these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh acknowledged, is the view that although the Eady levy itself, as a levy on cinema admissions, had outlived its usefulness, a levy
1464
principle of some kind should be preserved. The modern medium of mass exhibition of films is no longer the cinema, but televison. Therefore, what is more natural and sensible—at least, so the argument runs, and has run in the Committee this afternoon—than to transfer the Eady levy with some support, some greater sophistication, to the television screen? Such a levy might then perform all the functions that Eady performed to support the National Film Finance Corporation and part-finance the National Film and Television School and the British Film Institute Production Board, and thus, in some manner recycle money to British film makers. It is a familiar argument and I suggest that it is only just superficially attractive.
The argument ignores the real and substantial difference between the cinema sector of the past, when the levy was introduced, and the modern and future television industry. Although I accept that my noble friend Lord Mersey spoke of a few pence per day as being representative of the television licence fee, I point out that essentially the argument sweeps aside the consideration that the television viewer has already paid money towards independent television either by way of a licence fee or through the shopping basket. The argument also ignores that films are simply one small, and slightly decreasing, proportion of the programming that is available to the viewer. My understanding is that, as between ITV and BBC, feature films amount to something between only 8 and 11 per cent. of total programming available. So there is a tremendous difference between the film fan making an effort to go out for an evening to see a film and the television viewer who has perhaps taken no more trouble than to leave the set on at the conclusion of the last programme that he wanted to view.
4.30 p.m.
I spent some little time on Second Reading outlining the Government's view on the principle of the levy. Therefore, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I repeat some of the remarks that I made at that time. The Committee will be aware that the White Paper which was published last July marked the culmination of a very long review of film policy, during which we received representations somewhat similar to those advanced today about the case for a levy. Those representations are summarised in paragraph 5 of the White Paper and the Government's response also appears in that paragraph. That response makes the point that we do not believe that statutory recycling mechanisms are an efficient way in which to encourage an economic activity that is essentially oriented towards the market—a market that is expanding through new outlets, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon.
The argument that the original Eady system was efficient by virtue of the fact that it rewarded success, cannot be used to promote arrangements for siphoning off returns from commerically successful productions in order that films can be made which perhaps would not otherwise attract market finance. We stated in the White Paper that we did not believe that the Government should intervene by introducing a television film levy which would increase the costs both of the BBC, with consequent implications for the

1465
television licence fee, and of the ITV companies. Therefore, in keeping with our general approach away from the statutory intervention of the last 30 years and towards the creation of the right business environment, the White Paper rejected the idea of a statutory levy. That, in a nutshell, remains the Government's position.
We have heard many times, both here this afternoon and during the proceedings in another place, arguments advanced by the proponents of a redistributive levy. But I have to say that we remain unconvinced that such a levy is, in principle, a sound prescription for the health of the film industry.
I should say something about what has been called the duopoly of the BBC and ITV which was mentioned both by my noble friend Lord Mersey and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. Strictly speaking, of course, the BBC and ITV have represented what has become known as a duopoly in the sense that until recently they were the only television channels available. There is no obligation on a film maker to accept a particular price for his film. Since we first discussed this matter I have been at pains to make some investigations. I remain unconvinced that those negotiating with the BBC and ITV companies cannot fight their own case effectively. The rights to the films are generally owned either by the major distributors, who are well able to argue their own corner, or by independent producers who are usually sufficiently big to have retained the rights and are therefore unlikely to be easily overpowered by the BBC or ITV.
Naturally one has to accept that the market for films may not be perfect. On the supply side, some films will be more attractive to one channel than to the other. In such cases there may be only one buyer. Some films will be of a type that is regarded as unsuitable for showing on open television at all. The majority of films are probably those that either channel would regard as acceptable for broadcasting, and the decision to buy will then depend on the price and the quality, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested, it will also depend very much on how much mediocre screen filler is in the total package.
There is little doubt that the supply of good quality films that will attract television audiences today falls a good way short of demand. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, stole a good many of my speech notes in his remarks. Perhaps noble Lords will accept that I agreed with very much of what he said. I am glad he said it because noble Lords may perhaps accept it more readily from him than from me, in view of the noble Lord's great experience. The noble Lord mentioned that, in view of the developments that are taking place as regards cable and satellite, they, too, would be looking for a share of good quality films. The pressure is on supply; it is significant; it will become greater and the powers of the owners of the film rights will increase accordingly. I do not believe that the duopoly argument is a very serious worry today; I believe that in future it will become even less of a worry.
In connection with what the television industry has been doing for films, it is interesting to note that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned Channel 4's expenditure on films. I would merely add that, of 60 films that have been financed by Channel 4 in recent
1466
times, 34 have actually had exhibition cinema releases and 25 of those films have received awards or have been selected for film festivals. Therefore, that is purely an endorsement of what the television industry can do for the film industry.
I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, criticised the Government's statement that television companies are dealing with people who can look after themselves. Certainly, in his argument he did not demonstrate why film sellers cannot get a decent price for their product from television. What he really said was that because television as a whole is so widely part of the leisure industry—I cannot remember the number of households without a television set—it would be a good lemon to squeeze. He was saying, in effect, "Television can afford a levy, so let's have a levy anyway". We do not think that that is at all the right way in which to go about it.
The proposition raises a number of practical matters. For example, the amendment suggests that the matter might be related to the audience viewing the film. However, what will be the view of those who produce specialist material for television? Will the sportsmen and those running the cookery classes and the dancing classes say, "If films can have a 50p levy or a 25p levy, we want a pence levy on ours"? How, indeed, can it be distributed? How much cost would be involved? However superficially attractive a few pence might be, as my noble friend suggested, these matters must be borne in mind. Suppose there was £9 million, £10 million, £20 million or £30 million: how would it get to the right people? I do not believe that it would.
Essentially, I have argued against the principle of extracting money to revert to the film industry, which is the idea contained in these two amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that the Government pay too much attention to the specious arguments of the broadcaster. I noted that Mr. Alan Howden, who is the BBC's general manager for programme acquisition, said in an article in the journal Broadcast that he fully accepted that many films were purchased cheaply, but he pointed out that they are old material. He said:
"They are there because they are cheap; if they were subject to a levy we would have to replace them with other cheap imported material".
Mr. Howden may paint a rather gloomy picture, but I think it is perhaps realistic of what might happen if a levy were introduced. He said that decent films might very well be swept away in favour of old American television material and other cheap imports; purchases of new films would be cut back; prices would be pushed down to offset the levy wherever possible and whenever possible; and the net return to the film industry would almost certainly be reduced. I do not believe that that is what noble Lords really want.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, repeated some of the remarks that he made during the Second Reading debate in which he criticised the product which the exhibitor was offering to the public. As I said on Second Reading, I can only endorse that. There is no question of the TV viewer being weaned away from the cinema. If the product is right, he will go. I repeat: feature films—long or short—account for a declining 8 to 11 per cent. of total programming time.
I have spoken about these issues of principle, and I hope that I have also touched upon some of the more

1467
important points which other noble Lords have raised in support or otherwise of these amendments. We have considered a levy, and we have rejected the idea of a levy. We have not changed our view that it would be wrong to impose statutory redistributive levies. We do not believe that that is the right way forward for the film industry. Today's edition of the Daily Mail contains an article headed, "Where Britain Leads", and it comments on the success of Mr. Puttnam's film, "The Killing Fields". The article says:
"Some credit for this great new creative phase of British film-making must go to the way that Mrs. Thatcher's Government has removed the grosser financial penalties on the top talents in this very risky business".
With that endorsement of a splendidly growing and virile film industry, I would ask noble Lords to reject these two amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It must be for the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, to decide what he wants to do about the amendment which he has moved, but I, for my part, would say that the Government have been totally uncompromising in their reply and have failed to make out an effective case against the levy which is put forward in the amendment which the noble Viscount so eloquently moved. Unfortunately, I also have to address that remark to my noble friend Lord Willis, who avoided some of the inconsistencies of the noble Lord the Minister in his reply. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seemed to be making two separate conflicting remarks at the same time. On the one hand, he said that films were a declining part of television, that the audiences for them are not sufficent, and therefore any levy would put those audiences even further at risk.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say that. I said that across all the channels feature films accounted for between 8 and 11 per cent. of programming time, and that that share of programming time was decreasing. It follows because the viewer does not particularly want that kind of programme across his television screen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am content with the noble Lord's repetition of his remarks; but very shortly after that he was arguing that we were reaching the stage where there would be a seller's market for feature films; that, for example, there were increasing markets in cable and satellite broadcasting, and that the longer-term rewards for film producers would be increasing. There seems to be some conflict between those two statements. To put it at its lowest, there seems to be no solid basis for the confidence which the noble Lord has in the commercial field as well as for the artistic future of the British film.
My noble friend Lord Willis made as effective a speech now as he did when he spoke in the debate on the White Paper in December. The difference is that in December, and during his Second Reading speech, he argued very strongly not only against a levy but for tax changes. The difficulty with the argument for tax changes is that such changes could not be introduced in the context of this Bill; nor could they be introduced
1468
from your Lordships' House. If we are to treat the matter within the confines of our own powers and our own responsibilities, we must look for sources of public finance for the film industry which are capable of being introduced by amendment within the Bill.
Therefore, with all respect, my noble friend put only half his case and left his argument hanging in the air, because he now has no alternative to the case for the levy which has been put forward from all sides of the Committee. I hope and believe that the Committee will think that the case has not been destroyed or even significantly dented by the arguments put forward.
Viscount Mersey: We have had a long and, I think, very good debate. I could go into a number of very detailed points now; there were minor matters with which I agree and disagree which were put forward by other noble Lords whose names are on the Marshalled List of amendments. However, I think that that could better be done outside this Chamber. But I must apologise for quoting from Hansard. In fact, I was not absolutely certain whether I was quoting from Hansard, because I was quoting from what took place in a Committee room; but perhaps that is still Hansard. Doubtless that is my fault, and I apologise for it.
My noble friend Lord Lucas raised practical difficulties concerning this amendment. The amendment is not perfectly drafted, and other noble Lords have said the same. At one stage in my opening remarks I left the door wide open for my noble friend. I said that we have this idea of a levy which we think is pretty good, but that if he could guarantee another even better way of getting over £10 million into a central film fund, that would be great. I honestly do not think that my noble friend has done that. I see that he remains silent. Therefore, I must divide the Committee.
4.50 p.m.
On Question. Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ezra, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fitt, L.

Attlee, E.

Foot, L.

Auckland, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bernstein, L.

Grey, E.

Beswick, L.

Grimond, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hayter, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chitnis, L.

Ilchester, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacobson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jacques, L.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ellenborough, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ennals, L.

Killearn, L.

1469

Kilmarnock, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rea, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rugby, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Shinwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stamp, L.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Marley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mersey, V. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mulley, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mancroft, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marsh, L.

Alport, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Avon, E.

Middleton, L.

Bauer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Belstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cathcart, E.

Polwarth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Porritt, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Portland, D.

Cranbrook, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Croft, L.

Reay, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reigate, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sandys, L.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hemphill, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kintore, E.

Vivian, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Willis, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

Rating and Revaluation-Scotland
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement a Statement that has recently been made in another place by my right
1470
Honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:—
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement about revaluation and rate support grant in Scotland. As honourable Members know there has been a revaluation of property in Scotland which will come on 1st April this year. I believe that such regular revaluations are essential to maintain a fair distribution of burdens within the rating system. In considering the rate support grant settlement for 1985–86, I have had very much in mind the special issues which revaluation raises.
"It is however now becoming very clear that authorities are not heeding my repeated warnings to contain their expenditure. Spending in both 1984–85 and 1985–86 will continue to be above the Government's plans. I will, of course, be closely examining the budgets of all authorities to see if any are planning expenditure of a level which would make in necessary for me to take selective action to reduce their rates. I would also remind all authorities that the penalties for overspending in 1985–86 will be much more severe than in 1984–85.
"I consider that the increases in rate bills now emerging are in general so steep that I must take further action to protect domestic ratepayers. I have therefore decided to increase the total of aggregate Exchequer grant and, within it, the domestic element of rate support grant by £38·5 million making it possible to increase domestic rate relief to 8p per pound of rateable value. This is an eight-fold increase over 1984–85 from £12 million to £102 million. Domestic rate relief is a direct relief on each £1 of rateable value and accordingly the benefit from it increases with rateable value. The necessary order will be laid shortly.
"The increase in domestic rates will in total now be reduced from 24 per cent. to about 17 per cent. The increases for individual domestic ratepayers will in many cases be higher, and in many cases lower, than this figure, depending on the level of spending in their local authorities and changes in the pattern of valuation. It is pf course open to ratepayers to appeal against their valuation and we have made improvements in appeal procedures in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. The cost of increasing domestic rate relief in this way will be financed by adjustments within my existing policies and expenditure programmes.
"As I have said, the object of revaluation is to apportion the rate burden fairly. This means that some pay a larger share and some a smaller share. That is justifiable, but it is necessary to have regard to the effects on domestic ratepayers in current circumstances. This I have done with a substantial increase in domestic rate relief".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Carmichael of kelvingrove: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place? Is he aware that this Statement is primarily necessary only because of the dreadful mess the Scottish Office

1471
has made of the whole revaluation exercise? The Statement suggests that regular revaluations are important, and that is something with which we on this side would completely agree, because continual adjustments are needed. But does the noble Earl accept that the delay in revaluation has made the medicine a great deal more bitter than it would otherwise have been—and this is where it becomes slightly ironic for the Secretary of State to say that he believes in regular revaluation—and that the Secretary of State delayed revaluation at the appropriate time because it would have arrived in the middle of the 1983 election, and that would have been extremely embarrassing for the party opposite?
The Statement makes it clear that the rate increases now emerging are very steep indeed. Would the Minister accept that, contrary to what is suggested in the Statement about Certain local authorities not heeding the repeated warnings to contain their expenditure that the Secretary of State has issued from time to time, the implication being that the effect of the revaluation is only going to hit what the Secretary of State would call the recalcitrant authorities, the higher rates are in fact hitting even the traditional true blue Tory areas, such as, for instance, Eastwood and the Border region, where the rate increases are respectively estimated to be about 38 per cent. and about 22 per cent.? So the implication in the second paragraph of the Statement is somewhat bordering on the misleading, and perhaps even on the dishonest.
Is the noble Earl aware that this belated concession that he has made of 8p in the pound as against 5p in the pound is quite inadequate and that at least 10p would have been needed in order to make it reasonable for the thousands of families who are going to have a particularly difficult time because of the revaluation? Is he aware that this concession is unlikely to reduce the anger of prominent Scottish Tories, who have publicly attacked the Secretary of State for forcing revaluation as he has done—not least the chairman of the Conservatives in Scotland, who made a futile trip to London to try to persuade the Secretary of State that the whole revaluation exercise should be postponed?
Can the Minister tell us what results we can expect in the other areas of Scottish Office financing when the adjustment (as it appears in the Statement) of £38·5 million is made within the Secretary of State's existing policies and expenditure programmes? Where will this money come from? Finally, does this Statement really mean that we can forget about the promises made repeatedly by the Secretary of State for Scotland from 1979 right through almost to the eve of the election in 1983, that the Scottish Conservatives would abolish the whole rating system?
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to echo our thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It will of course do little or nothing at all to allay the acute anxieties among so many people in Scotland—if not indeed all ratepayers in Scotland—over the increasing burden of rates which they face.
May I ask the Minister, first, about the question of revaluation? I share much of the feeling behind the
1472
concern and shock expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, about the delay in the revaluation. It is, of course, part of the conventional wisdom of the Scottish Office, and I think we all accept, or have done up to date, that regular revaluations are essential to maintain a fair distribution of the burdens. Why delay the revaluation?
Could the Minister tell us, perhaps—some people better informed than I will already know, but could the Minister tell us for the benefit of the people of Scotland—why we have so much concern for regular revaluations in Scotland when, of course, there has not been any revaluation in England, as I understand it, since 1973, if the press is right?
May I comment, secondly, on the third paragraph of the Statement, which reads:
"I consider that the increases in rate bills now emerging are in general so steep that I must take further action to protect domestic ratepayers".
That statement takes my breath away, coming from a Minister in a Government which we thought was committed to radical reform of the rating system in Scotland, after six years in power. The only thing to be said in favour of that statement is that it is extraordinarily frank, and that at least is something, coming from this Government.
But what follows—and I wonder what comment the Minister would care to make on this—is in effect too little and too late. It is too late because, of course, everyone has been telling the Scottish Office about the grievous increased burdens that people would have to bear so far as rating is concerned. To that extent, therefore, the Secretary of State's conversion would seem to come too late. I agree with, and would just acknowledge, what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said: that it is far too little.
May I ask the Minister to comment on a point raised in the fourth paragraph, where it says:
"The increase in domestic rates will in total now be reduced from 24 per cent. to about 17 per cent."?
I understand that COSLA said that the increase in domestic rates before this Statement would be in the region of 27 per cent. I wonder whether the Minister has any comment to make on that, as against the figure in the Statement of 24 per cent.?
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether he can tell the House and the people of Scotland when this Government, who have paid so much lip service to the need for radical reform of the financing of local government—with which I and my noble colleagues on these Benches entirely agree—intend to give us that radical reform and to introduce a little sanity? I am sorry; I get a little excited about this, but we really ought to have a little sanity in the relationship between central and local government—instead of which, does the Minister not agree, it gets madder and madder? I know that in 1966 the Labour Government, and maybe other governments before, adopted this approach to local government finance, but enough is enough. When are the Government going to do something about it?
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and

1473
to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for their welcome to this Statement. It was a rather muted welcome to good news, but there we are. It was welcome to some extent. If I may try to reply to some of the points that they raised, both noble Lords said that this was, in effect, a dreadful mess by the Scottish Office and that there were anxieties over the change. I suggest to them that perhaps they should go and ask some of the industrialists in Scotland, whose rate bills have gone down as a result of this revaluation, and ask them whether they consider that it was a mistake.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that we ought to put the domestic rate relief at 10p in the pound and not 8p. All I can tell him is that COSLA asked the Secretary of State for £31 million, but the Secretary of State said, "No, it will be £38.5 million", so that was rather beneficial to the domestic ratepayers. He asked me also about savings. About £26 million of the savings will come from reductions in my right honourable friend's cash limited programmes in 1985–86. The programmes mainly affected are likely to be industry—and that is largely the SDA—roads and transport, the urban programme and health and housing. My right honourable friend has also taken some account of the grant penalties which are likely to arise from authorities through overspending. There is also some underspending in the current year that can be brought forward but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, without coming to the end of the financial year these figures cannot be finalised.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, asked: What about England? As I am sure the noble and learned Lord of all people does not need reminding, there are totally different systems in Scotland and in England. In England, the revaluation is made at the request of the Secretary of State for the Environment and it is done by the Inland Revenue. In Scotland, it has to be carried out every five years unless Parliament agrees to a deferment and it is carried out by independent assessors. I cannot stress that too strongly. It is not a Government revaluation; it is an independent assessor's revaluation.
The noble and learned Lord also said that COSLA had suggested that the increase in domestic rates was 27 per cent., whereas the figure that I quoted earlier was 24 per cent. I think that the figure of 27 per cent. comes from the article in The Scotsman today, which I believe was put out partly by COSLA. I understand that the figures contained in that article include water rates and that probably accounts for the difference. If it does not, I will write to the noble and learned Lord. So that clarifies the situation. With regard to the reform of the rating system, we have discussed this fairly lengthily in the past and perhaps this would be an inappropriate time to take the matter a stage further.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, would the noble Earl care to comment on the fact that the new valuations in Grampian region are, on average, two-and-a-half times what they have been in the past five years, and that the proposed domestic rates increases in Banff and Buchan district are, in many cases, in the region of 21 per cent. up on last year, which will hit householders very hard indeed and is far in excess of inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for what she has said. The figures that I have before me relating to Banff and Buchan—and this is confirmed by COSLA—are that the domestic rate increase, on average, is about 15.3 per cent. That will be reduced by 6 to 7 per cent., following the Statement that I have repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend. So that will bring the figure down to under 10 per cent. As she will appreciate, when there is a revaluation some values will go up and some will come down. But the advantage that we have had in Scotland of a regular revaluation is that when there are these discrepancies they are sorted out at an early stage. As the noble Lady will be aware, there has been enormous pressure for the revaluation to be delayed. But if it were delayed, it would only compound the problems.

Surrogate Motherhood: Legislation
5.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on commercial surrogacy.
"Over the last few months there has been increasing concern about the practice of surrogacy—that is, the practice whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant with the intention that the resulting child should be handed over to another couple. This concern has related particularly to the activities of agencies which operate to promote surrogacy arrangements on a commercial basis. We also now have the results of the consultation which we initiated on the Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology. Although there was some difference of view about the general principle of surrogacy, there was almost total agreement on the unacceptability of surrogacy undertaken on a commercial basis.
"When the Warnock Report was debated in this House last November, I said that the Government would consider urgently whether clarification of the law on surrogacy was necessary. This we have now done. It is quite clear that the question of surrogacy raises wide issues not just of general principle, but also about, for example, the legal status of children and the involvement of professional people in facilitating surrogacy arrangements. We have concluded that it would be right to deal with these questions in the comprehensive legislation which is needed to deal with the whole range of issues raised by the Warnock Report.
"Nevertheless, it is clear that the existing position is unsatisfactory. The case of baby Cotton demonstrated the difficulties which commercial surrogacy arrangements can cause and the widespread public concern about them. There are almost certainly other similar cases in prospect and

1475
there is an incentive for commercial agencies to increase their activities before any general legislation can be brought forward.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government believe that commercial surrogacy is in principle undesirable and that commercial agencies should be prevented from operating in this country. I shall therefore shortly be bringing forward a Bill to achieve this purpose. It will prohibit such agencies from recruiting women as surrogate mothers and from making surrogacy arrangements; and it will prohibit advertising of their services.
"Mr. Speaker, the objectives of this Bill will not be to resolve all the issues in the field of surrogacy. It will, however, give rapid effect to the widespread view that this is not an area where commercial agencies should operate and will avoid an escalation in the number of surrogacy arrangements procured by them. I hope that the House will agree that action of this kind is justified and urgent."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. He will be aware that in the debate on the Warnock Report in this House on 31st October, when we all spoke as individuals, though there were differing views on many of the recommendations in the Warnock Report, there was near unity in the strength of feeling against the practice of surrogate motherhood and the need for early legislation, especially to make illegal the agencies making money out of these negotiations. Thus, in my personal view, most Members of your Lordships' House will welcome the Government's intentions as set out in the Statement.
Does the noble Lord the Minister accept that there is something deeply wrong when a womb is used for financial gain? Does it not reflect on the values we place on human life, as if a child was an article for sale? Does he not also agree that there are major social and legal as well as ethical problems involved which could affect the surrogate mother, the couple and the child? May I put to him two questions? First, can the noble Lord give any indication of the target date for this proposed legislation to take effect? Secondly, can the noble Lord give any additional information on the proposed timetable of further long-term legislation not only dealing with surrogacy but with other aspects of the Warnock report?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. This is not a party political matter but I think that there will be widespread agreement that it was right to take action against commercial surrogacy. My personal view—I repeat that it is a personal view—is that this ban should not extend to non-commercial arrangements made between friends or within the bosom of a family. From the Statement it would appear that such arrangements will not be covered by the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm this.
1476
While generally welcoming the Statement, may I express a hope that this is not a prelude to a helter-skelter piecemeal legislative approach to this extremely complex scientific and ethical issue? I hope personally that the Government feel they have taken care of the pressing need to curb a practice which many people find repugnant and that having done this they will bring forward comprehensive legislation after full and detailed consultation. It does not seem correct to me that whatever its merits or demerits the full discussion of the Warnock proposals for a regulatory agency should be pre-empted by the hasty passing of a Private Member's Bill on one aspect of the problem. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some assurances on this.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement, and for the fact that they find the measures which we propose to take generally acceptable. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there is something very wrong with those who wish to exploit people for financial gain in this particular way. I would also agree with him that there are some very real social, legal and ethical problems to be undertaken; but we felt that it was right to tackle this immediate problem now and that is why we are doing it.
On the question of timing about which the noble Lord asked, we hope to introduce the surrogacy Bill as soon as possible. We hope that it will be by Easter. On the question of wider legislation, we must think about this carefully because it is very complicated, as the noble Lord will be aware. What I can say is that my honourable friend the Minister for Health said in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred, which is in passage through another place at the present time, that it was our aim to introduce a full Warnock Bill within the lifetime of this Parliament. I cannot be more precise than that but I hope that that will at least help the noble Lords with the questions they ask.
With regard to the more general question of surrogacy and the bosom of the family, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, first raised, this is one of the areas that we really must consider and no doubt views will be made known on this when we come to discuss the Bill in your Lordships' House.

Water (Fluoridation) Bill
Brought from the Commons: read a first time, and to be printed.

Films Bill
5.26 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Levy on pre-recorded video cassettes.
(" . The Secretary of State shall by order establish a scheme to impose a levy on all pre-recorded video cassettes sold in the

1477
United Kingdom, the proceeds of which shall be redistributed under the scheme to the makers of British films released on video cassettes, pro rata to their sales in the year in question, in the form of investment credits to be used for the production of British films.")
The noble Lord said: I should like first of all to say to the Committee that I have no personal financial interest in either the film industry or the video industry, so I do not speak on this matter with any business authority. I speak purely in a personal capacity. We have just been discussing a very important amendment about the financing of the film industry. I think it is fairly generally accepted that the industry is facing a number of problems which are beyond its control. On the other hand, it is equally true to say that the Treasury is being called on to finance a number of important matters, such as the health service, hospitals, roads, overseas aid and the arts, which was discussed at great length yesterday. The film industry must obviously for purely social needs come right down in the queue.
But we are discussing here something very new. The video industry is very new and I would be the last person to condemn it. It gives pleasure to a number of people including handicapped people who cannot get to the cinema and who cannot get to the theatre. I have no quarrel there. But there seems to me to be something very wrong. If the cinema industry cannot have sufficient central funds, why should the video industry not pay some kind of levy? I quite accept, having read the Green Paper which was published recently, that it is not an easy matter to adumbrate the amount of the levy. The problem here is very largely a matter of how one is going to equate the levy with the films concerned.
This amendment as I see it is, in a sense, a probing amendment to hear what the Government's feeling is. The live part of the cinema industry, so to speak, badly needs finance. It deserves finance. It employs a large number of people. The "undercutting" of the industry—I do not think that that is a unfair word—by video needs looking into. This amendment, whose other signatories—it is an all-party amendment—have much more professional experience in the industry than I, gives an opportunity for the Government to give their views on what is an important social matter.
It is of course accepted that the video and cassette industry is here to stay. There is no quarrel about that. But it should in my submission have to compete on fair terms. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Somers: I should like to support this amendment. The Committee will be aware of the fact that normally composers and authors get performing rights from their works when shown on films or broadcasts; but when it comes to cassette recordings they are at a loss because it is absolutely impossible to trace them. This seems to be the best way of closing that gap and of enforcing a levy, and I am sure all noble Lords will welcome it. It is an excellent idea.
5.30p.m.
Lord Willis: Having briefly wandered into Indian country, I am delighted to be back in the fold and to support this amendment, on the basis that it is a
1478
probing amendment. My own view is that it does not go wide enough. The difference between this and the proposal that there should be a levy on films shown on television—discussed in the previous amendment—is this. A video recorder, which is the instrument by which these films are shown, is in fact an instrument of piracy. It can be used, and it is constantly used, to steal copyright from authors, composers, film makers, etc. I therefore welcome the Government's Green Paper which proposes that there should be discussion at least on the question of a levy not only on pre-recorded tapes but also on blank tapes.
I would go further and say that there should be a levy on copiers and on video recorders. A small levy imposed at the point of purchase would provide a sum of money that would have to be distributed to copyright owners. There would be, probably, some money left over to reinforce British film production. On the basis that this is a probing amendment, and that I should like to hear what the Government have to say, I support it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to support the sense as well as the principle of this amendment. The Minister should take note that this Chamber, clearly, is genuinely trying to probe the Government, even at this late stage, to establish whether they are prepared to devise some mechanism that will provide the British film industry with a source of essential income. The Government appear to have made their arrangements, which are not unfair and which might not even be ungenerous, and have then said, "That's it. At the end of the day, you stand on your own two feet". As the many experts and people of experience both in this Chamber and outside it have said, that approach is not enough. The British film industry cannot even begin to operate because it cannot attract the investment it needs. It was in respect of its need to attract investment that my noble friend Lord Willis made a most telling point.
We want to see tax incentives that will induce people to invest in British films. The industry does not want handouts or levies. But faced with the action taken by the Government in last year's Budget and with their clear intentions for this year's Budget, the industry is asking. "What can we do?". Given the very close vote on Amendment No. 1—and 80 votes to 85 votes is close in any book—we now find ourselves presented with another opportunity. Like the first amendment, the amendment now before us is open to criticism. It is not the ideal, but the Government must understand that unless they are able and willing to listen at this stage, or at the next stage, or at the stage after that, there will be people who will continue in their attempts to find ways of improving this Bill.
With great respect to the Minister, and to his advisers, there are people outside this Chamber who have far more experience of the industry and a better feel of what the industry needs. They may be forced to say that Parliament has neglected the British film industry at its peril. One can compare our situation with what other nations have been doing for their indigenous film industries. We are entitled to be ashamed if we do not take the opportunities now before us. I certainly support this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: As one of the signatories, I should like to add my support to this amendment. I should point out once again that I do not altogether go along with the language of the amendment. In particular, I believe that it ought to cover blank tapes as well as pre-recorded tapes; and it is a little unfortunate that the amendment directs its aim at supporting individuals rather than creating a fund to support the film industry generally.
Having said that, and wishing to make clear that I have no desire to rehearse the arguments about levies which were put in respect of the previous amendment, in the light of the Government's persistent attitude I should emphasise the point that the aim of this exercise is not to find the most efficient way of giving further support to the film industry; the aim is to find some means of saving that industry.
If one rejects, as they have been rejected, tax concessions on the one hand—favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and many others—and a television levy on the other, then what is left? Unless the Minister can come up with some other notion, it would seem that this proposal is a last resort. On the whole, it is a sensible resort.
I am bound to point out, as I did on Second Reading, that the Government have, happily, devoted some further thinking to this matter since the 1981 Green Paper, when they scalped in a very dismissive way the notion of a levy on tapes. They have done some valuable rethinking, as I venture to believe. On a previous occasion I referred your Lordships to what seemed to me to be—and I hope I am right—a significant passage on page 9 of the new Green Paper. It is very short and perhaps the Committee will permit me to quote it once again. Paragraph 7.21 includes this statement:
"Similarly it is far less clear for video than for audio what basis could be used to sub-divide the levy proceeds among the main groups of beneficiaries, and within each group. One possibility might be for the film proceeds to be diverted to a central fund to be used in the film industry to support production".
That is a fruitful concept and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration, particularly, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, in the light of a report which I hope will shortly be in the hands of the department. It comes from the Interim Action Committee for the Film Industry, as it has hitherto been named, though it is likely to re-emerge under a slightly different guise in the very near future. I hope that the thinking which has gone into that report with considerable care will indicate lines to the department whereby such a notion can be rendered practicable. It is that which the department itself emphasises in the Green Paper. The department, quite rightly, says that it wants from those who are familiar with these matters suggestions which demonstrate how such a concept can provide a practicable solution to achieve the desired objective.
I conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will indicate that it is the Government's intention, after taking due soundings by the date designated in the Green Paper, at the end of April, that they will not wait, as they have hitherto done, until they can produce total overall reform of the copyright laws. I remind your Lordships' Committee that the Whitford report was published in 1977 and nothing has yet
1480
emerged from that. If we have to wait until such a mammoth exercise has been performed, I am afraid that it will be postponed to the Greek calends. I urge the Government to deal with this matter separately, as is indicated by the fact that they have chose to issue at this juncture a separate Green Paper on this single issue. The need of the film industry, as many of us have emphasised, is a dire one and cannot wait on too prolonged and lengthy deliberations. Therefore, what is needed is a speedy decision that I hope will achieve the objective which I am sure is dear to all our hearts; that is, the survival and, ultimately, the flourishing of this immensely important British film industry.
The Viscount of Falkland: I, too, support this amendment, but somewhat more enthusiastically than I supported the last amendment because, although I hate to use emotive words such as "parasitic", one could justifiably, if in a rather liverish mood, say that the use of video tape, in the way that it potentially can be used, is parasitic. I have just acquired a video recorder. I have not yet used it because I am long-sighted and have not yet found a way to operate the controls. If there are any entrepreneurial noble Lords, there is obviously an opportunity to market a light, or something else, perhaps, that magnifies the controls so that one can learn to use the machine quicker.
My original intention in using the machine was to record programmes, principally films. If one thinks that through, I can record a film while I am in your Lordships' House late, as we seem to be sitting, and when I see fit to play it back on, perhaps, a Sunday evening I can show it to a group of friends and lend it to my son, so that before long 100 people could have seen the film. It therefore seems only reasonable on that basis, and, referring back to my remarks on the previous amendment, should we be on the threshold of a new era of films, that the video business is going to do even better. I foresee the time when everyone will have a television set and video recorder in the same case—the same ensemble, as it were.
It is obviously a huge business. Recently I went to a shop in London to investigate the possibility (when I learn to operate my machine) of hiring films. I actually purchased my first blank tape there, but I looked at the list of recorded films and, with all the work I have to do in your Lordships' House, I have not yet finished going through the list of titles which I obtained from that small shop in Fulham. There is clearly an area here where we could get a contribution and that contribution would obviously grow with the success of the film industry, which I hope we shall see when we have perhaps persuaded the noble Lord the Minister to make certain adjustments in the Government's thinking; and we shall be coming to that later.
I echo everything that has been said. Anything we can get into the new consortium, however it is composed, by way of finance will help, though I reiterate that we are still thinking way too low, even with video contributions and contributions from television. If we aim modestly, and we encourage one or two people to see the new film era as being possible, we are way too low. Certainly it is a good idea if we can get a contribution from video.
I add one point, to which we shall obviously come later. I am surprised to see the British Videogram

1481
Association involved as a prospective participant in this new company. I wonder whether it will be as pleased to participate if there is to be a levy. I do not see what function the video side of the business has in partaking in a company which is to be, as it were, the architect of the new film industry, but I daresay we shall come on to that 'ere long. However, I support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment. It is an excellent idea that blank video cassettes should have a levy on them to help the film industry. I understand that under the Government's proposals the subsidy is to be £3 million. Is that right? However, to make a feature film now costs at least £1·5 million. If, as I understand it, the Government want to back about 12 feature films, that works out at only £300,000 per film, and that is not much. Of course, it depends on what you sell the blank cassettes for. If you sell them with a 50 pence levy, that will amount to about £10 million. If you sell them with a £1 levy, that will give about £20 million. That is an extremely good way of helping the film industry.
I have had a very slight connection with the film industry. I cannot remember whether it is £2 million or £3 million that the Government are proposing under the new arrangement, but it will be of very little use and so I support this amendment regarding these tapes. Having a levy on a blank cassette will certainly help the film industry.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland for his explanation of the amendment, but I must say at the outset that the principle behind the amendment is practically the same as that which we have spent most of the afternoon discussing in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. It proposes, again, a redistributive levy, the proceeds of which would be directed towards British film production. The target of the levy in this case is different—pre-recorded video cassettes rather than television. Therefore, this amendment raises a number of different, though in some respects similar aspects, which are equally important, I suspect, to my noble friend and his supporters.
With the leave of the Committee it might be sensible if I concentrate on these new issues rather than reiterate the points of principle set out in the White Paper which we have discussed. The Committee will know that the market for the rental and the sale of pre-recorded cassettes has been quite buoyant in recent years. However, I suggest to your Lordships that there is a risk that a levy on pre-recorded video cassettes introduced with the same reasoning as that which lay behind the introduction of the Eady levy would suffer exactly the same fate. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, when he referred to the Green Paper on the recording and rental of audio and video copyright material. I digress for a moment, since this subject matter has been introduced. The proposal here is that there should be a levy on blank tapes and the proceeds distributed to the copyright holders to compensate them for the unauthorised copying of their work. I think the noble
1482
Lord used the word "piracy", and I do not disagree with him in that description. It would be wrong if this afternoon we were to anticipate or prejudge the outcome of those consultations. The Government will be prepared to consider, in the light of the responses to the Green Paper, whether a levy should simply be paid to copyright holders or whether, perhaps, a central fund might be established the distribution of which may possibly go towards supporting the film industry.
Whatever we do in respect of a levy in that context of copyright, we will have to remember that the decision cannot be arrived at as a result of discussions we may have on the implications that this Bill, which is a films Bill, may have on copyright issues. They are separate at this time, and if there is an overlap which is beneficial, so be it. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press me on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, argues that the principle of a levy is the same. I would agree with him in that merely adding a levy onto pre-recorded video tapes or television screening time, which would then be distributed to a rather undefinable area such as the film industry, is not a practical proposition. He suggests that a subsidy is fair, but at the same time he argues that the industry does not want one. He suggested, as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, and others at Second Reading, that what the industry was looking for were opportunities for investment and certain tax reliefs. Again, he will appreciate that I cannot go down that avenue this afternoon, whatever my feeling might be.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Does the noble Lord not recall what my noble friend Lord McIntosh said earlier? Of course we appreciate that certain avenues of support are exempt from our powers in this place under this Bill. But if we acknowledge that we cannot go down that road, and if we accept the view of the Minister and his colleagues in another place that there are no other roads down which to go, quite frankly, it is a dead end. Many of us are not prepared to accept that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It really is not a dead end.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Good.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard asked what the Government were doing. I would hardly call the Government's contribution of £1.5 million, plus £600,000 from the portfolio, plus additional support to the school, guaranteed over the next five years, a dead end. That is a considerable amount of money. It is in excess of what the Eady levy has produced in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, shakes his head.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No, I am not shaking my head.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: He must agree that the facts which I have laid before the Committee are correct. If he and my noble friend want to argue that £1.5 million is not very much, even when multiplied five times, that is totally different, but it is an argument which I do not believe holds too much water.
Lord Willis: I think that the noble Lord is using selective facts, with respect. I would draw attention again to the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made. One can hire a pre-recorded video for one night for £1.50 or over a weekend for £2. One may ask a dozen people round to see it, as many young people do over the weekend. Many young married couples with children hire video cassettes rather than go to the cinema. If one goes to the cinema, however, it costs £2 or £2.50 a seat, or in the West End it is £6 or £7. There is a tremendous discrepancy there. The market is booming now. I believe that the penetration of video recorders into homes in this country now is between 40 and 45 per cent. It seems to me that this is an area which would get the Government off the hook. I wonder why they do not grasp the opportunity.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord suggests that I pull out selective figures. The example that he gave is even more selective. There is no comparison whatsoever between cinema and television. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made the point: the two cannot be compared. One involves an entire outing. A seat in the cinema may cost £2 or whatever, but it is a total experience. One may be watching a film on the screen in both cases, but going to the cinema is a totally different experience from watching a film on television at home.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: Does the noble Lord not agree that his recognition of that makes all the more important the fact that the cinema industry should be saved? If we simply say that we have films on television and that is good enough, that will result in letting the cinema industry fade out of existence. If I may add further to that, does he not recognise, in the light of all the arguments presented from so many informed quarters, that the great sum of £1.5 million a year over five years is trifling in relation to the problem that faces the film industry? I ask him to take seriously the points being urged by people who fear a dramatic and disastrous collapse of the industry if no further money is fed into it beyond those relatively modest sums.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I believe I answered most of the noble Lord's comments earlier. I find it extraordinary that the immediate call of any industry, whether films, shipbuilding, motor cars or whatever, is for more taxpayers' money. We have put up some money. As I sought to explain at Second Reading, we have set an environment in which the industry can help itself. The film industry is buoyant, as those in it have admitted. A quote that I gave earlier this afternoon illustrates that, and noble Lords have quoted the success of particular films.
If I came before the Committee and said that we would provide £1·5 million plus x, somebody would say to me that that was not enough because of so on and so forth. I do not doubt that the market for pre-recorded videos is at present a strong one. But I believe that we should bear in mind that it is a relatively new and highly competitive industry. Margins are fine. Although the range of outlets is still expanding, very many of them fail to achieve anything approaching their hoped for success.
1484
I think that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who spoke of the growth of video. I understand that although it has reached a peak of about 45 per cent. penetration in homes in this country there is already a tail-off. I understand that there is a change in the way in which those films are being made and produced. There are coming along all sorts of technical advances which I believe make that industry extremely vulnerable. It is a market which is very sensitive to price, and a drop in sales caused by having a levy attached to it would, I believe, be counter-productive.
Again, I say that I do not believe that a levy is the right way forward. There is an alternative, and it is from the pre-recorded video industry. That industry relies on good quality films, and it recognises that. Increasingly the industry is showing its readiness to invest in film production, and there have been some very good British films to show for that.
I want at this stage to refer particularly to the British Videogram Association. I believe that it should be praised for its general attitude to its responsibility, if I may call it that, to the videogram industry. They are now taking major steps towards an involvement in film production. Not only are the British Videogram Association one of the founder members of the new consortium but also through their members they continue to make contribution to the film industry. One of the larger members of the association is the Virgin Group. They have had successes with their film, "A Shocking Accident", which was part financed with the NFFC. They made "1984" and that is doing very well. Palace Video were responsible for making the "Company of Wolves", and that has been successful. Video Arts Limited have also been successful. Also other companies in membership have begun to support film production. There is no doubt in my mind that that industry is helping. They are of course at one and the same time in being founder members of the organisation supporting it financially, at least for three years, to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds. That is not insignificant and I do not think it would be fair if the Committee were to ignore that fact.
6 p.m.
I believe that this recognition of the link between video and film offers a far, far more dynamic way forward than the imposition—it is almost like a dead hand—of a levy. It seems to me that at the moment that industry is doing very well. It is stimulating precisely the kind of development in the industry for which noble Lords are looking. This is a way forward for the industry. It is helped by Government in pump-priming for the new consortium. It is costing the taxpayer a considerable amount of money, more than the support hitherto.
A levy of the type which is proposed in this amendment stands a very good chance of falling extremely short of expectation. I believe it would damage the trend in the video industry's investment in the industry. I do not believe it is needed and it could be positively harmful. I understand that my noble friend Lord Auckland said that this was a probing amendment; he wanted to find out what the government felt about it and why. I believe that I have

1485
answered him. I therefore hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, returns to the issue, I must say that if ever there was a justification for a short debate on a probing amendment I feel that this was it. That is because every time the Minister opened his mouth his case weakened. He revealed more and more inconsistencies. He made exactly the same mistakes in respect of the video industry as he made on the last amendment in respect of the television industry. On the one hand he was saying that the video industry is enormously strong and that, for that reason, the British Videogram Association can afford to make this substantial contribution of £150,000 for at least three years to film production. In almost the same breath he is saying that the video industry is extremely competitive, that it is vulnerable to new technical developments and that therefore a levy of the sort proposed would be extremely damaging to its health—"a dead hand" was the phrase he used. He really cannot have it both ways. Certainly he cannot claim that £150,000 a year for three years, with no guarantee of success—or was it £300,000? from the British Videogram Association. Am I quoting the figures wrongly?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not wish to be unkind to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He advances these arguments to destroy mine. At least he might have the courtesy to destroy them with accurate figures which have been well published through Second Reading and elsewhere. It is a quarter of a million pounds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was incorrect to the extent of £100,000 or £50,000. Nevertheless, the total amount has been universally agreed by everybody associated with the film industry to be totally inadequate for the purpose. If the noble Lord did not learn that lesson from the unanimous opinion expressed in all speeches at Second Reading, then, if I may say so, I do not think he was paying adequate attention to the debate.
The position is that there are three outlets for films. There are outlets for other things as well but there are three outlets for films. They are the cinema, television and video recordings. There may be more in the future but at the moment there are these three outlets for films. The film industry is in effect expected to survive financially and commercially on the receipts from only one of those three outlets. The amendments which have been proposed are designed to add the other two outlets for films to the resources for the further development of the film industry. It is for that reason that it has been so valuable to have the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland.
Lord Auckland: I should like to thank all noble Lords from all parts of the House who have taken part in this debate and to thank my noble friend the Minister for his very full and, as always, careful reply, although I cannot say that I, for one, am entirely satisfied with it. However, I shall read it and I shall read all the speeches with great interest.
1486
It is not any part of the purpose of this amendment, or indeed of my philosophy, to bleed the taxpayer. This is not the idea. But I think that where videos are concerned there is a case for some kind of money to be extracted from them. I leave it to the experts to decide the extent to which it should be done. I quite understand that there are people employed in the video industry who take a very different view. I do not possess a video but my two daughters do. I think it is probably the young rather than my own generation who enjoy that luxury, if it can be called "luxury".
The real problem here is this. It is all very well talking about the live cinema. There are fewer and fewer live cinemas. I believe that one of the main purposes of this Bill should be to encourage more provision for the live cinema. However, I quite understand that this is an amendment which has its defects. I think we should all agree with that. But I hope my noble friend the Minister will read very carefully what has been said on all sides of the House. I do not intend to press the amendment. However, when the next stage of the Bill comes, it may well be that another amendment along these lines may have to be put down. It is an important point. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of National Film Finance Corporation]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("transferred") to the end of line 41 and insert ("on the following legally enforceable conditions—

(a) that the company will itself in the production of relevant films or will make available by way of financial facilities to those who wish to produce relevant films—

(i) any income derived from rights acquired from the Secretary of State under this section

(ii) any trading profit made in the preceding year

(iii) a sum equivalent to any sum received by way of grant or loan from the Secretary of State.

(b) that the company will obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the appointment or re-appointment of its chief executive.

(c) that the company, through its chief executive, will pay proper regard to the promotion of British film production as well as to the commercial viability of any particular film project and the commercial interests of the company.

(d) that the chief executive will report to the Secretary of State each year as to his and the company's fulfilment of the condition specified in paragraph (c) and that this report shall be laid before Parliament.

(3A) In the event that no company can be found to meet the conditions specified in subsection (3), no order shall be made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the National Film Finance Act 1981 or under this section.").
The noble Viscount said: I think we now come to the very heart of the matter. I hope the Committee will bear with me if I touch again on some of the ground we have already covered this afternoon as a background to explaining why we who support this amendment feel that it is so central to our case.
How did this whole business come about?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Would the noble Viscount just forgive me for a moment? May I assume that in these remarks he is speaking to the whole group of amendments. He did not refer to it. I do not want to

1487
pick him up on a little detail but I want to have a mutual understanding of what we shall debate over these next few minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): It might be for the convenience of the Committee and of the noble Viscount if I explain that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 cannot be moved.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am obliged to the noble Lord the Minister. I am addressing myself to these amendments together and I think that my remarks will terminate in such a way that we shall see that they are all dealt with.
Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 35, leave out ("on a commercially successful basis").
Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(c) that at least one independent director shall be appointed to the board of the company to represent film producers;").
Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(cc) that it will have as a main objective the encouragement of new film makers;").
Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(ccc) that the chief executive of the company shall have sole creative authority within a financial framework set by directors of the company under an independent chairman.").
One has to consider how this whole Bill came about and why, in the opinion of those who oppose the measure, it is so loosely drafted in the context of its intentions in regard to the future of the film industry. The decline in film audiences is well known. I have perhaps persuaded noble Lords that one of the main reasons for the decline has been the inability of the two major groups of cinema owners in this country to make a visit to the cinema an attractive experience. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for reinforcing on a previous amendment my own feeling that going to the cinema in a cinema theatre is a very special experience. It lies at the whole heart of the matter. That is why we are discussing it. We want to encourage people to go back to the cinema theatres to see films made expressly for the big screen, whether or not they are shown afterwards on small screens or videos. We should take our rightful place. Most other countries in the industrialised world and many countries in the developing world have booming film industries, well supported, I might add, by their governments.
The Government have sought, rightly, to dismantle the whole idea of the Eady levy. The levy was the means of drawing something back into film production from the receipts of showing films. This has declined to a degree where the amount of money being put into the National Film Finance Corporation—the machinery by which this money was used to finance future productions—became irrelevant. One has to ask why on earth, if one takes a serious view of the future of the film industry, the existing structure was not modified to the new requirements. Why did we need to dismantle a perfectly good organisation, the National Film Finance Corporation, with its very creditable background of working for many years in very hard circumstances of declining audiences, with additional factors that made its
1488
operation increasingly difficult? Noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Willis, have on many occasions drawn the attention of your Lordships to the fact that much of the benefit unfortunately went across the seas to the United States. Whatever happens now, this awareness, I feel, will result in our putting double glazing on the windows to make sure that the Americans do not creep in and benefit from any arrangements that we make.
We could have had a National Film Finance Corporation with strong support from various parts of the entertainment industry and guidance from the Government. We could perhaps have created a very good vehicle for going forward into what I have called, although I fear I am boring your Lordships with this phrase, the new era—my optimistic vision of the new film era. What do we have in its place? We have an attempt to create a company—a consortium as it is now called. It took a long time for the Government to arrive at a suitable name. I noticed that honourable Members of another place were reaching a pitch of extreme frustration through having to call it "Son of NFFC" and other extraordinary names. One dreads to think what they would have arrived at if we had not found this name. I find it extremely difficult to remember what it is called now. It is so boring. But the consortium has been composed; and four members are proposed to be the structure of this new company.
6.15 p.m.
What is amazing—I have referred to this before—is that the two main parts of this proposed company are the two main groups in this country that have presided over the decline of our film audiences. Rank's performance in this field is absolutely deplorable. Rank would be out of business if it had not been for the Rank Xerox machine. It has shown no interest whatever in the film business and shows no interest now. All it has are cinemas which are declining. Its only interest in the film industry, I submit, is what it can get for the real estate on selling cinemas when they go bust.
Let us look at the other one. Let us look at Thorn. It has enormous and very profitable interests in other parts of the communication industry. I would not blame Thorn in the same way as I blame Rank. It does not have the motivation to go into a new company of this kind with the kick and the punch which is needed to build up a new British film industry. Then there is the Videogram Association, to which I have already referred. The only part of this organisation that I feel has any relevance at all is Channel 4. That is a company dedicated to the future of cinema, albeit cinema on a small screen. Many good productions have already been financed by Channel 4. I must congratulate Jeremy Isaacs on the amazing development of Channel 4. It was derided nationally in the press and run down by everyone. But clever tactical development and good taste—all the kinds of qualities we need to build up the film industry—have been shown in the development of Channel 4. There has been imagination, innovative thought and so on. I have no objection to the participation of Channel 4 in this company. I should, however, like to see it with slightly more motivated bedfellows. Channel 4's

1489
interest at the moment is in its own development for the small screen and for financing small films made on a very small budget.
The Government, in their vision of this new birth of the film industry, are making the change from the National Film Finance Corporation to a private company—for that is essentially what it is—and taking the hard-earned assets, or, rather, not the assets, but the income earned from the assets, which amounts to about £600,000 to £700,000 a year from royalties on films and so on. I must be careful; the noble Lord the Minister might pick up my use of the word "assets". Many of the achievements of films supported by the NFFC have been mentioned by noble Lords. We see that the two main companies, Rank and Thorn, have escaped, with the abolition of the Eady levy, what to them must be quite an onerous payment in a hard business because their cinema exhibition areas are poor. They are getting into this new company and getting cash that will recompense them for the scrapping of the Eady levy.
We have a new company that is very vaguely drawn. I fear that, if constituted in this way, it will fail. It will be underfunded and run by people who are not motivated. I do not believe that any additional money will come from outside. No one will invest because the future, with that kind of organisation, does not look bright. If, however, we assume that this is the reality, who will run the company? Rank is not interested in running it. Channel 4 is not interested in running it; it has its own fish to fry. Thorn is not interested in running it. It will be left to the chief executive of the company.
Very little is said in the Bill about the chief executive. Whose man will he be? That is what worries us. We believe that he should be a very independent man—a man who has the interests of the film industry at heart, a responsible man who has his duties enshrined in statute. After all, this man is going to be responsible for the administration of funds. One could say that they belong to the film industry, but they belong to the taxpayer. He must be a man who is independent of civil servants; he must be independent of commercial interests; he must be responsible; he must be accountable; and, above all, he must be a man of talent and vision and with the capacity of people such as Mr. Jeremy Issacs or even (dare I say his name in this Committee?) Sir Peter Hall. We need somebody with that kind of ability and with an independent nature—a man who is prepared to shout for the British film industry.
That is what we seek to achieve in these amendments. We think that various people should be represented on the board of this company and they should be similarly motivated. At present there is no provision in this Bill for this kind of creative autonomy. There is no indication in the Bill that what the Government wish to do is to go forward into the new film era, because their whole thinking behind the creation of this company is really to stand at further than arm's length—to stand right away and ultimately disengage themselves. They will disengage themselves. They will disengage themselves at the end of a disaster, because if this company is allowed to function as proposed in this Bill—in this loose way—it will surely
1490
founder and it will surely go bankrupt within a period of a very few years.
Then what happens to the money that has been put into it? There is no provision for that. I do not think there will be any other investors from outside, but what happens to the taxpayers' money? What happens to all the money from the assets which have been carefully built up over all these years? These things—I am sure other noble Lords will reinforce my view—are not catered for in this Bill, and these amendments, which we group together, seek through the appointment of directors and a chief executive with the proper powers, freedom and responsibility to give them at least a chance of success.
We hope that we can avoid a disaster. If the man in the post is good enough, probably he will press hard enough so that the constitution can be changed. We have to get over that hurdle, which I think is a doctrinaire hurdle put up by the Government. They will realise the error of their ways only when they begin to see the foundations crumble, as they surely will. At this stage let us try to get some sense into this new company, this new consortium, with proper accountability and proper responsibility, so that everybody can go forward with the confidence that at least it is pointed in the right direction. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to say only a few sentences, because the noble Viscount has covered the waterfront extremely adequately. No doubt the Government will argue that the heads of agreement which have been placed in the Library and which we have an opportunity to see are the answers to the questions raised by the noble Viscount. I want to put it to them that if you have heads of agreement which themselves have no statutory force and you have a consortium which is itself the most unstable form of business enterprise, you are combining two sorts of instability in one. The Government will have to defend very strongly those two elements of instability if they are going to argue that there is a continued effective and adequate means of funding the British film industry.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: By way of supporting this amendment I should simply like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his brilliant exposition of the deep unease that is felt on every side of the industry over the consequences of this removal from the scene of an excellent body—the NFFC—and its replacement by a purely commercial entity which seems to be totally ill-equipped to tackle the serious problems that face the film industry at the present time. I can only express the hope that the noble Lord the Minister will take very seriously indeed the devastating attack that the noble Viscount has made upon these proposals and the attempt in this amendment to reinforce the situation—so far as it is possible to reinforce it within the structure of this Bill. I think that those of us who oppose this arrangement feel that the only satisfactory way would be to scrap this whole concept of the consortium and go back to some genuinely independent body which could be expected to carry on the true tradition of the NFFC, which the Government have claimed it is their desire to maintain.
Lord Willis: I am positive that this amendment must appeal to the Government and that the noble Lord the Minister must accept it, because it would not cost the Government any money. All we are proposing in this amendment—I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on bringing it forward—is simply some proposals to reorganise and tighten up a proposal the Government have already put forward about the consortium. I recognise that it is too late to go back to the NFFC, to those days. We have the consortium. What these amendments express are some very reasonable suggestions and ideas as to how it can more suitably serve the British film industry. Moreover, they are amendments which have been echoed in the cinema trade press in various articles and various forms. I hope therefore that they commend themselves to the Government.
For example, why would the Government be opposed to the suggestion that one independent director should be appointed to the board? It would do no harm to the Government. It would not lose them any votes; it might even win them a few. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Consequently, I hope that, although the Government have had to take a hard line on other matters in connection with this Bill, on this particular one they will either accept the amendment or, if they do not like the way it is worded, take it back but accept it in principle. I would certainly press very strongly that there should be a much greater independent element in this new company.
Lord Bernstein: I do not often speak in your Lordships' Committee, but I was involved in the original quota Bill. I was involved in the Eady fund legislation, and I have seen many things happen within the film industry. One thing we need, and need badly, is the opportunity for people to learn how to make films. We need a group of people who are film producers. I think the talk about the comparison between television and anything else is wrong. We produced a television-making group of people who were capable of eventually making "Jewel in the Crown". People must have training and experience. I cannot see anywhere any enthusiasm for developing a picture-making community of which we can be proud and which can make films worthy of international sales—I was waiting for the Ministers to finish their conversation.
I have been listening to the debate, though perhaps not for long enough. I cannot make out what the Government are trying to do. You have to have enthusiasm to make films. You have to have taste to select your subjects, and you have to work at it. The independent gentlemen, or the distributors of films, are not necessarily the people for that purpose. Until you can find a picture-making community and people who can train them, you will always be in difficulties.
I urge the Government—they still have time—to consider what the noble Viscount said: that the National Film Finance Corporation did quite a good little job. However, if you want to make films, you are talking about big money. The last film which David Lean made—and he had not made a film for 17 years—now represents millions. The good American films that are big successes over here cost millions. We
1492
have to compete with them, and we have to compete with money as well as with talent.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his explanation of the amendments. One matter that strikes me about our debate on this group of amendments is how much common ground there is between us, particularly when we come to discuss the successor organisation to NFFC, that is, the consortium—a word which the noble Viscount does not like. The full title is the British Screen Finance Consortium, but I shall refer to it as the BSFC. Frankly, it is the formation and the future of that consortium that should concern us. I believe that the fears expressed that it may act in a way which does not principally benefit the film industry and that the Government may not have sufficient control are not justified.
I should like to go back a little and answer the particular question that was raised by the noble Viscount. He said that the NFFC had a credible background; that it had gone along quite well, and he asked why we should dismantle it. He asked a specific question. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that we cannot undo it now because it is in the Bill. I should like to back track for a moment or two because it is by looking at the history that we are brought to the present.
Let me remind the Committee that the founding legislation in 1949 made provision for the NFFC to be dissolved by the Treasury if they were satisfied that there was no sufficient reason for the continuation of the corporation. In 1957 the Cinematograph Films Act added power to make an arm's length sale of the NFFC provided that certain conditions were met. The purchaser had to be a British company and had to be able to finance film making. Had the Government simply been interested in getting rid of the NFFC, an arm's length transaction under the existing law would have been the route. However, as I told the House on Second Reading, we have not in fact done that.
We were convinced of the case for retaining a way of carrying on the NFFC's type of operation when the NFFC's financial support from the Eady levy was removed. I regret that I have to repeat once again that the Eady levy has provided less and less money to the industry as the years have gone by. It has been the express wish of the exhibitors' side of the industry that the levy should be done away with. Therefore, that is what we have done. However, we believe that in this Bill we have been able to devise an arrangement that would enable the spirit of the corporation to continue in the private sector. This arrangement has brought together interests in the film, television and video sectors who espoused the purposes underlying NFFC. They themselves wanted to encourage the production of British films using largely British talent. One of the interesting differences that this Bill makes is to impose upon the BSFC, if it is to receive the NFFC's old portfolio worth some £600,000 a year, the statutory requirement that it shall use its best endeavours to encourage the production of British films—something to which the NFFC themselves have not been formally committed.

1493
Perhaps I may turn to the founder members of the BSFC. I was perhaps a little disappointed that the noble Viscount should have spoken in somewhat disparaging terms about Rank. Let us look at Rank first of all. In the past they have made some of the great British films including, I am told, "A man for All Seasons". Of course, they are not active now in film production, but they still have an important stake in the production sector through their laboratories and Pinewood Studios.
Thorn-EMI also have a fine reputation for film-making over the years. I am told that their successes include "Murder on the Orient Express", "Elephant Man" and "Death on the Nile". Their more recent successes include "Comfort and Joy" as well as the recent David Lean film, "A Passage to India".
I turn to Channel 4. Channel 4's history is much shorter. Oddly enough, nobody has spoken ill of Channel 4. However, certainly that organisation has rapidly gained an enviable reputation. I have spoken already about the British Videogram Association.
We must remember that it is the interests of the companies concerned in the BSFC that are important in securing the success of the new consortium. Their success lies in a successful film industry. Certainly our discussions with them have shown that the essentials of the NFFC's operations will be maintained. There will continue to be an emphasis on developing new talent. The films to be supported are much the same in terms of budget; namely, low and medium budget films, which are particularly risky ventures when aimed principally at the cinema and not at television. Moreover, the Government decided to take over direct responsibility—and we have done that in Clause 5(1)(b)—for the funding of the project development work currently financed out of Eady funds by the NFFC through the National Film Development Fund.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, which I did hear—all of them. I point out to him that in no way was the NFFC—and this applies to its successor organisation—set up to compete with the multi-million dollar super films. That is not the business. If there can be a benefit through our work—and I am referring to the more risky ventures and the low and medium budget films—then well and good. However, I suggest that that type of activity is somewhat different.
Apart from ensuring, as I believe this consortium does, the continuance of the NFFC's major functions, the consortium has tremendous advantages over the old corporation. First, it is dynamic. The NFFC was, by the very nature of its build, static. The new consortium is structured and funded for growth. One cannot ignore the fact that Rank are putting in £250,000 per annum for three years as are the British Videogram Association. Thorn-EMI and Channel 4 are putting in £300,000 a year for three years. I have already said that the Government are putting in £1.5 million for five years, plus the other supports which are available. It is not an insignificant amount of money. Indeed, it is sufficiently attractive to have encouraged other people in the industry, other companies in the industry, to make inquiries about joining the consortium and putting up their money. That must be the basis of funding for growth.
1494
I believe that we are laying the foundations for expansion and that the consortium will take root and will establish itself as a major force in the industry. It is that at which we are all aiming rather than at tying it down with unnecessary statutory provisions, which is what this series of amendments would do.
If the British Screen Finance Consortium does the job set out for it with the present participants' support, that will be to the benefit of the industry. If the consortium itself is also successful—and this is why I think that it needs to be in the private sector with what I have often described to your Lordships as the commercial "edge" which the private sector provides—then in all probability there will be a catalytic effect on its participants and all those others who recognise the need to foster domestic film production, and it will itself ensure that this can be a profitable business activity. We do not want BSFC to be estranged from other potential investors in films—and its chances of attracting additional finance to the film industry would, I believe, be very much diminished by imposing conditions of the sort that are set out in this series of amendments.
Lord Willis: If the noble Lord will give way, I have had assurances from Thorn-EMI that they will not interfere with the chief executive and that he will have complete independence. One has to believe in the good assurances of these people. Would the noble Lord the Minister be prepared to approach them and ask them if they would object to the appointment of one other independent director on the board? I think the noble Lord would find that they would agree. If the Minister did that, and if they did agree, that would be immensely helpful.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I return to the Box somewhat warily because I am reluctant to refuse the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. However, I am just wondering where he will lead me if I say "Yes". Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to think about his invitation between now and the next stage. If I have anything further to say to him, I can either get in touch with him or we can deal with it at the Report stage.
With regard to the authority of the chief executive, I believe that the prospective participants in the consortium have made it quite clear to us that they would expect him to adopt much the same style as the noble Viscount's amendment, Amendment No. 8, seeks to impose by way of a condition. It may of course be necessary for the chief executive to seek assistance in exercising that authority, but I do not believe that that would be beyond his or her capabilities.
The Committee may like to know the terms of the advertisement for the chief executive which appeared in the week beginning 11th February. These include the statement that:
"The chief executive will be responsible for editorial and investment decisions and for the management and efficiency of the organisation. He or she will be free to operate within the framework of the policies established with the Board".
The Government think that there is no need for this to be underpinned by law. Indeed, quite frankly, I think that it would be inappropriate when we are dealing with a private sector company.

1495
6.45 p.m.
The Government understand and respect the sentiments which lie behind these amendments. But I must say that there would be very great danger if we accepted Amendment No. 4, which proposes to impose on a private sector company conditions and restrictions which I do not believe any company would accept. This amendment then provides that, in the predictable event of no company being found to accept the conditions, the National Film Finance Corporation shall be kept in being. I fear that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has overlooked two inconvenient facts. The first is that the NFFC is funded by the Eady levy, which, for the cinema's sake, the Government are committed to remove at the earliest opportunity. The amendment does not itself propose how the NFFC would be funded. The second inconvenient fact is that under the present law the NFFC may not start any new work after the end of 1985. Therefore, for those two particular reasons Amendment No. 4 is a non-starter.
I believe that the Bill gives adequate power to impose conditions on the way in which the portfolio and the Government's contributions are used. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that I mention the heads of agreement. I do so. They are an earnest of our intention to exercise those powers to the extent necessary to secure the objectives on which in the Committee tonight there is certainly broad agreement.
I believe that the Bill contains all the provisions necessary for safeguarding the old portfolio and, taken together with the heads of agreement, I think that these arrangements more than adequately meet the concern which has been expressed. Were we to accept any one of this series of amendments, I believe that there would be a grave danger of stifling the products for the new venture's development and their expansion, in which we have much confidence. I am sorry to have been so long, but this is an important series of amendments and it is for those reasons that I urge the Committee to reject them.
The Viscount of Falkland: I shall be very brief. I must thank the noble Lord, Lloyd of Hampstead, for his complimentary reception of my speech. I did not mean to deliver a devastating attack—I do not like to be devastating, and I do not like to attack. That is why I sit on these Benches! Nor am I a "Man for All Seasons", if I may interject that to the Minister.
I think that there are differences between us, but I agree with the noble Lord the Minister that there are areas where we agree, and this is the problem. We have a different basic conception of the way in which we should proceed. I do not say that the Government are seriously anti the kind of vision that I have for the future, but I believe that their vision of the way in which to proceed is a disaster. I see it another way, and I know that many noble Lords see it my way. I hope that a few more noble Lords may see it my way after our deliberations. Therefore, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
6.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Avebury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bernstein, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Marley, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mersey, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Munster, E.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkender, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Parry, L.

Fitt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hives, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bauer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bethell, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chelwood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Reigate, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rochdale, V.

Craigavon, V.

Rodney, L.

Craigmyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Croft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Soames, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Teynham, L.

Gainford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gridley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Vivian, L.

Hemphill, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.56 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Financial assistance by Secretary of State in connection with the production of films]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble Lord said: These amendments may seem churlish in that they are amendments to concessions given by the Government in another place. We appreciate the attempt of the Government to provide some format for further financial assistance to particular causes within the film industry. Nothing that I say now—and I shall be very brief, I promise your Lordships—is intended to attack the intentions of the Government in protecting, for example, short films and in taking preliminary steps for the production of relevant films—"relevant films" being, as I remind the Committee, those as defined in Clause 3(7) regarding British films. The Committee will notice that no amendments have been put down at this stage to Schedule 1 on the definition of "British films". It is possible, in the absence of any suitable remarks from the Government, that it may be necessary to move amendments to Schedule 1 at a later stage in the debate.
Our purpose in all of these amendments is one and the same. It is to extend the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 5 to give financial assistance to a wider range of films and to do so without some of the restrictions which we believe to have been wrongly inserted in this clause. May I apologise to the Committee for Amendment No. 11 which is in conflict with other amendments in the group. It came from a difference source in another place and it should not have been included. I am sorry to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of his legitimate chance to crow at me for the inconsistency.
Nevertheless, the issue is important, even though the sums of money have not been specified. The issue here is that there may be at some time in the future a Secretary of State who does not have the same rigid theoretical approach which this Govenment have to the funding of one of our national, cultural and business heritages. It may be that there will be a Secretary of State who does wish to give significant financial assistance in place of financial assistance which I insist is insignificant in the light of the needs of the industry, and it would be a pity if such a Secretary of State were to be debarred from making such assistance available on as wide a scale as possible, if that were his wish and the will of the people, without further legislation.
With those words, I am really moving these amendments to see how far the Government are willing to commit themselves to further financial assistance. In view of the hour, I think it would be appropriate if I did not speak to the textual detail of each of the amendments concerned but invited the Minister to make such response as he can, to enable us to make progess. I beg to move.
Lord Willis: I want briefly to support Amendment No. 9. When I first read the draft of this Bill there was a phrase there that struck terror to my heart, and I am
1498
sure that it strikes terror to the hearts of all good British people:
"with the consent of the Treasury".
I cannot remember any time when the Treasury has given consent under a period of about 10 years, and then only after tremendous pressure; so I would certainly support at least Amendment No. 9.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Let me thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his charming persistence in describing in such brief terms this series of amendments. I am grateful to him for the manner in which he did that, and of course I am sorry that he deprived me of a little fun I was going to have at his expense.
The Committee will be aware of the White Paper, in which we stated that it would be inappropriate for a project development scheme requiring specialist knowledge to be operated by the Government and that the new body replacing the National Film Finance Corporation, the British Screen Finance Consortium, seemed an appropriate place for the work to be carried out. Clause 5(3) refers to the operation of the project development scheme and to the agent who will operate it. As the Committee will be aware, the term "person" may also cover a body.
Having, I hope, clarified our intentions in regard to this clause, I should say that of course I recognise the concern which the noble Lord expresses and particularly that there should be a distinct element of independence in the operation of the scheme. Let me emphasise that the Government intend to make it a condition of the agency contract with the consortium that they use an independent consultant with no financial interest in the consortium or in its component companies.
I think that perhaps I should also draw the Committee's attention to a further guarantee of the scheme's independence. That is contained in the heads of agreement between the consortium and the Secretary of State. Particularly, this is that the administration of the scheme will be placed under an officer whose appointment will be made with the consent of the Secretary of State. Although the officer will be an employee of the consortium and, I suppose, as such ultimately responsible to the chief executive, he or she, I confidently expect, will enjoy considerable autonomy. I should also say here that if either the Secretary of State or the consortium is dissatisfied with the operation of the scheme the Secretary of State will withdraw the scheme from the consortium.
I think I have described the general feeling of Government in response to this series of amendments. Perhaps I ought to say just one word in response to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in regard to Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that the prior consent of the Treasury would not be required before financial assistance was given. I am sure the Committee will be aware that it is an accepted convention that where the Secretary of State has discretionary power to give financial assistance, he must obtain the consent of the Treasury before that power is exercised. That is designed to enable the Treasury to ensure that the intentions which Ministers have expressed to Parliament are observed when these discretionary powers are used.

1499
There is also the practical consideration that the supply estimates through which these sums are provided have to be presented to Parliament and signed by a Treasury Minister. He would, of course, be unlikely to provide his signature if he were not generally content with the way in which these discretionary powers were being used.
If the Committee so desire, I should be quite happy to address myself to individual amendments, but I hope that what I have said will persuade your Lordships that the Government (and, to do them justice, the consortium also) understand the spirit behind these amendments and are taking practical steps to ensure that the project development scheme is operated in a way which will meet the legitimate concerns which have been expressed both here today and earlier in another place. I hope that, with those fairly short remarks, noble Lords who have tabled the amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has, I am afraid, gone no further than the assurances given by his honourable friend in another place, which were not entirely satisfactory to my friends there, as he will know. However, I think it was necessary to bring these issues into the open again, and we shall read his remarks very carefully before deciding on our course of action at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead Lord Lloyd of Hampstead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) With respect to provisions made under the Films Act 1970 and re-enacted in the Film Levy Finance Act 1981, whereby payments from the British Film Fund could be made to not more than one body incorporated after the passing of the said Films Act and approved by the Secretary of State, being a body having among its objects the carrying on of a school in Great Britain for the training of persons employed or to be employed in the making of films, and in pursuance whereof the National Film School has been so approved, the Secretary of State shall use his best endeavours to secure annual payments from the film and the television industries to the National Film and Television School to assist it in pursuance of its objects.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd has asked me to apologise to the Committee because he had to leave for an urgent appointment. On the basis that this is an amendment which is very personal to him, he would wish me not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order 1985
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order
1500
1985 laid before the House on 24th January 1985 be approved.
The Tay Road Bridge, like a number of other estuarial crossings, was promoted by private legislation and on the basis of special financial arrangements. It included provision for a Tay Road Bridge scheme, under which is prescribed a limit of capital expenditure which may be incurred. This limit has been increased by order on two previous occasions, in 1966 and in 1969, and the present capital expenditure limit is £7·25 million. The order that we are considering today raises the ceiling to £9 million.
The need for this arises because the Tay Road Bridge joint board has to incur exceptional expenditure to replace the bridge maintenance gantries and their overhead runways. The cost of this is currently estimated at £1·25 million. This cost will in due course be recovered through tolls, but the work cannot wait until the revenue from tolls has accumulated. It needs to be done now. Therefore, the board needs to borrow temporarily in the meantime. It would like to start the work this year. Therefore, as I have said, the main purpose of the order is to raise the Tay Road Bridge joint board's borrowing limit to £9 million.
The remaining provisions of the order are consequential and, in particular, simply restate the existing arrangements for repaying borrowing, including setting out an order of priority for the different creditors. Your Lordships will no doubt be gratified to know that the repayments to local authorities take precedence over those to the Secretary of State. It hardly needs saying but, for the avoidance of doubt, it may be convenient for me to point out to your Lordships that this order has nothing to do with increasing tolls. The Tay Road Bridge joint board itself instigated an increase in toll levels on the bridge last year. The new levels of tolls were fixed taking account of the expenditure that is now required for the repair and maintenance work to which I have referred. In other words, the need to carry out this work should not give rise to any further requirement to increase tolls and, on the basis of the figures prepared by the board last year, it should be able to repay its loans within the required period. My Lords, I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this order, and as the safety of the bridge is obviously of paramount importance, one has to agree with what is being done. I was pleased to hear that the repayments to local authorities take precedence over those to the Secretary of State, as that is particularly important at this moment, and that there is no intention to increase the tolls. I understand that there is a good deal of feeling that perhaps at some point tolls could be taken away altogether. As the users of motorways do not have to pay for their expenses, why should people have to pay for going over estuaries? I wonder whether the Minister could comment on what will eventually be proposed in regard to tolls. Are the Government hoping to get rid of them altogether? As

1501
I said, we shall of course support the order for safety reasons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for her welcome of this order. She spoke about tolls. As she will appreciate, it was part of the original legislation that tolls would be put on such bridges as this across estuaries. As she will doubtless be aware, the tolls are not so high. I know that they were subject to investigation in an order last year, but I have done a little work on the matter and I have found that the original toll for a motor car in 1966 was 2s. 6d. (or 12½p). Taking into account inflation, in today's money terms that would be equivalent to 73p, when in fact the toll is only 30p. So the charge is not too bad.
As regards the policy on tolls, the Government reviewed and confirmed current tolls policy shortly after they took office in 1979. This policy, which has been endorsed by successive Governments since 1955, is that tolls should be charged on major estuarial crossings which confer exceptional benefits on users in terms of time saved and journeys shortened. It is considered right that the users of the crossing and not the taxpayer or local ratepayer should pay. The Tay Bridge and other toll bridges in Britain were built on this explicit understanding and with the agreement of the authorities concerned that the cost should be recouped through tolls. This agreement is enshrined in legislation. Without it, the bridges might not have been built at all and would certainly not have been built when they were. I hope that that, to some extent, satisfies the noble Baroness. We shall of course keep the matter of future toll bridges under review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

  CONVEYANCING: SECOND REPORT
  CONVEYANCING: SECOND REPORT
  EMPTY WAREHOUSES: RATING RELIEF
  EMPTY WAREHOUSES: RATING RELIEF
  GPO MAIL: MECHANISATION AND DELIVERIES
  GPO MAIL: MECHANISATION AND DELIVERIES
  DAIRY FARMERS: LEVIES
  DAIRY FARMERS: LEVIES
  NEW FOREST BUCKHOUNDS
  NEW FOREST BUCKHOUNDS
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  STATE SECURITY
  STATE SECURITY
  PRISONERS' MAIL: BOX NUMBERS
  PRISONERS' MAIL: BOX NUMBERS
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY: STRENGTH
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY: STRENGTH