Sitting of 8 April 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amdt of Schedule) Order 1987 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Leith Hospital
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the future of Leith hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Mr. Speaker, may I first explain to the House the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? He has a possible fracture to his left ankle and has been advised to move around as little as possible this week.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has received 24 letters, mainly from members of the public, since the announcement last September that all but out-patient services would be withdrawn from Leith hospital.
    Mr. Brown: As the National Health Service is supposed to be safe in the Government's hands, surely it is reasonable to expect a replacement hospital to be built before the present one is demolished. Will the Minister meet members of the local community, myself and other interested hon. Members to discuss this matter, bearing in mind that much fresh information has come to hand in recent weeks? Will he do that, or are we to be snubbed yet again by Lord Glenarthur — a situation that has been developing since the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland took over?
    Mr. MacKay: I understand that the board plans to build a new hospital for the elderly in Leith. However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there are new and expanding facilities all over Edinburgh, including, for example, the new development of 144 beds and supporting services at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, which will be opened later this year for the benefit of all patients in Edinburgh, including those in Leith.
    Mr. Eadie: The Leith hospital should come under the ambit of the Lothian health board, but how can we have any confidence in that health board when we know, from
    284
    recent appointments made to the health board by the Secretary of State, that people on that board with Labour sympathies were dismissed? Is the Minister aware that what happened in Midlothian is a perfect disgrace, because two members with Labour sympathies were dismissed and replaced by one Tory placeman?
    Mr. MacKay: There is always a change of members of health boards. Some members serve a term, two terms, or sometimes more, and they are replaced by other members. We look, not to political affiliation, but to achieving a balanced representation on the health board that will run efficient health services. I would have thought that the Labour party would be interested in that aspect, and not in trying to make political points about appointments.

    Cunninghame
    2. Mr. Lambie asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to pay an official visit to Cunninghame district.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon and learned Friend had planned to visit Irvine earlier this week but was unable to do so. He has no other plans to pay an official visit to the area in the near future.
    Mr. Lambie: I should like to send my best wishes to the Secretary of State and hope that he will be back and fighting fit once again.
    The Secretary of State was due to plant a tree in my constituency on Monday. When I heard that he would not be available to do that, I took my own spade, but unfortunately I was not asked to do it, and the Minister with responsibility for health was brought in to do it instead.
    Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the announcement by Caledonian Paper to come to Irvine and an article this week in the Daily Telegraph that Irvine new town is now a prosperous place, there is still a hard core of 12,000 unemployed people in the Cunninghame area? Is he further aware that there is not only that hard core, but that one man in every three is unemployed? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) and me to come to Irvine and meet the economic committee of Cunninghame district council to discuss the Cunninghame unemployment initiative which is aimed at reducing unemployment and helping everyone in the area?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the hon. Gentleman's good wishes, for which he will be grateful.
    Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman must be feeling twitchy after this morning's opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald and may feel that it is time to start electioneering, it is surprising that he should raise this particular topic in the week when Caledonian Paper has begun to move towards setting up a paper mill in the new town of Irvine, which will create jobs for 1,000 workers during the two years of construction and 480 permanent jobs once the plant becomes fully operational in 1991.I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and see it as a sign of the improving economic position in Scotland.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Labour candidate for Cunninghame, South has less reason to be twitchy because of the opinion

    285
    poll than has the Tory candidate for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). May I ask that Tory candidate if he will guarantee——
    Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. My knowledge of Scotland is not all that great, but I hope that this will be about Cunninghame district.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister guarantee that if the Secretary of State pays an official visit to Cunninghame district it will be more successful than his recent visit to Cumnock and Doon Valley district, which neighbours Cunninghame, where unemployment is now the highest not only in Scotland but in the whole country? Will the Government at last recognise that the main centres of unemployment are not only the inner cities, and that the worst centre is the rural area of Cumnock and Doon Valley? Is he aware that the present proposals of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who is now whispering in his ear, to help unemployment in Cumnock and Doon Valley are insufficient and that we need a major initiative to tackle the problem?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall answer rather briefly that fairly lengthy question. My right hon. and learned Friend's visits are always successful. It is not for me to comment on the success of local Members of Parliament.

    YTS
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations in Dundee have been given approved training organisation status for the new two-year YTS.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): At 27 March 1987 six organisations in Dundee had been given approved training organisation status for YTS: full status went to Dundee college of technology, Tayside Road Transport Group Training Association and Dundee football club; and provisional status to Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce, Henry Boot Ltd. and Tayside regional council.
    Mr. Ross: Has the Minister had a chance to study in more detail our correspondence over one particular organisation? Can he give me an assurance that we shall have a decision shortly that that organisation will not be given approved training organisation status for the new two-year YTS in Dundee?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to LINK, his complaints have been investigated and, to the extent that they were justified, have been remedied to the satisfaction of the MSC. Naturally, that organisation will continue to monitor progress.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce on the important role that it has played in youth training, not least in the commercial sector and, indeed, in north-east Fife, where it has been able to show that 100 per cent. of young people who finish a youth training scheme with it end up with a permanent job? Will he also carry the congratulations of the House to the Manpower Services Commission for the effective way in which it has ensured that no person under 18 years of age need lack a job?
    Mr. Lang: That is a remarkable achievement, and I should like to take this opportunity to offer it my congratulations. The MSC is becoming increasingly proficient in an increasingly effective and useful scheme which offers great promise for young people of a better chance of a job afterwards.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who are on the job training scheme are effectively being disbarred from entry into community projects? Does he intend to do anything about that?
    Mr. Lang: It would be rather difficult for them to be on the community programme and JTS. Dundee has done very well out of the MSC schemes. Not only has JTS been pioneered there, but job club and restart have been pioneered there, as have a number of other useful schemes that are of great value to the city.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the new two-year YTS scheme Dundee United football club is not one of the approved bodies, but that it is probably the best trained and most efficient of all the football clubs in the United Kingdom and we should congratulate it on its appearance this evening in the semifinal of the UEFA cup?
    Mr. Lang: These are controversial matters, but I certainly wish the club luck.

    NFU Scotland
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend and I attended the union's annual dinner on 12 March, when a wide range of agricultural topics were discussed. I addressed the annual general meeting the following day.
    Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for meeting a delegation of my hon. Friends and myself this morning to discuss the beef crisis in Scotland. Will he assure us again that he appreciates the seriousness of the crisis in the beef industry? We are looking for an early announcement of any increase that he could make in headage payments and of a devaluation of the green pound. I appreciate that these important matters will be discussed at the Council of Ministers' meeting at the end of the month, but, given the importance of this to the Scottish agriculture industry, will he confirm that either he or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will attend that meeting?
    Mr. MacKay: At the moment there are no plans for my right hon. and learned Friend or me to attend the meeting at the end of the month, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I did this morning, that the Government are well aware of the strong feelings in the industry on beef in particular. I am well aware of the importance of beef to the Scottish farming industry. The CAP price fixing negotiations and proposals to reform the agri-monetary system are a major element of the Commission's proposals, and we shall try to ensure that an even-handed balance is achieved between our producers and producers in other member states.
    Mr. Fairbairn: As a matter of Government policy, will my hon. Friend seek the fulfilment of the reasonable,

    287
    restrained and sensible suggestions that the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Ian Grant, made in his annual speech? His suggestions were reasoned and sensible. Will the Government give them their blessing?
    Mr. MacKay: I am happy to echo my hon. and learned Friend's tribute to Ian Grant, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. We have had many discussions, and I am well aware of the view of the industry as seen from NFU headquarters and by farmers. The current Commission package is a tough one. We must take some difficult decisions against a background of soaring surpluses in many of the major commodities. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that I and my colleagues from other agricultural departments will be ensuring at the Council of Ministers' meeting and other meetings in Brussels that we safeguard the position of agriculture in this country.
    Mr. Buchan: When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, will he ask him, if he did not ask him last time, what his views are on the proposals of the British Commissioner, Lord Cockfield — aided and buttressed by that deplorable organisation, the EEC—on the introduction of VAT on food and what the position of the Scottish farmers will be in relation to that? Will the Minister assure us that his Department and the Scottish Office in general will resist such a deplorable tax on food costs, which would be the most monstrous thing to happen to food prices since the corn laws?
    Mr. MacKay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's close appreciation and the way in which he follows the doings of the EC, and possibly also of the European Assembly, but Ian Grant has not discussed those matters with me and I do not believe that they are serious propositions.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that the House and Scottish farmers in general will view with concern the fact that neither my hon. Friend nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is geared to go to the discussions in Brussels. I sincerely hope that, in view of the crisis in relation to beef, cereals and the devaluation of the green pound, my hon. Friend or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take immediate steps to ensure that they go to Brussels to fight their corner for the Scottish farmers.
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend puts a great temptation before me to spend many days and nights in Brussels, as I have done on Fisheries Council matters. I have had no indications from the NFU of Scotland or the industry in general that they wish the negotiations in Brussels to be conducted other than on behalf of the United Kingdom by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman meets the president of the NFU of Scotland, will he take his opinion on the Minister's rather surprising policy declaration the other day, to the effect that any rural school with fewer than three teachers was educationally damaging and should perhaps be phased out?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not represent a rural constituency and does not understand what farming is about. Next time I meet Ian Grant I might
    288
    be tempted to ask him what damaging impact the Labour party's proposals to rate agricultural land would have on agriculture.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Did my hon. Friend discuss with the president of the NFU the serious impact on the beef market of the imports of Irish beef? Why does Irish beef continue to enjoy the benefit of our variable beef premium scheme as well as the advantages that accrue to Irish farmers at home?
    Mr. MacKay: I understand and sympathise with the feelings of many Scottish beef farmers about the Irish situation, but that is a long-standing arrangement that was negotiated at the time of our entry, along with the Irish Republic, to the EC, which made it clear that the farmers in the Republic would have access to our markets and to the variable beef premium scheme. That is why it has come about.

    Caterpillar Tractors Ltd.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further meetings he has had with representatives of Caterpillar about the future of its Glasgow plant; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: Our main objective is urgently to explore possibilities for retaining manufacturing operations and employment at Tannochside. In this connection officials of the Industry Department for Scotland are in regular contact with Caterpillar management.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister now accept that the people of Scotland want action, not just words, from the Government to secure an industrial future for the Caterpillar work force? Will the Government now take the plant and equipment into public ownership, either directly by nationalisation or through the Scottish Development Agency? Having done that, will the hon. Gentleman accept that he may well be in a position to negotiate constructively with Caterpillar about a future for that plant, perhaps supplying spare parts to the Caterpillar operation? If that fails, at least the equipment will be there to be used by other industrialists for the benefit of the Scottish people. It would be outrageous if that equipment, much of which has been substantially paid for by the taxpayer, were allowed to be moved out of the country.
    Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to secure a future for the plant, but nationalisation has never solved any industrial problem in the past and I cannot see it as being appropriate in this situation either. However, I should like us to be able to gain access to the plant in order to help complete the profile that the Scottish Office is compiling through the SDA and Industry Department so that we can try to market the facility on a worldwide basis.
    Mr. Hirst: When my hon. Friend or his officials next meet the management of Caterpillar, will he tell it that Scotland expects it to co-operate in any way possible in order to find a way to maintain. manufacturing operations and employment at Uddingston? Will he tell the management firmly that it is simply not acceptable that it should try to cast the plant, its work force and the community aside like a soiled rag?
    Mr. Lang: I share my hon Friend's views about the way in which the Caterpillar management has handled the

    289
    matter from the outset. However, I am also anxious to secure the future of the suppliers, and I am glad to know that the management is keen to help maintain the suppliers' relationship with Caterpillar in supplying Caterpillar factories elsewhere.
    Mr. James Hamilton: The Minister is aware that Caterpillar is in my constituency and that some of my parliamentary colleagues and I have met him on several occasions concerning this closure. Will the Minister now take on board the suggestion that he should attempt some initiative to try to get the management, preferably at American level, to meet the shop stewards at the factory — despite the fact that they are sitting in — to try to resolve this pernicious problem? I am sure the Minister is aware that if he does not do that, unemployment—now 20·5 per cent. in the Motherwell district — will be tremendously increased. On that basis, the closure of the factory will be a tragedy for the area.
    Mr. Lang: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's close interests over a long period of time in the Caterpillar plant in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that ACAS has approached the unions on this matter and they have agreed to attend a meeting. Caterpillar management has also been approached and it is considering the matter.
    Mr. Dewar: I know the Minister recognises—it has been illustrated in today's exchanges—that there is a sense of anger and outrage at the way in which the Caterpillar company has treated the work force at Tannochside. That work force has served the company loyally for many years. I believe that the House will be extremely pleased to hear that there is a possibility of mediation through ACAS. Will the Minister join me in urging the management to follow the example of the unions, to agree to that meeting, and to get talks started now? Such talks might remove some of the immediate difficulties about the position at the plant.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend and I share his feeling of outrage at the way in which the whole business of the closure of the Caterpillar plant has been handled. I am anxious to see mediation succeed and I hope that the initiative now in train will achieve that end.

    Rates
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about regional council rates increases in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ancram: I have received numerous representations about the large rates increases made by many Scottish authorities. These increases are particularly disappointing since the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88 is a generous one.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he has said, in the year in which the most generous rate support grant settlement for years has been given, it is nothing short of scandalous that Strathclyde regional council should be passing on a 19 per cent. rate increase to ratepayers? Does my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues have any plans to protect Scottish ratepayers from rate increases many times the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Ancram: Obviously we will wish to consider the budgets of all authorities to see whether action is required. It is disappointing to have a rate increase of 18·5 per cent. in Strathclyde, especially as that authority, if it had spent at guideline for the year just ended and budgeted within the guideline for this year, could have achieved a 5 per cent. decrease in its rates. It only goes to show, as we have always said, that voting Labour means higher taxes, whether local or national.
    Mr. Maxton: Is it not already clear from an earlier answer that the Minister's statistics are suspect, as he appears to believe that 42 per cent. recorded for the Labour party in an opinion poll is far worse that the 18 per cent. recorded for the Tory party? That is a remarkable fact. Certain Conservative Members are not twitching about the general election, because they are already politically dead.
    Every regional council has increased its rates, with the exception of Grampian, by more than 10 per cent. That includes Highland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway, which are not Labour-controlled. Strathclyde region had a 2 per cent. increase in its rate support grant—not a generous one, but well below the rate of inflation —while Lothian region had a nil increase in its rate support grant — again, not a generous one. The Minister's argument about a generous rate support grant is a load of nonsense.
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with one sixth of the Labour party's support disappearing within a month, that is a matter for him.
    The hon. Gentleman has argued constantly that if the proportion of rate support grant is held we can expect to see low rate increases. The proportion of rate support grant was held in Scotland this year and the average of rate increases is 15·1 per cent. If that does nothing else, it gives the lie to the argument that has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

    Scotch Whisky Association
    Mr. Pollockasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association; what subjects were discussed and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend met the association's public affairs committee last November. Among the issues discussed were taxation policy as it relates to spirits and the problems encountered in exporting whisky to Japan.
    Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable concern within the association on this vexed question of the tax and duty treatment of Scotch whisky imports by Japan? Will he undertake to keep a close interest on behalf of the Scottish Office in the progress of the GATT case against Japan? If no satisfactory progress is forthcoming in the foreseeable future, will he consider it for possible inclusion on the agenda of the Heads of Government summit later this year?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, which I am sure will certainly be considered. I pay tribute to his close interest in this matter, which is so important in his constituency. I also congratulate him on his recent initiative with the Japanese ambassador. As he knows, the Government and the European Commission

    291
    are taking action under article 23 of the GATT to seek the rapid removal of discriminatory barriers. We hope that this will be successful in the case of Japan.
    Mr. O'Neill: When the Minister next meets the Scottish Whisky Association, will he remember that the DCL-Guinness organisation is the largest single member of it? Therefore, will he ensure that stability in that firm is sustained and that it will not be at the expense of the possibility of introducing bulk export of malt whisky, which would endanger the long-term future of whisky, the bottle-making industry and the packaging industry, with which the whisky industry is so closely aligned?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are restrained on these matters anyway by the GATT and by European Community commitments. We certainly maintain contact with Guinness.
    Sir Alex Fletcher: Has the Scotch Whisky Association made any representations to my hon. Friend about the severe disadvantages suffered by the industry due to the fact that it is now controlled from London by an Irish brewery conglomerate whose only genius was to acquire these brands by deception?
    Mr. Lang: Despite the problems to which my hon. Friend refers, total exports have now exceeded £1 billion. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased at the transfer of Distillers home trade operations to Perth from the south of England.

    Industrial Construction and Production
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the index of industrial production and construction in Scotland in the fourth quarter of 1986.
    Mr. Lang: Estimates for the fourth quarter of 1986 are not yet available. In the third quarter the index of industrial production and construction, excluding oil and gas, rose by 2·4 per cent. in Scotland, compared with a 1 per cent. rise in the United Kingdom overall.
    Mr. Hogg: Is it not the case that the figures for the whole of the past seven years show that the level of output in Scotland is running below that which the Government inherited from the last Labour Government? Is it not further the case that the Government are cutting by £100 million the Scottish Office budget? How can that assist in increasing output in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I am not sure to which part of the Scottish Office budget the hon. Gentleman refers. Certainly it is the case that output in the last few years has been below the level of 1979. However, it is now very close to that and is being achieved with substantially fewer workers.
    Mr. Hogg: That is an achievement?
    Mr. Lang: It is an achievement in increasing productivity, which is the most secure guarantee of future employment.
    Mr. Henderson: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the Opposition used to talk about the non-oil economy and are now less inclined to do so? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the improvements in productivity and efficiency in the non-oil sector of Scottish industry have resulted in substantial increases in employment?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing productivity in Scotland generally has
    292
    been increasing by about 6 per cent. over the years 1979 to 1985. Over the same time productivity in England was increasing by only about 4 per cent.
    Mr. Kennedy: Did the Minister see the report in The Independent this week, which showed that out of all the constituencies in Britain the Ross, Cromarty and Skye constituency had the highest percentage increase in long-term unemployment — over 64 per cent? In terms of industrial production and construction—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Labour Members do not seem to be interested in unemployment in the Highlands of Scotland. Will the Minister look again at the regional aid map? If he does that he will see that the Government reduced substantially the incentives and the assisted area status that had been available to parts of my constituency to attract industry and create jobs.
    Mr. Lang: The significance of the percentage increase to which the hon. Gentleman refers is dependent on the base from which it started. On regional aid, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, about 65 per cent. of the working population in Scotland are now in assisted areas, compared with only 35 per cent. in the United Kingdom. That represents about £62 per head, compared with £19 in the United Kingdom. The substantial increase in the coverage of regional aid as a proportion of the total since 1979 is from about 21 to 30 per cent., which reflects the importance that is attached to that matter in Scotland.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend use his influence to ensure—as Scotch whisky is one of the most successful— industries in Scotland—that the Japanese——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this come under the heading of industrial production?
    Mr. Fairbairn: It does indeed. Will he ensure that our nips are available to their Nips at the same price as their nips are available to their Nips?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend puts his question in his own inimitable way. He might have asked me about the electronics industry. A recent survey showed that, because of that important industry, about 3,700 American jobs are coming to Scotland — unless a Labour Government are returned.
    Mr. Dewar: I thought that that was a splendid example of the Minister's logical thought processes. Why does he maintain the charade of a successful index of industrial productivity when between the third quarter of 1979 and the third quarter of 1986 it has dropped by 5·8 per cent.? Why does he not address himself to the fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg)? Does the Minister not accept that, taking this year against next year, there is a cut in the industry and economy budget of the Scottish Office from £344 million to £257 million? Does he defend that cut, and does it give him satisfaction?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the RDG1 scheme is about to end. Secondly, regional development grant is demand-led and cannot therefore be specifically cash-tagged in the way that he has suggested. Our budget has had to be increased by 26 per cent. from what we had anticipated a year ago, because of increased activity.

    Aberdeen University
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will have discussions with the University Grants Committee regarding the financial situation and the future of Aberdeen university; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John MacKay: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but the allocation of grants to individual universities is a matter for the University Grants Committee.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not remember what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said last week about a new committee to run the universities. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a grave crisis in Aberdeen university due to underfunding by the UGC? This is leading to the loss of viability of a considerable number of specialised research units in the Grampian region. Will my hon. Friend take steps to do something about the funding of Aberdeen university, so that it does not have to close down before its 500th birthday?
    Mr. MacKay: The principle of the funding of individual institutions is a matter for the UGC, and the UFC after it, and that is not in doubt. We have recently endorsed it in our White Paper.
    In the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of United Kingdom universities in September last year, he gave an assurance that the Government would not consider any proposals for the closure of a university.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister accept that there are two problems that affect Scottish universities in general, and Aberdeen in particular? The first is that the University Grants Committee has had its funding effectively cut—particularly in view of the settlement for university teachers. Secondly, for the second time in only five years, Aberdeen university has been singled out for a depth of cut that makes it virtually impossible for the university to maintain a breadth of departments and future viability. Will the Minister intercede to ensure that the university is not victimised yet again?
    Mr. MacKay: The decisions of the University Grants Committee are made on the basis of issues such as peer group review and an examination of the merits and strengths of each university. The recurrent grant is distributed at different rates to different universities. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the total amount of money for universities, of course the Government have attempted to control and constrain public expenditure. This has played the important role in the fact that productivity is up, inflation is down and tax rates are being reduced. Now, unemployment rates are falling, too. The universities have to play their part in restraining that public expenditure.
    Sir Alex Fletcher: Would it not be more helpful to the University of Aberdeen, in assisting it to become more viable, if Ministers and academics were to support the principal in his efforts to reorganise the university and make it more suitable for the training and education of graduates, who would then have a ready place on the market? Should not that training be done more efficiently and within a shorter time?
    Mr. MacKay: It is important that Aberdeen university should plan properly for its future. The proposals that my hon. Friend mentioned must be considered by the university, and by the UGC if the university puts them forward. That would not be a matter for Ministers. I should have thought that all sorts of proposals, radical and otherwise, are meat and drink to universities.
    Mr. Dewar: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is answering this question and has not transferred it to the Department of Education and Science. All Labour Members appreciate this opportunity to discuss the problems of the University of Aberdeen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that he is answering this question when, only last week, the Government rejected the STEAC recommendations and refused to accept that the Scottish Office should have a say in the funding of Scottish universities?
    Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that he would play a part with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in giving guidance to the UFC on universities in Scotland and on institutions in the non-university sector. Before the Opposition, as usual, attempt to portray some part of Scotland as totally negative, I remind them that in the higher education sector—it is the same in all sectors—there are 10,000 more students in place than there were under the last Labour Government.

    Emigration
    Mr. Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline those Government economic policies which are designed to stem the loss of population in Scotland through external migration.
    Mr. Lang: The Government have in place a wide range of economic policies designed to reduce inflation and maintain a vigorous, enterprising economy — [Interruption.]—which offers the best hope of reducing migration from Scotland.
    Mr. Wilson: I had some difficulty in hearing that answer, but I suspect that it was not worth very much.
    Does the Minister accept the predictions of the Registrar General for Scotland that over the next 50 years the Scottish population will decrease by about half a million, or 10 per cent., because of adverse economic trends? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the disastrous result of English government over the years and that Scotland desperately needs new economic policies and a new Government of her own to secure a future for our people?
    Mr. Lang: I would hesitate to lend support to a prediction that goes over the next 50 years. I suspect that over the past year migration has probably been related more to the decline in the oil industry. I hope that the irony of that fact is not lost on the hon. Gentleman or his party.
    Dr. Godman: The communities of Greenock and Port Glasgow are suffering from this external migration. Will the Scottish Office now advise the SDA to increase the funding and staffing of the Inverclyde initiative to stem that migration?
    Mr. Lang: I am keen to see the Inverclyde initiative proceed. I am glad that it has managed to secure some land

    295
    in that area. Since 1979 overseas migration has been lower than under the previous Government and, over the past three years, considerably lower.
    Mr. Pollock: How do the figures for external migration compare with those in the Republic of Ireland, which follows a different set of economic policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that the right kind of policy is to build on the success of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which, for the first time in more than a century, has secured a stemming of the tide of emigration from at least that part of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The Highlands and rural areas generally are doing well in terms of population trends. To some extent this is a result of the activities of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the SDA, whose role and budget we have expanded. As for migration within the United Kingdom, I suppose that there might be a possibility of Scots leaving Scotland in the face of Labour's tax-raising assembly, but then they would be driven out of the United Kingdom by the Labour party's United Kingdom tax policies.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 30 January to discuss a wide range of economic issues, including unemployment. I hope to meet representatives of the STUC tomorrow to discuss Caterpillar.
    Mr. Eadie: While I welcome the Minister's answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that unemployment is one of the major issues affecting Scotland? In my own constituency of Midlothian unemployment has increased relentlessly since the Government came to office. Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Pope this week that unemployment is evidence of moral disorder?
    Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the rise in unemployment. However, I hope that he, like me, draws comfort from the fact that unemployment fell by about 8,000 in Scotland last month. That is the largest monthly fall for nine years, and if we persist in our economic policies we can look forward to continued falls in the future.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will he discuss with its members the real danger of unemployment among the beef stockmen in the specialist beef sector? Unless action is taken as a matter of urgency to give a fair opportunity to the beef producers of Scotland, we shall see substantial unemployment and a repetition of the Highland clearances.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend who is responsible for those matters will have heard what my hon. Friend said. Certainly we are very keen to see employment maintained in rural areas.
    Sir Russell Johnston: When the Minister meets the STUC about Caterpillar, will he have some specific proposals to put before it? Unless the Minister gives some evidence that the Government are prepared to act directly
    296
    to save 2 per cent. of Scotland's manufacturing capacity, all the talk about wishing unemployment to drop will be seen as simply pious nonsense.
    Mr. Lang: The meeting is at the request of the STUC. However, I shall take the opportunity to point out that as soon as the sit-in ends and we are able to gain access to the plant, with the Caterpillar management, and complete the profile, we shall be in a better position to try to market the facility around the world and thus to secure employment at the plant.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Minister confirm that one of the ways in which the Government are trying to reduce unemployment is by encouraging health boards to use YTS youths in the hospitals and paying them £27·50 a week, instead of employing further, although cheap, nursing labour? Is he aware that five health boards in Scotland already employ 300 of those youngsters at pittance wages? This is no excuse for treating nurses as scandalously as the present Government are doing.
    Mr. Lang: I have no responsibility for health matters. However, the hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do of the substantial expansion in the nursing population in Scotland. I hope that he, like me, welcomes the opportunity that young people are given by YTS to secure training and work experience and obtain a vocational qualification, and thus a better chance of finding a job after the training is completed.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: When my hon. Friend next meets the STUC, will he ask why it supports the introduction of a minimum wage, the abolition of the civil nuclear power programme, the cancellation of Trident and the rating of agricultural land and buildings in line with the Labour party, when that policy will result in 100,000 jobs being lost in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has hit four nails very firmly on the head. He is absolutely right. Almost every one of the Opposition's policies, when carefully analysed, would lead us to a drop rather than an increase in unemployment.

    Renfrew District Council
    Mr. Buchanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of Renfrew district council to discuss its recent economic initiative.
    Mr. Lang: I met representatives of Renfrew district council on 23 January to discuss proposals for a local economic initiative, and wrote to the council on 10 March with my conclusions. I have received an encouraging response and hope that an agreement can be reached on the present proposals as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister accept that, rather than an encouraging response in words, we should like some cash to fulfil the pledge that the Government gave at the time of the closure of the Linwood factory? Does he realise that the cost in public expenditure of the unemployment in Renfrew district is well over £100 million, and that that will apply to the projects under the economic initiative scheme? Putting that into public investment could wipe out entirely the unemployment facing my constituency of Paisley, South.
    Mr. Lang: The SDA has agreed to meet half the initiative's operating costs and to second staff to it. It has

    297
    also committed itself to £4 million of environmental improvements. In addition, Renfrew council's current expenditure guideline this year is 7·7 per cent. above assessed need, and 4·2 per cent. above last year in terms of the inflationary increase. In addition, the SDA's LEGUP scheme has approved projects in Renfrew worth £270,000. So a substantial amount of cash is available from a number of different sources.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend explain to Renfrew district council that any sound, concrete proposal that it puts forward for economic regeneration in Renfrewshire will be greeted favourably by the Government and that the finances will be looked into? Until it comes up with the goods, we in this place cannot come up with the goods. Will he confirm that the phoney unemployment statistics that it tries to foist upon us are completely unacceptable and are no substitute for good ideas for the area?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most successful outcome of the initiative can be achieved by the co-operation of the district council and the Scottish Development Agency. I earnestly hope that that is now being achieved. I hope also that the arrival of Compaq in the district will enhance the employment prospects and the fact that the Sizewell order is going ahead will be of advantage to Babcock.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Child and Sexual Abuse
    Dr. Godmanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for offences involving child abuse and sexual abuse have been mounted in (a) sheriff's courts and (b) the High Court in each of the past four years.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): These statistics are not centrally kept and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.
    Dr. Godman: Those who are professionally involved with the treatment of child abuse and sexual abuse cases are concerned about the selection and training of sheriffs for children's panel proof hearings. Do the Government have plans to designate a small number of sheriffs to deal with such cases, as happens with adoption cases?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That matter has not been considered. However, because of his earlier interest in child appearances in court the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a Scottish Office project under way, entitled "The Child Witness". Research is continuing. That will probably cover the sort of point about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in cases of child abuse, in particular child sexual abuse, it is important to remember that it is the child who matters and that in the courts, and in every other way, we should make it possible for a child to give evidence in a manner that does not in any way disadvantage the child?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I think that all hon. Members appreciate that we should make every effort to ensure that the trauma that a child has experienced is not continued or revived through the consequence of a court appearance. Nevertheless, there is the conflicting
    298
    requirement that those who are accused of serious crimes —and they will be serious crimes if they involve assaults on children—are entitled to a fair trial. For that reason, as part of its review of the law of evidence the Scottish Law Commission is considering how evidence might be taken from children in circumstances that would in some way or another alleviate that trauma. In the meantime, everything is being done to keep to a minimum the problems for a child who has to appear in court.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General must be aware that there is increasing concern among social workers in Scotland about the fact that neither the Crown nor the courts are handling cases of child abuse adequately or effectively. As for the matter that he raised — by which the hon. and learned Gentleman presumably means video evidence being given in court—does he not agree that the intense trauma of direct confrontation between the child and the molester must urgently be stopped? Furthermore, is not spouse corroboration a very considerable problem? I have in my hand a letter from a social worker who says:
    "I am engaged in one such case at the moment, where the word of a four year old girl means nothing in terms of evidence, despite its detail."
    The social worker goes on to say that that girl will end up in a foster home. She also asks whether, as the girl grows up, she will wonder why she was fostered while her father remained at home, and she says that she will ask whether that was just.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I readily understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the position of children in court, but he has to face the fact that there is a serious dilemma. Those who appear before our courts are entitled to a fair trial. If they are convicted of the sexual assault of a child, that is a crime that we all take seriously and the courts are likely to impose a heavy penalty upon them. In those circumstances, we have to try to maintain a balance. We have to try to avoid trauma for the child, but at the same time we must try to ensure that the accused is able to present his case properly. I have already said that, in an effort to resolve these difficulties, the Scottish Law Commission is examining the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the position is already in hand south of the border.

    Co-Star Ltd.
    Mr. Lambieasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock has yet reached a decision in connection with the case of Co-Star Ltd; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The procurator fiscal has not received any report on this matter.
    Mr. Lambie: Why is it that Americans can come to this country, set up companies, rob the regional aid system by illegal actions, make a lot of money and still escape prosecution?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the acquiring of regional aid is essentially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that there has been fraud or other illegality, and if he will provide that evidence, naturally it will be looked at, not only by the

    299
    police, but by the procurator fiscal. All I should say in relation to the matter he has raised is that certain inquiries are still continuing.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the secretary and legal adviser to Co-Star was Mr. Graeme Adam, about whom a large number of complaints have already been submitted to the Law Society of Scotland and about whom I have written to the Solicitor-General on a specific matter of alleged fraud in relation to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Robinson in Kilwinning. When can we expect a decision to be taken as to whether there is to be a prosecution of Mr. Adam in that case?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot give him a firm date on that. However, he, among others, has made complaints not only to the Law Society of Scotland, for which I am not answerable, but to the procurator fiscal and the police, and I can assure him that the matters that he and others have put forward have been investigated actively.

    Fox Hunting
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many complaints procurators fiscal have received about incidents arising from fox hunting; and how many prosecutions have taken place as a result.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: So far as I can ascertain, during the past year procurators fiscal have received 10 reports of such incidents. Seven—involving 29 accused persons — resulted in prosecution. In the remaining three—involving 17 accused—decisions have been taken not to prosecute.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that on 19 January I wrote to the chief constable of Central Scotland police about an incident in my constituency on 3 January when some anti-hunt demonstrators, including two women, complained that they had been deliberately assaulted and their car had been vandalised by members or followers of the Linlithgow and Stirlingshire fox hunt? Now, over 13 weeks since the incident, I am still awaiting a report from the chief constable. Will the Solicitor-General personally ensure that those hunting hooligans are prosecuted and that the police deal with such complaints more impartially and expeditiously until such time as the barbaric practice of fox hunting is abolished altogether?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Having seen the hon. Gentleman in an interview on television with a member of the Scottish Nationalist party, he is certainly in a good position to talk about blood sports.
    He will appreciate that reports from the police and letters of his to the chief constable are not directly matters for me. However, all complaints that are made, and all allegations of assault involving fox hunting, be it supporters of the hunt or those opposed to it, are properly considered. If he would like to give me further details of the matter about which he is concerned, I shall see that he gets a reply from me once a report has been received by the Crown Office.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. and learned Friend note that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)
    300
    prejudges people on the basis of their legitimate sporting interests and regards as hooligans people who have not been charged and people who have not been convicted? What hope is there for the country when the Labour party does not even believe in the presumption of innocence?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. and learned Friend is right to pick up that element of prejudgement in the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I should say to my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that where there are incidents over fox hunting we attempt, as best we can, to be even-handed and the prosecutions to which I have referred involve both those who are opposed to fox hunting as well as those who support it.

    Property Rights
    Mrs. McCurleyasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any intention of introducing further legislation to protect the property rights of citizens in Scotland.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Beyond the Debtors (Scotland) Bill there are no immediate plans to introduce further legislation affecting or protecting individual property rights. Any further reforms proposed by the Scottish Law Commission in particular will receive consideration either by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
    Mrs. McCurley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that farmers and landowners believe that the introduction of regional parks in Scotland is tantamount to the nationalisation of land by stealth? While existing legislation gives the right to the public peacefully to enjoy the countryside, no such rights are given to property owners.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The introduction of regional parks is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, although I happened to introduce that piece of legislation as a private Member's Bill. However, if my hon. Friend will let me know whether farmers have particular complaints in the regional park within her constituency, and whether there have been any criminal activities, I shall make sure that they are properly investigated.

  BILL PRESENTED
    LONDON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER COUNCILS (ANNUAL ELECTIONS)
    Dr. John Cunningham, supported by Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Allen McKay, presented a Bill to provide that London Borough Councillors and non-metropolitan district councillors shall be elected for a three-year term with one-third retiring annually; and to make transitional provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Considering the draw for Prime Minister's questions, perhaps I am the last person to complain about questions not being called, but you will notice that on the Order Paper Question No. 40 is about the Zircon affair. I wonder whether there has been any request by Ministers to answer that question, because it is a matter of continuing importance and we have had no explanation of the outcome of police investigations into the BBC in Glasgow. As questions to the Law Officers started at 3.21 pm and you often call questions at 3.30 pm, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why, on this occasion, my question has not been called.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we started at 3.21 pm; we started at 3.20 pm. I have to take account of the business before the House on any one day. Today is a heavy day. It would not be fair or right on other hon. Members to go over the time that is set down for questions. I am sorry that I was not able to reach the hon. Gentleman's question today and also that he was not called at Scottish Question Time. I did try hard.

Notice of Motion
Mr. Barry Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have not been able to give you notice of this point of order, but I have just noticed what looks like a rather cruel April fool joke by the Table Office at the expense of Liberal party policies. I refer to the notice of motion now on the Order Paper, which is entitled "Promotion of Wind Energy".
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not the Table Office, but we are about to hear that.

Privatisation (Multiple Share Applications)
3.33 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it about a matter that arose today?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman, but I should tell him before he starts that I would not be prepared to hear a re-run of the 40 minutes of points of order that we had yesterday.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to re-run anything. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that you wrote to me, and that is not a re-run. It is a completely new matter. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last week I wrote to you submitting that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) brought the House into disrepute and that therefore——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again pre-empt the hon. Gentleman? He must not draw attention to a matter of privilege about which he wrote to me and on which I have replied, because he will know that the Committee of Privileges reported on it a good while ago. It was precisely to prevent the raising of such matters on the Floor of the House in that way that the Committee reported. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not breach that rule of the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall comply exactly with what the Committee of Privileges recommended. I do not intend to read the content of my application to you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the reply, which was not dealt with in that Committee's recommendations.
You wrote me a letter, Mr. Speaker, and in so doing you have effectively prevented the House and the country from knowing your ruling on the application on contempt that I made to you. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I should be permitted to bring before the House that very brief letter because I cannot table it as a motion as a result of the rules that you very accurately and carefully set out for the House yesterday. Of course, it is only following yesterday's interventions that I now feel more free to introduce these matters in the way that I wish.
Mr. Speaker, in your letter of 7 April——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is precisely what I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to do. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on a matter of privilege. I replied that I was unable to give the matter precedence as a matter of privilege. He cannot go beyond that. That is exactly what the Select Committee laid down.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I know of no rule in the whole of "Erskine May" or any rule of the House which prevents me as a Member of Parliament from raising on the Floor of the House a letter which you, Mr. Speaker, wrote to me, which should be in the public domain and about which the public want to know. We must be allowed to raise these matters. This letter is of public importance and some people may well construe it to be a historic document. It is your letter, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to allow me to bring it to the attention of my hon. Friends.
304
The letter reads——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?
Mr. Speaker: —to break our rules on this matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What rules?
Mr. Speaker: The Privileges Committee reported on this matter. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that it was stated that a matter of privilege should be raised with Mr. Speaker who would consider it — as I have done—and write to the hon. Member concerned saying whether Mr. Speaker would give it precedence over the Orders of the Day. That is exactly what has happened. The hon. Gentleman may not go beyond that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to read out my letter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You say, Mr. Speaker, that you are not prepared——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to read out my letter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If I am not allowed to read out this letter, I want to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. How can the letter appear in the Official Report? How can it arrive within the public domain? Tell me that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may legitimately table a motion setting out his views on the matter. That is what he should do.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: These are not my views, Mr. Speaker; they are your views. You are interpreting the rules as you see them. I put it to you that I am entitled to place this letter of yours——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am not prepared to break the rules of this House. The present procedure was fully debated by the House, and I abide by the decision then taken.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: No; I am not prepared——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise another matter.
Mr. Speaker: I will hear one more point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the reply that you often send to hon. Members when they have raised matters of privilege, Mr. Speaker, you say that your function and responsibility is to decide whether a complaint of privilege should be given priority. May I ask you to explain to the House on what basis you decide whether a matter should be given priority?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for my discretion. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I take into account many considerations, one of which may be whether any offence has been committed in a parliamentary sense against this House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for

305
Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) consistently abuses — or attempts to abuse—the rules of this place. You made a very firm ruling several weeks ago. The House has been much better for that ruling. We implore you, Mr. Speaker, to keep the rules and procedures of this House in order. It seems most unfair to Conservative Members, who are behaving themselves, very properly, that the hon. Gentleman can indulge in such scurrilous behaviour time after time. It is politics by innuendo, and it is time to stop it.
Mr. Speaker: The House may rely on me to keep the rules of order in this House.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and your predecessors have said that the House has certain privileges. As I understand it, those privileges belong to the House as a whole. In law, they do not belong to individuals. This is a matter for the reputation of the House and for you, Sir. Understandably, in the country people are asking, "Is there one law for the rest of us and another law for Members of Parliament?" To ensure that there is confidence in the House, we must make it clear that the law applies to all.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said that the position of the Conservative Member in question was being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Today the newspapers contain a report—I have it in my hand, since Tory Members raised the matter—to the effect that it is extremely unlikely that any prosecution will occur. To avoid repeated points of order day after day, what action can we take to ensure that a Conservative Member who has broken the law is treated no differently from any of our constituents? That is the issue at hand.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House will accept that, where such accusations are made, that is a matter for the courts. It cannot be right, and surely hon. Members do not wish, that the House should resort to trial by innuendo.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the matters underlying this affair will be dealt with, and that presumably points of order will no longer be needed, as and when the law takes its course? When Labour Members have faced criminal charges, we have been content that the law should take its course. If hon. Members wish to conduct the debate in this way, they should be reminded that Opposition Members have faced criminal charges and have been convicted, and that we have been content that the law should take its course.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you remind the House, enjoying as it does absolute privilege, that it is not in its interests that Members of any political party should
306
make a political scene or a mockery of the conduct of Members on either side of the House, or that they should abuse your copyright in the letters that you write, and the trust that you put in hon. Members when you send letters, to make cheap, bad points? It does nothing for the honour of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have probably noticed during these exchanges, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has not appeared in the Chamber. That has helped you considerably, because it crossed my mind during the exchanges yesterday that had the hon. Member for Ynys Môn been here he would have heard some of my hon. Friends allege that the man was not honourable but was a cheat. That is the theoretical standpoint. Suppose that the matter continues for a while and eventually he turns up in the Chamber — and, in order to represent his constituents, he may eventually be forced to do that. One would expect him to come here. Then you, Mr. Speaker, will have a problem, which is the point of order. For instance, if an hon. Member says and believes that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is not honourable but is a cheat, a crook, and a swindler, will you throw that hon. Member——
Mr. Speaker: Order. All hon. Members elected to this House are honourable. That goes for hon. Members on both sides of the House. In this country we are all subject to the courts. I repeat that this matter should be dealt with in that way and not by a process of points of order on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have seen the letter which you sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I have no wish to quote from the letter unless I have your permission or the permission of my hon. Friend, but I ask for clarification on one point.
I understand that part of the reason why no immediate action is being taken against the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) is that it is considered that this offence was outside the House and was unrelated to parliamentary proceedings. But I understand that the hon. Member supported and voted for the legislation to privatise British Telecom which gave him the opportunity to line his pockets and commit this offence. Many people outside the House will ask, if that is not a breach of privilege, if that is not contempt of the House, and if that is not abuse of one's position as a Member of Parliament, what is?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House would not expect me to give reasons for the decisions that I take in the exercise of my discretion. The hon. Gentleman has advanced his views. We dealt with this yesterday. There are clearly laid down procedures for contempt. If the hon. Gentleman wants to proceed in that way, he can do so. He only has to operate the rules which we have. There is no point in raising points of order with the Chair.

Promotion of Wind Energy
3.42 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the generation of electricity by means of wind powered generators by encouraging appropriate research and development, reforming the rating valuation base for private wind generators and by providing for revised terms for the supply of electricity to the electricity boards from private wind powered generators; and for connected purposes.
Slowly but steadily, those with responsibility for securing our energy supply are recognising that renewable sources of energy can make a significant contribution to meeting our future energy needs. Of the various renewable alternatives, it appears that wind power is emerging as a front runner. Indeed, the Department of Energy seems to regard wind energy as the most promising of the renewable energy sources, with some experts predicting that up to 20 per cent. of our current electricity demand could be supplied by land-based generators and that an even greater contribution will be possible if we can successfully develop offshore arrays of wind turbine generators.
The potential contribution cannot be dismissed as marginal, as some have tried to do in the past. The purpose of the Bill which I seek leave to present is to help the development of this important energy resource. The Bill would have three principal strands: first, the promotion of research and development; secondly, amending the valuation base for the rating of private wind generators; and, thirdly, improving the terms under which private wind generators can sell electricity to the electricity boards.
It is only lair to put on record the fact that the Department of Energy, the generating boards, research councils and the private sector have already co-operated well in the research and demonstration programmes, not least in my constituency. Two generators are already operating on Burgar hill in Orkney, and a 3 MW machine should be operational this year as part of a construction, design and monitoring programme involving the British Wind Energy Group, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the Department of Energy. In Shetland a project is underway to establish how much wind energy can be fed into the Shetland grid and how wind installations might be operated in the most efficient manner.
Further south, the Central Electricity Generating Board is monitoring the performance of a recently opened vertical axis turbine at Carmarthen bay. The board has planned a 1 MW turbine for Richborough in Kent. Therefore, considerable research and development is already taking place. However, it is now necessary for us to look forward towards a major national wind energy programme.
A much increased purchasing programme by the electricity boards would give a considerable boost to our home-based manufacturers, enabling them to undertake more research and development and demonstration of their own, and would put them on a better footing to exploit the home market and to take advantage of the considerable export opportunities. If that is to happen, it is important that the underlying programme of reserach and innovative support must be undertaken by Government, their agencies and the research councils.
308
The British Wind Energy Association recently published a paper outlining what it believes to be a necessary programme of demonstration projects, research and development. It would not be realistic for the House to demand that the Department of Energy should slavishly follow that programme in every detail. However, my Bill provides that the Department should prepare and present to Parliament a five-year programme principally directed towards research and development and wind energy. It provides also for a programme of demonstration projects, which will be necessary to underpin a major expansion of wind power generators in this country.
The other two measures that are features of the Bill are intended mainly to help private generators. One of the principal aims of the Energy Act 1983 was to facilitate the sale of electricity produced by private generators to the electricity boards or to third parties on terms which, at the time, were claimed to be fair. Indeed, in moving the Bill's Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), then the Secretary of State for Energy, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated:
"As a result of the Bill, private generators should no longer have cause for complaint. These measures will, I am confident, encourage the growth of private electricity generation in the United Kingdom." —[Official Report, 24 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 867.]
The object of that Energy Bill, now the Energy Act 1983, was right and was supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, experience suggests that, in practice, it has not been as effective as was hoped at the time. No provision was made, for example, to take account of the heavy rates burden that has fallen on private wind generators. Indeed, in recent months, this has been focused upon by unsuccessful appeal of the Wind Energy Group against a rating valuation on its wind generator in Ilfracombe which, when rates were applied. amounted to half of the estimated annual revenue from the machine. In my constituency, a private wind generator has received a rates bill which works out at more than 60 per cent. of its estimated revenue.
I understand that the Department of the Environment's position is that any appeals for rates to be modified should be delayed until such time as the new legislation on local government finance has been put into place. However, the view of those involved in the industry, especially those involved in the manufacture or wind turbines, is that the time delay that that would involve would be too long.
What is needed, in their view—and, I hope, in the view of the House—is much more immediate action to ensure the survival and prosperity of our wind turbine manufacturing industry.
We shall not encourage the development of private generation by wind power if operators face penal rates bills. It is estimated, for example, that in relation to the generating costs of the electricity boards, rates bills amount to one sixth of a penny, whereas for those operating private generators they amount to 2p per unit. My Bill seeks to establish a formula whereby assessors would be obliged to consider the relatively low running costs of wind turbine generating plant, and fix the valuation with greater reference to profits or units produced rather than to the exceptionally high capital costs that appear to be the basis of present valuations.
My Bill would provide for fairer, more favourable terms to be provided by electricity hoards to those who are offering a private supply of electricity to the boards The

309
terms which electricity boards have been offering have not been as attractive as many anticipated and in many cases the availability charge has been particularly onerous. There is a case for an availability charge when substantial new plant and lines must be laid to a new wind farm development, but when electricity has already been supplied to a private generator it seems exceptionally onerous to impose an additional charge on the private operator. My Bill seeks to provide that such a charge should not be made where electricity is already available.
If we encourage the development of wind power, as I believe we should, because it is clean, renewable, can make a significant contribution to supplying our energy needs and because many believe that is one of the cheapest forms of generating electricity, we should be prepared to give private wind generators more favourable terms than they have at present. In the United States, favourable rates for the purchase of power generated are given in addition to tax and grant incentives. My Bill seeks to amend the Energy Act to provide more favourable terms than exist.
Wind energy is increasingly proving itself to be an alternative, cheap and plentiful source of energy. Developments to date have provided us with a skilled work force, experienced scientists, and a lead in this technology. If Britain is to maintain that lead, and if we are to tap the considerable potential for exports, it is important that our home market should now be given a substantial boost. The purpose of the Bill is to promote wind energy, particularly in the home market. I hope that the House will give me leave to present the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Tony Speller and Mr. Donald Stewart.

PROMOTION OF WIND ENERGY
Mr. James Wallace accordingly presented a Bill to promote the generation of electricity by means of wind powered generators by encouraging appropriate research and development, reforming the rating valuation base for private wind generators and by providing for revised terms for the supply of electricity to the electricity boards from private wind powered generators; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 June and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 16

  POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DIRECT THE CLOSURE ETC. OF ROADS
  'The following section shall be inserted after section 19 of the 1978 Act—
  "Power of Secretary of State of direct the closure etc, of roads.
  19A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order direct—

  (a) that any highway specified in the order shall either be wholly closed or be closed to such extent, or diverted in such manner, as may be so specified;

  (b) that any highway specified in the order, being a highway which has already been wholly or partly closed, or diverted, in the exercise or purported exercise of any power conferred by or under a relevant enactment, shall continue to be so closed or diverted by virtue of the order.

  (2) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him), interferes with

  (a) works executed in connection with the closure or diversion of any highway specified in an order under this section (whether executed in pursuance of any such order or in pursuance of the exercise or purported exercise of any such power as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above), or

  (b) apparatus, equipment or any other thing used in pursuance of any such order in connection with the closure or diversion of any such highway,

  shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
  (3) In this section 'relevant enactment' means section 19(2) or (3) above, section 17(2) or (3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, or the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922.
  (4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the operation of section 19(2) or (3) above.".'. —[Mr. Scott.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall speak briefly to the new clause because it represents no change of policy and will not lead to any more road closures. It is merely intended to clarify the legal basis of the closures which are already in force and which were authorised under a range of earlier enactments. A considerable number of highways and border crossings have been physically closed for many years under the authority of a general order made in 1970 under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922

  311
  by the then Minister of Home Affairs. The legality of that order has been preserved since 1973 by appropriate transitional clauses in emergency provisions legislation.
  Any closure or continued closure of a particular highway on border crossing has social, economic and political consequences which must be considered in conjunction with security requirements. The decision appropriately rests, and should be seen to rest, with the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend and I keep the need for the closure of border crossings under constant review. The new clause will make it clear that the closure or continued closure of any border crossing has been specifically authorised by the Secretary of State and details will be published in the Belfast Gazette.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We find ourselves in the not uncommon difficulty on Report that a substantial slab of legislative material is placed before us which we do not have the same opportunity to examine in detail as would be available to us in Committee. In particular, this is probably experienced by other hon. Members in considering this and subsequent Government new clauses.
  I am sure that the Minister will readily respond to the queries which arise in the minds of those studying the new clause. He has explained that it enables the Secretary of State, by an order, to validate—I am not seeking to use the correct legal expression—closures which have taken place under existing enactments and, particularly in view of subsection (4) of the new clause, closures which may have taken place under section 19 of the emergency provisions Act 1978.
  The difficulty that some of us find in studying it is that it apparently applies, for example, to subsection (1)(b) of the new clause where highways already closed under those enactments have that closure confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State under the new clause, whereas in subsection (1)(a) he appears to be acting de novo. In subsequent (1)(a)—it does not seem that any other part of the new clause must he construed with that subsection — we are creating a new power for the Secretary of State to order the closure of a highway. No doubt it is desirable that there should be power, for emergency reasons and otherwise, for the closure of highways to be ordered.
  This new clause is to be inserted in an emergency powers Bill, so presumably the only closure which is being envisaged in the new closures which would occur under subsection (1)(a) is a closure deemed necessary by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the emergency provisions Act. In other words, what one misses as to subsection (1)(a) is anything which directs the Secretary of State to have regard to the sort of considerations which in the other provisions of the Bill justify the powers which are taken in exercising his order-making power under subsection (1)(a). I am not certain that I am yet receiving signals that I have successfully transmitted my message to the Minister, so perhaps I may take another moment or two to make sure that, since we are not in Committee, my point has been seized.
  If we take subsection (1)(a) as it stands and in isolation —it does not appear to be qualified by any other part of the new clause except by subsection (4), which does not interfere with what I am saying—it seems to create an unlimited power on the part of a Secretary of State by order to direct that a specified highway shall be closed.
  312
  That seems to be out of line with the general purposes of the Bill into which the provision is to be inserted. It does not, for example, say that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the closure of any specified highway is necessary for the purposes of the Bill, he may by order authorise its closure. It creates an apparently unrestricted and unlimited order-making power to close highways.
  I accept that when we get to subsection (1)(b) all is well, because we are then dealing with highways which have been closed under enactments which give the Secretary of State power, for emergency purposes, for a highway to be closed. It may be that in subsection (1)(a) we have inadvertently created a new and unlimited power on the part of the Secretary of State by order to close highways and thus short-circuit the other provisions for so doing.
  I am glad to have received some signals of comprehension, if not of agreement, from the Minister.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Those of us who foresaw the Bill and that within it there would be a lessening of the derogation from the normal practices will be disappointed by the proposing of the new clause. It deals with probably one of the most emotive issues in Northern Ireland life, yet here it is being re-enacted—because that is exactly what it is — in a piece of legislation that we had all hoped to welcome as an easing of the derogation from the 1978 Act. The Minister is aware of the problems that that has created in the past, is creating at the moment and will create in future.
  The border of Northern Ireland is not a straight line running from A to B. It moves in an irregular fashion through different roads and through people's land. I know, from experience of my constituency and of the area in which I live, of the difficulties that this creates, especially for the farming community. I shall give an example of those difficulties. To get from one field to another, two farmers must travel approximately six miles to fodder cattle or till land in an adjoining field. This is an on-going problem for anyone involved in the agriculture industry. That work is not done once a week, once a month or once every six months; it must be done on a daily basis.
  That is what the new clause deals with. It also deals with other aspects of people's lives. The shopping, communication and commerce aspects of many people's lives do not relate to Northern Ireland; they relate to the Republic of Ireland. Again, I can cite instances of people having to travel many miles to obtain the ordinary necessities of Fife because of the closure of border roads. That is an emotive factor. In the past it has created many problems for people.
  I am not convinced that there are any security benefits in closing roads. I should like to hear the opinion of the Minister of State about the reduction of terrorist incidents. I should like him to show some proof of the effect of the closure of any road in Northern Ireland, or whether it can be quantified in such a way that it can be said that it has reduced terrorist incidents.
  We need some definition of the term "highway". When we use that term, we are not talking about the type of road which is closed in Northern Ireland; we are talking about something different—that which runs through a person's farm and which is essential to his tending of that farm.
  The new clause is a retrograde step, especially since we are dealing with an international agreement between the two Governments of the north and south of Ireland. At the same time as this agreement is trying to promote security and co-operation between them so that we shall be able to

  313
  live free of terrorism, the two Governments, which are beginning to work closely together, are blocking off the roads between their jurisdictions.
  We must be in no doubt that that will be the net effect of this measure. No doubt the Minister will say that in effect it simply regularises the situation. The Minister may have some pangs when he starts to regularise that which is implemented under the infamous Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922. The Minister would have grave reservations about that. This is an emotive issue. The clause will make life very difficult for the people living in the border areas of Northern Ireland. It should be opposed.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) focused his thoughts on the frontier region and drew attention to the inconvenience that would be caused. He represents a constituency in that region, so I suppose that that is natural. But it would be a great mistake to imagine that only the frontier region is affected. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that landowners and farmers were sometimes inconvenienced. He said that on some occasions they have to drive six miles to go into a field on the other side of the barricade. It may be of some small comfort for him to know that in an area surrounding one of our major airports a farmer whom I know has to drive seven and a half miles simply to get into a field that adjoins his dwelling house.
  No one will deny that inconvenience can be and is caused. The hon. Gentleman said that some inconvenience has an effect on people's lives. However, if there is any possibility that these measures will preserve life, even if they result in the preservation of only one life, we must all accept and bear with fortitude the inconvenience and hardship caused by them.
  Mr. Scott: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) described this as a substantial slab of legislation, and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made quite a meal of what is a modest tidying-up measure. Let me deal with the points that they made.
  I can tell the right hon. Member for South Down that neither in the so-called Porter order of 1970—the order made by the then Minister for Home Affairs— nor in section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 was the power to close roads to be exercised only in relation to the emergency. We follow the same pattern in this legislation. But, in practice, no road has been closed under these powers except for reasons connected with the emergency. This measure is in an emergency provisions Bill and the power would in practice be exercised only in relation to roads where closure was necessitated by the emergency. That has been and will continue to be the practice.
  I am slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh takes odds with the fact that the Government consider it more appropriate to update the provision and to make it clear that the authority for this rests with the Secretary of State rather than on an order made about 17 years ago by a Minister for Home Affairs in a Stormont Government. There are serious political, social and economic matters which should be taken into account when border closures are being considered. Indeed, the
  314
  hon. Gentleman mentioned their impact on local farms, and so on, which we always take into account when we review these matters.
  It is the considered judgment of the security forces in Northern Ireland—the police and the Army—that the sensible and selective closure of roads in the border areas in particular can make a substantial contribution to the improvement of security in those areas.
  Mr. Mallon: Can the Minister tell us how many border roads are closed at present and where they are, because then we might be able to draw the same conclusion from that which the Minister is drawing from the opinion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army?
  Mr. Scott: I cannot attempt this afternoon to enumerate the roads that are closed, but I can give the House an idea of the scale of closures. There are roughly 300 road crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Of those, approximately 100 are closed, of which about half would have been closed under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and about half under the so-called Porter order. That is the scale of present closures.
  Both intelligence and observation show that a considerable number of incidents still happen involving the use of roads crossing the border. We need to look carefully, with the advice of our professional security advisers, to see when and where such closures, balanced with the other factors that I mentioned, can make a significant contribution to security. Sensible and selective closures can be of some help.
  This is a tidying-up exercise. In itself, it will not result in any new road closures, but it will put them, including those which affect border crossing, on a proper footing.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister referred to the reasons for the closures which take place under existing legislation. I was just looking at section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the operation of which is specifically preserved by subsection (4) of the new section. In referring to the closure of roads it says:
  "so far as he considers it immediately necessary for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order".
  It is not clear whether such a provision is imported into the terminology of new section 19A(1)(a).
  It might be germane if the Minister could tell the House to what parliamentary procedure an order made under these powers will be subject.
  Mr. Scott: These orders are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. They never have been and it is not proposed that they will be in this legislation. The part of the 1978 Act to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not refer specifically to the emergency, but I assert —I hope that the House will accept this—that the very fact that it is contained in emergency provisions legislation means that it would not be used for any other purpose. It has not been in the past and will not be in the future.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister assure us that we need not take literally his assurance that this legislation would not lead to further closures of cross-border roads? Did he mean that it would not necessarily mean the closure of cross-border roads, or does he preclude the closure of any further cross-border roads?

  315
  It might be well that those listening to the Minister would believe that that was the possibility. The most recent victim of terrorism in my constituency was murdered last Friday. His murderers escaped across a road which I have constantly drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State, the previous Secretary of State and the Secretary of State before that. Despite the fact that the road is still used for the murder of my constituents, the Northern Ireland Office does nothing about it. Can the Minister assure us that he is not precluding the possibility of something more positive being done about that road?
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman reads my words, he will see that I said that, of itself, this provision will not lead to the closure of more border roads. But, of course, proposals for road closures will be considered on their merits as they come forward from the security forces.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: It is noticeable that all the speakers so far have an intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland because they are Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. But some of us have to try to grasp the matters without having such an intimate knowledge.
  I have looked at section 19, and, short of war—one of the points that Sir George Baker made was that there is not a war, despite what some claim — section 19 appears to he adequate. I cannot understand the fundamental difference between the new clause and section 19. I know that there are deep feelings about this, but some of us would like to know the precise difference. Security forces anywhere, whether police in a peaceful situation or security forces in a difficult situation such as that in Northern Ireland, always demand more security than is justified at a fixed moment.
  Mr. Scott: Approximately half the border roads are closed under the 1970 order made by the then Minister for Home Affairs. There is slight doubt about the legal validity of some of those road closures. The order was cast in wide terms and there is some legal doubt as to whether it was used properly to justify the closure of a particular road. Therefore, we needed to validate those closures where it is considered they should continue, but section 19 of the 1978 Act that enables the Secretary of State to authorise actions to close roads is not applicable because many of the roads have been closed for the past 17 years. We are seeking to validate those closures to ensure that they are on firm legal ground for the future and therefore validated by the Secretary of State upon authority that is published in the Belfast Gazette.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I did not follow the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister gave to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). He mentioned a border crossing that he said should have been closed and, as I understand it, he made that suggestion to previous Secretaries of State. Therefore, will my hon. Friend urgently undertake a careful investigation of the case for the closure of that border crossing in view of the appalling toll of murder in Fermanagh and South Tyrone?
  Mr. Scott: As I said to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), when the security forces put forward recommendations for road closures we consider them on their merits. Obviously what the hon.
  316
  Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has said will be drawn to the attention of the security forces, but I cannot go further than that at the moment.
  Mr. Mallon: The Minister has informed us that one third of border roads are closed. When we consider the number of border roads that are surveyed by lookout posts and the number that have permanent checkpoints, we narrow down the number substantially. Again I ask the Minister what is the evidence over the past 16 years to suggest that the closure of any border road has prevented the type of murderous activity to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has referred? By closing a specific road, how do we know that one simply does not point the terrorist in the direction not just of another road, but along another route? Those routes exist across fields and towns right along the border. I hope that the Minister can quantify the evidence for us because it appears that, rather than being a deterrent against people involved in violent activities, such road closures have been used as a sop to those who wish to see the closure of border roads.
  Mr. Scott: This debate was not intended to run into a general discussion of the principle of whether particular road closures or the general policy of border road closures is wise. Obviously there is a distinction between the views held by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and those who advise the Secretary of State and myself on security policy in Northern Ireland. I am prepared to rest on professional judgment in such matters.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

  POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO SET TIME LIMITS IN RELATION TO PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR SCHEDULED OFFENCES
  `The following section shall be inserted after section 5 of the 1978 Act—
  Power of Secretary of State to set time limits in relation to preliminary proceedings for scheduled offences.
  "Time limits on preliminary proceedings
  5A. — (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision, with respect to any specified preliminary stage of proceedings for a scheduled offence, as to the maximum period—

  (a) to be allowed to the prosecution to complete that stage;

  (b) during which the accused may, while awaiting completion of that stage, be—

  (i) in the custody of a magistrates' court; or

  (ii) in the custody of the Crown Court,

  in relation to that offence.
  (2) The regulations may, in particular—

  (a) provide for—

  (i) the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981,

  (ii) section 2 above, or

  (iii) any other enactment, or any rule of law, relating to bail,

  apply in relation to cases to which custody or overall time limits apply subject to such modifications as may be specified (being modifications which the Secretary of State considers necessary in consequence of any provision made by the regulations);

  317

  (b) provide for time limits imposed by the regulations to cease to have effect in cases where, after the institution of proceedings for a scheduled offence, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has certified that the offence in question is not to be treated as a scheduled offence;

  (c) make such provision with respect to the procedure to be followed in criminal proceedings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of any other provision of the regulations; and

  (d) make such transitional provision in relation to proceedings instituted before of the commencement of any provision of the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  (3) Where separate counts of an indictment allege a scheduled offence and an offence which is not a scheduled offence, then (subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of the regulations) the regulations shall have effect in relation to the latter offence as if it were a scheduled offence.
  (4) The Crown Court may, at any time before the expiry of a time limit imposed by the regulations, extend, or further extend, that limit if it is satisfied—

  (a) that there is good and sufficient cause for doing so; and

  (b) that the prosecution has acted with all due expedition.

  (5) Where, in relation to any proceedings for a relevant offence, an overall time limit has expired before the completion of the stage of the proceedings to which the limit applies, the accused shall be treated, for all purposes, as having been acquitted of that offence.
  (6) Where—

  (a) a person escapes from the custody of a magistrates' court or of the Crown Court before the expiry of a custody time limit which applies in his case; or

  (b) a person who has been released on bail in consequence of the expiry of a custody time limit—

  (i) fails to surrender himself into the custody of the court at the appointed time; or

  (ii) is arrested by a constable in connection with any breach, or apprehended breach, of any condition of his bail,

  the regulations shall, so far as they provide for any custody time limit in relation to the preliminary stage in question, be disregarded.
  (7) Where—

  (a) a person escapes from the custody of a magistrates' court or of the Crown Court; or

  (b) a person who has been released on bail fails to surrender himself into the custody of the court at the appointed time,

  the overall time limit which applies in his case in relation to the stage which the proceedings have reached at the time of the escape or, as the case may be, at the appointed time shall, so far as the relevant offence in question is concerned, cease to have effect.
  (8) Where a person is convicted of a relevant offence in any proceedings, the exercise, in relation to any preliminary stage of those proceedings, of the power conferred by subsection (4) above shall not be called into question on any appeal against that conviction.
  (9) In this section—
  318
  "custody of the Crown Court" includes custody to which a person is committed in pursuance of—

  (a) Article 37 or 40(4) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (magistrates' court committing accused for trial); or

  (b) section 51(8) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (magistrates' court dealing with a person brought before it following his arrest in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Crown Court);

  "custody of a magistrates' court" means custody to which a person is committed in pursuance of Article 47 or 49 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (remand);
  "custody time limit" means a time limit imposed by the regulations in pursuance of subsection (1)(b) above or, where any such limit has been extended by the Crown Court under subsection (4) above, the limit as so extended;
  "preliminary stage", in relation to any proceedings, does not include any stage of the proceedings after the accused has been arraigned in the Crown Court or, in the case of a summary trial, the magistrates' court has begun to hear evidence for the prosecution at the trial;
  "overall time limit" means a time limit imposed by the regulations in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) above or, where any such limit has been extended by the Crown Court under subsection (4) above, the limit as so extended;
  "relevant offence" means—

  (a) a scheduled offence, or

  (b) an offence in relation to which the regulations have effect in accordance with subsection (3) above; and

  "specifed" means specified in the regulations.
  (10) For the purposes of the application of any custody time limit in relation to a person who is in the custody of a magistrates' court or of the Crown Court—

  (a) all periods during which he is in the custody of a magistrates' court in respect of the same offence shall be aggregated and treated as a single continuous period; and

  (b) all periods during which he is in the custody of the Crown Court in respect of the same offence shall be aggregated and treated similarly.".'.—[Mr. Scott.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18— Limit on time between remand and commencement of trial—
  `After subsection (5) of section 2 of the 1978 ACt there shall be inserted the words:—
  "(5A) No trial of a person charged with a scheduled offence shall commence more than 110 days from the date of that person's first remand for the said offence; when new charges are presented arising from the same circumstances a person's trial shall commence within 110 days from the date of the original remand for the original offence.
  (5B) No voluntary bill of indictment shall be capable of extending that 110 days period for any person who has been committed for trial in relation to a scheduled offence.".'.
  Government amendment No. 31.
  Mr. Scott: New clause 19 arises from discussions in Committee and picks up the idea behind the amendment

  319
  tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who was supported by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). It reproduces, in respect of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland, the provisions of section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
  The new clause will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to make regulations imposing time limits on specified preliminary stages of cases involving scheduled offences. I must emphasise, however, that it is only an enabling power and that we do not intend to introduce actual time limits immediately. Indeed, I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to introduce such time limits. The fact is that it is unlikely that there will be another opportunity to take the necessary power for at least five years, when this legislation will come up for reconsideration. In the light of the widespread concern that was expressed in Committee about delays in coming to trial and the support given in Committee for the concept of statutory time limits, we decided that it was right to take the power now.
  The new clause will give my right hon. Friend a power to set limits on the length of time that a person may be remanded in custody during any of those specified stages and provides that a breach of any such time limit will lead to the release of the accused on bail. It will also confer on my right hon. Friend a power to set limits on the total length of time to he allowed for any of those specified stages. It provides that if any such time limit is breached the accused person should be treated as having been acquitted. It also provides that the courts may, on application, extend a time limit in any particular case where they are satisfied that there is good cause to do so and that the prosecution has acted with all due dispatch. In introducing this new clause I believe that I am maintaining a tradition of concern and action on this matter by the relevant authorities.
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have given sustained priority to measures intended to eliminate avoidable delays between first remand and trial, particularly in scheduled cases, in Northern Ireland. A list of the measures taken over the previous couple of years was given by me in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) on 16 December 1986. Additionally, the relevant agencies meet regularly to monitor and evaluate the performance of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Their recent reports suggest, encouragingly, that the average period between first remand and trial in scheduled cases in Northern Ireland is likely to reduce over the next 18 months or so. This exercise has also demonstrated that the causes of delay are many and complicated and often arise from the defence rather than from the prosecution, notably when a defendant or group of defendants elect to wait until the defence counsel of their choice is available to act for them. I am certainly impressed and encouraged by the efficiency of the courts, the court service and the prosecuting authorities and their collective determination to eliminate avoidable delays. They have a heavy and particularly intractable case load to deal with and cannot be held responsible for the delays that occur in some cases.
  4.30 pm
  Despite that, and despite the encouraging prospect that average periods on remand will fall over the next couple
  320
  of years, we have decided that it would be right to propose the new clause. As I made clear in Committee, before introducing actual time limits we would want to take account of the experience gained in England and Wales of the operation of actual time limits in three police force areas. These are being applied from the first of this month, so it will be some time before any conclusions can be drawn.
  It is also necessary to gather more data from the current monitoring and evaluation exercise in Northern Ireland that I described in Committee so that we can establish what time limits, if any, it would be desirable to set. Even then we would have to weigh the various arguments very carefully. Our objective is to maintain a degree of pressure on the criminal justice system and to set testing but reasonable targets for disposing of cases, with the aim of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and thus helping further to isolate the terrorists.
  The Government would find it necessary to be confident that any scheme was unlikely to have the effect of procuring the release on bail or even the discharge of a person indicted for serious terrorist crime The background against which we are working in Northern Ireland is more serious and complex than in England and Wales. Therefore, any decision to introduce actual time limits is some way off and will not be an easy one. Certainly before taking a decision the Government will study most carefully the views of all those involved in the criminal justice process. Therefore, at the moment the Government are proposing that there should he an enabling power to introduce time limits. This is a powerful earnest of our concern to do all that we can to reduce delays in the administration of justice, and I hope that the new clause will command the support of the whole House.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In Committee there was a general desire to see some limitation placed on the length of time elapsing between a person being taken into custody and being brought to trial in court. One's initial reaction to the new clause was therefore one of disappointment to discover that it was an enabling power and simply a power to make regulations. This disappointment is not lessened by a study of amendment No. 31, which, under your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are considering in conjunction with the new clause.
  If I understand it rightly, that amendment specifically exempts the new clause from the operation of section 32 of the 1978 Act. This means that instead of the affirmative procedure applying to such regulations so that there would be reasonable debate on the occasion of their being brought into force, we would have the negative procedure, which in practical terms means that we shall not debate them at all.
  Much of what the Minister said about the important considerations surrounding this specified length of time makes it all the more desirable that when a time limit is introduced as a matter of law the House should not merely have the opportunity, but should be required, to debate it before assent is given to the regulations. I hope that, even if the House is satisfied at this stage with a regulation-making power, the Government will reconsider tile desirability of making that exception in schedule 1, under amendment No. 31. There ought to be an affirmative

  321
  power governing the regulations made in so important a matter as this, and there ought to be a review of the circumstances in which that time limit is laid down.
  I am sure that I am not alone in feeling disappointed that the Government have not found themselves able at this stage to write into the Bill that which will be written in due course into regulations. This is not one of those cases where the regulations have to be so complicated that it saves time and trouble all round to put the matter into regulations instead of into the Bill. Presumably the time periods that the Government have in mind could perfectly easily have been specified in the Bill by means of amendments to it.
  The Government claim that it is too early to assess or to be able to determine, even experimentally, the time limits that would be practicable in Northern Ireland conditions. I am not sure that there will be general assent to that proposition, but even if there were assent there is a different way in which this could have been done. A provision could have been put into the Bill to impose time limits, and the commencement date of that provision could itself be left to ministerial order. If the Minister had proceeded in that way we could have had the time periods in the Bill itself and the Government would have the opportunity for which they have asked to consider the experience in England and Wales, and to consider the circumstances in the Province, without bringing that provision into effect.
  Even in its present terms, this is not an offer that those of us who were on the Committee would be disposed to refuse. However, we would be understating the matter if we did not say that we are disappointed at having failed to write the limiting periods of time into the Bill, even with some possibility of delaying the operation of these periods introduced by way of an amendment.
  Sir John Farr: I, too, wish to express some disappointment with what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office said. That is because what is at the moment in many respects a nebulous Bill becomes even more nebulous through this clause which contains no indication whatever of the time limit involved. My hon. Friend did not even refer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that probably 110 days was the ideal time. That is the time specified in his clause. Can my hon. Friend at least say whether he thinks 110 days is too long, or too short? Obviously, even one day is a day too long for a person who may be innocent.
  Can my hon. Friend give the House any idea of when he expects these regulations to come before us? He said that that was not easy to assess and that it was still some time off. Can he help the House by telling us the average length of time that a person is held in custody before he is charged with a scheduled offence of the type that we are considering? We are perhaps not anxious to peer too far into the future, but this sort of helpful information must be available to the Northern Ireland Office and would help the House to understand a little better what the Minister has in mind. I have grave reservations about endorsing the new clause in its present nebulous form.
  Mr. Mallon: Like previous speakers, I, too, feel a sense of disappointment. In Committee this was one of the areas about which there was a consensus that positive changes
  322
  were needed. This is a very small and lukewarm step and it is disappointing that the Minister has not seen fit to give us an idea of the time limits that he is considering.
  This is one of the most emotive issues in the North of Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable, because some people have been on remand for upwards of three years. In effect, that is the equivalent of a six-year prison sentence, and the person serves it before he is found guilty. That is bad for any society and unjust to any person. I restate my disappointment that the Minister has not taken his courage in his hands, even on this small issue. At least he could have given an indication of the time limits that he envisages, and when those could become operative.
  Mr. David Alton: Many hon. Members who did not have the benefit of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill are understandably somewhat mystified by some of the debates today. I took the trouble to have a cursory glance at the Committee Hansard, and I was impressed by the arguments from both sides of the Committee in favour of making the changes that were mentioned by the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).
  In the Second Reading debate on 16 December my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said :
  "The time that defendants may be held in custody in Northern Ireland without a trial is a serious matter and one that should be tackled without further delay." — [Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1111.]
  Like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I would be interested to know what the trends have been and the average length of time that people are now being held in custody before being brought to trial.
  Can the Minister tell us about the numbers of people involved, and whether different offences are treated in different ways by the court? Sometimes the defendants are to blame for demanding a different kind of legal representation or different counsel. How far is that the fault of the prosecution, because of its dilatoriness, and how far the fault of the police? It would be useful to know that.
  It is worth reminding the House of what Sir George Baker said in his report :
  "One objective must be to concentrate the minds of the prosecuting authorities on speed or at least on reducing delay…I recommend that any prisoner who has been held in custody for 12 months or more without having been committed for trial must be granted bail without surety."
  That is a straightforward, sensible recommendation. Although it is good to hear the Minister say that he concurs with its spirit, I hope that we shall move towards that procedure before too long.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the kind of procedure that should be used, and that it would be better in include it in the Bill now. I hope that we shall not resort to procedures that deny the House adequate discussions on these important issues.
  A comparison has been made with the Scottish 110-day procedure. It is true that Sir George Baker pointed out in his report that the Scottish legal system is very different from our own and from that which applies in Northern Ireland. He said that it was not possible merely to translate the experiences of Scotland into those of Northern Ireland. Have the Department and the Minister had a chance to study the procedures that are used in Scotland? Does the Minister have any sympathy with the suggestion of 110 days that is contained in new clause 18?
  Mr. Peter Archer: Clearly, there are deep differences between us about the whole area of emergency provisions. As I apprehend it, we are agreed that there cannot be a complete and precipitate return to normality in Northern Ireland, but we differ in our reactions to which measures are justifiable, which represent too draconian an invasion of individual rights and which serve only to alienate people and thereby bring the system into disrepute. Therefore, we differ as to which provisions are counter-productive.
  4.45pm
  In the course of our proceedings we have not resolved those differences—so much is clear from the debate—hut we have at least come closer to understanding one another's arguments than at any time—so far as I can recollect—in the past.
  The arguments about the length of time during which unconvicted people are remanded in custody will be the subject of later discussion. I imagine that they will reveal deep divisions between us. However, the Minister of State has clearly listened to some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee. To judge from the fact that new clause 19 was tabled at a late stage, I suspect that he may have had long discussions with his ministerial colleagues and, possibly, with officials. I shall not press him for further information about that.
  The amount of thought that has gone into a measure is not always directly proportional to the number of words in it. Though it is clear from the length and draftsmanship of the clause that a great deal of thought has gone into it, I do not believe that it meets all the problems that were ventilated in Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and other speakers that we should have liked something much more robust. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down that amendment No. 31 displays a defensive attitude on the part of someone in the Government. If the clause were fresh and we were in a position to table amendments to it, many of us would readily do that.
  I believe that we should encourage the Government in well doing. I should certainly not like it to be said of the Minister of State by his colleagues that all that he had achieved was to provide additional difficulties for the Government. We shall be pressing the Secretary of State—he may have made a rod for his own back—to use some of the powers in the new clause. In the circumstances, it represents some advance in the Government's thinking, so I venture to welcome it without prejudice to any representations that we shall make about the use of the powers. It is not wholly absent from my mind that a different Government at some time in the futurebe it near or far —may find it helpful to have the power on the statute book, so in the circumstances I venture to welcome the new clause.
  Mr. Flannery: I want briefly to support the new clause because of a salutary experience that I had when I went with a delegation two or three years ago to visit the prisons in Northern Ireland. We made a point of going to the women's prison in south Armagh. It contained about 34 women and we spoke to every one of them that day. They were being strip-searched weekly and taken across to the
  324
  court. We even went into the detail of looking at the strip-search book, checking the rooms to see whether they were private, and walking the distance to the court to check whether they had contact with anyone on the way.
  That was hard enough for anyone without experience to understand. Even more difficult were the conversations about how long those women had been there without trial. For an ordinary person, 110 days is surely quite sufficient. Some of those people had been there for a length of time that alarmed me. Some of them were there in connection with the Dropping Well pub bombing and, of course, we are shocked by such terrible things, but trial presupposes that the condemned person is innocent until he is proved guilty. It is bound to enrage people—especially those who know nothing about it—if they are kept without trial for an unconscionable length of time. That experience shook me, as it would any ordinary person who did not understand the process. I want to know how many people have been in prison for longer than 110 days, so that all of us understand the position on which to base our attitudes. That is why I support the period of 110 days, which seems a long time to be held without trial.
  Ms. Clare Short: If I recall clearly, the Minister said that he thought it would be a long time before the Government would be in a position to bring in the time limits over which they have power in the new clause. There are such time limits in Scotland. There was general concern in Britain about long periods of detention on remand, which are not as bad as the periods that obtain in Northern Ireland. The Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that Britain should consider introducing time limits. The Government responded sympathetically by setting up feasibility studies on implementing time limits. The Minister of State did not tell us anything about setting up feasibility studies in Northern Ireland. Why not?
  The Government are taking powers to bring in time limits. We all recognise that this is a new move, that there would be complications and that all sorts of arrangements and preparations would have to be made, but, if there is any good will and any real intention to implement those powers, surely the Minister should tell us that he will start a feasibility study, and tell us something about the time scale. If that is done, we can look forward to the implementation of these powers and to rapid progress in reducing the lengthy periods of remand in Northern Ireland, which are deplored by both sides of the House and by every party.
  Mr. Scott: I must utter some sounds of disappointment, because what I had hoped was an earnest of good intent and a move in the right direction, albeit modest, has not been welcomed. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for being generous in the reception that he gave the new clause. The measure is a step in the right direction. I hope that it will be possible to have time limits, but they should be considered against the background that I outlined and the constraints that will continue to exist for some time in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), echoed by others, queried the use of the negative form of approval of the regulations that will be made under the new clause. The regulations will set time limits. There will be exactly the same procedure as will obtain in England

  325
  and Wales. We sought to follow as closely as possible the procedures under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which applies to England and Wales. The regulations under that Act will be introduced for England and Wales, when their pilot schemes have been carried through and evaluated, under the negative procedure. We thought it right to follow that procedure in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the Minister had put in his new clause a power, by negative procedure regulations, to apply the same time limits in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales, I certainly would not have raised that point.
  Mr. Scott: It would be unrealistic to imagine that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, with the complexity and seriousness of the cases that must be prepared for trial, we could set the same time limits that might apply in England and Wales. I should be surprised if it is possible to introduce time limits that are common across the whole of the jurisdiction in England and Wales. It may well be necessary to apply different time limits to different parts of the jurisdiction — for example, the Metropolitan police area has particular problems with delays in coming to trial and may require different limits from those set elsewhere in England and Wales. By choosing the negative procedure we are following what is happening in England and Wales.
  There is much interest, of course, in what time limits might eventually be set. It is much too early to give any precise indication. We have to establish how long, on average, the various preliminary stages take and then decide what limits would maintain a degree of pressure on the system so that it operated without undue delays, without creating any unreasonable constraints on the system. The cases about which we are talking are, by definition, both serious and complicated. Any limits will certainly have to be longer than those applied in the pilot area of England and Wales and eventually introduced under regulation there.
  Mr. Alton: Does the Minister recall that in reply to a question in 1984 he said that the average time taken for cases to come to trial was 322 days? Surely it is possible to give contemporary figures to show whether that number has increased or decreased. What does the Minister regard as a reasonable time?
  Mr. Scott: I was about to turn to the latest available figures on delays in coming to trial to show where we are now. In Northern Ireland, in the first six months of 1986, the average waiting time between remand and committal in scheduled cases was about 33 weeks, and the average time between committal and trial was 27 weeks, so we are talking of about 60 weeks in all between remand and cases coming to trial. The present position is unsatisfactory to a considerable degree.
  As I said, as a result of the measures that I outlined in my written answer in December 1985, and the pressure that we are keeping up to reduce delays in cases coming to trial—all the prosecuting authorities, the police, the court service and the courts are involved—the next 12 to 18 months will see a substantial reduction in that figure. If we were to follow the proposal of the right hon. Member for South Down and set firm times for the various stages,
  326
  we would find that they would swiftly be overtaken by the improvements that are likely to take place in any case during that period.
  I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). We are not running pilot schemes in Northern Ireland but, because it is a small jurisdiction, we are able, by monitoring the progress of the various cases through the courts, to have, in effect, the same ability to evaluate what is happening as the pilot schemes will give us in England and Wales. We shall look carefully at our measures to monitor and evaluate the progress of these cases through the courts of Northern Ireland. We shall obviously carefully follow the experiences of England and Wales under the pilot schemes. I hope that, in due course, we will be able to introduce regulations.
  Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Do the Government recognise that if we can cut the waiting time there will be a tremendous spin-off, by cutting overcrowding in prisons in Northern Ireland? If only we have a policy that seeks to cut the waiting time considerably, big advantages will flow from it.
  Mr. Scott: That is true. What is more, it is in the interests of justice that the delay should be reduced. Not everyone who is remanded for lengthy periods is found guilty by the courts. Obviously, we do not want people who eventually are found not guilty by the courts to be detained for lengthy periods of remand.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Where are the main difficulties? Does the RUC require more investigating staff, and should they be provided, or is the obstacle in the judicial process, in the courts? If there is a shortage of personnel in any respect, is anything being done to make good that shortage?
  Mr. Scott: I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that I provided for the Committee. It referred to the 13 steps being taken by the different agencies that have some influence and responsibility in these matters. In a sense, by definition, this reflects the sorts of problems that we were trying to overcome.
  There remains the right of defendants to choose their counsel. There are a small number of defence counsel in Northern Ireland who have acquired formidable reputations. Often defendants are prepared to wait long periods and spend that time on remand in order to acquire their services. I believe that on the prosecution side we have already taken substantial steps, and the effects will begin to flow through the system in the coming months.
  I believe that it will be right in due course to introduce regulations to give effect to these measures. We need more experience of our monitoring exercise to see how the England and Wales experiment turns out.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reference has been made to England and Wales, but I have some experience from a constituency case. Is there not something to be said for looking at Scottish law in this narrow respect?
  5 pm
  Mr. Scott: We have looked at the Scottish experience. At the end of 110 days, people in Scotland are released and regarded as acquitted by the courts. In dealing with the serious terrorist cases that we are talking about, the result of such action would be very dangerous men being released back on to the streets to cause more murder and

  327
  mayhem. We must consider the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and introduce measures that will reflect its needs, while keeping up the pressure to reduce what I freely accept causes widespread concern right across the community in Northern Ireland.
  I hope the House will accept that in introducing the new clause I am giving an earnest of the Government's commitment to reducing those delays, and in due course —although I cannot say when—being able to introduce the regulations.
  Question put, That the clause he read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 28.

  Division No. 137]

  [5 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Alexander, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Ancram, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Ashby, David

  Grylls, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Hannam, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Harris, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Harvey, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Benyon, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Heddle, John

  Blackburn, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hirst, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Holt, Richard

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Key, Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Knox, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Lang, Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Latham, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Burt, Alistair

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Lightbown, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lilley, Peter

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Maclean, David John

  Cockeram, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Conway, Derek

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Coombs, Simon

  Madel, David

  Cope, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Malone, Gerald

  Couchman, James

  Maples, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Marlow, Antony

  Durant, Tony

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Farr, Sir John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Moate, Roger

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Forth, Eric

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mudd, David

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Galley, Roy

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  328

  Onslow, Cranley

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Squire, Robin

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Stern, Michael

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Pawsey, James

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sumberg, David

  Porter, Barry

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Powley, John

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Price, Sir David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rattan, Keith

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Renton, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walden, George

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walters, Dennis

  Ryder, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wheeler, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Whitfield, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Woodcock, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Speller, Tony

  Mr. Francis Maude, and Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Spencer, Derek

  NOES

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Kennedy, Charles

  Beith, A. J.

  Livsey, Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Madden, Max

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Nellist, David

  Clay, Robert

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Cohen, Harry

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Taylor, Matthew

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Wainwright, R.

  Flannery, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. David Alton and Mr. Seamus Mallon.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

  CERTIFYING OUT
  `In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be inserted before "under" in Note 2 the words "triable summarily or an offence for which no sentence of imprisonment exceeding five years may be imposed, or;in offence.":.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Attorney General's Discretion—
  'In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be added after Note 4 the following note—

  329
  "5. For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Attorney General may, in considering whether to give a certificate under Note 1 or Note 2 above, take into consideration, without prejudice to any other matters, any grounds on which it appears to thim that that offence could be tried otherwise than as a scheduled offence consistently with the interests of justice having regard to all the circumstances.".'.
  New clause 7—Attorney General's discretion to certify out—
  `In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be added after Note 4 the following note :—
  "5. The Attorney General, in considering whether to give a certificate under Note 1 or Note 2 above, shall, without prejudice to any other relevant matters, have regard primarily to the seriousness of the alleged offences and the likelihood of any intimidation of a jury the effect of which would be to prejudice substantially the prospect of a just and fair trial.".'.
  Mr. Powell: With these three new clauses that the House is debating together we come to one of the most important aspects of the Bill and to a subject upon which there was considerable unity of feeling in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. The three new clauses deal with two separate issues. I hope you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Question, That new clause 3 be read a Second time, should be put separately to the House. I understand that the official Opposition wish the Question on new clause 7 also to be put separately to the House.
  Two different issues are raised by the three new clauses. Under the principal Act, a maximum list of scheduled offences is prescribed. However, offences that are so prescribed are not treated as scheduled offences if the Attorney-General performs an operation that has become slangily known as "certifying out The effect of new cause 2 would be to increase the number of listed offences that the Attorney-General has the power to schedule out.
  The other new clauses deal with the considerations that the Attorney-General may take into account in deciding whether or not to schedule out an offence, thus causing it to be tried otherwise than as a scheduled offence.
  It would be a mistake to suppose that any of my hon. Friends or I wish there to be for any longer than may be absolutely necessary any divergence between the law and the process of law in Northern Ireland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, we look forward to the day when jury trial will apply in the Province as it applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we find that there is a vicious circle into which any consideration of this matter is entrapped.
  5.15 pm
  Scheduled offences that are not certified out by the Attorney-General are tried by a judge sitting without a jury. It is claimed that that is the only practicable manner in which such offences, having a terrorist connotation, can be tried with any prospect of a fair trial and a just result. Unfortunately, however, there is no means of testing that assertion. Indeed, there has been no means of testing that assertion for the past 15 years or more. It is ironic that the principal reason for the establishment of the Diplock courts in the early 1970s was not anxiety about the intimidation of juries but the supposed risk of juries bringing in a perverse verdict. Therefore, the background to the institution of the trial of scheduled offences not certified out by a judge sitting without a jury is now
  330
  relatively far back in experience and rests on a proposition that, by definition, it has been impossible to test in practice.
  There is a widespread feeling, which is shared in many quarters, that it would not be impossible for scheduled offences, even if there were a terrorist connection, to be tried in a court where the judge sat with a jury, but in present circumstances that is bound to remain a proposition that cannot be tested. Therefore, we are locked into a theory from which we cannot escape by any form of demonstration. There can be no experiment with the validity of the basis for the Diplock courts.
  In Committee there was a general wish that we should obtain for ourselves some means of experimenting. The methods of experimenting that were considered differed, but I do not think that I am misstating the matter when I say that the Committee was united in its desire to find some escape from the vicious circle and some means by which, tentatively and experimentally perhaps, we may discover whether we are still justified in assuming that no scheduled offence that has a terrorist connotation should be tried in an ordinary court sitting with a jury.
  Therefore, we are anxious to enlarge the scope of certification out. To that end new clause 2 is directed. It extends the list of scheduled offences to which the power of the Attorney-General to certify out is applicable. It does so in accordance with the specific recommendation of paragraph 134 of the Baker report, which recommended:
  "all scheduled offences which are triable summarily or which carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment for five years or less should be capable of being certified out, ie, as not to be treated as scheduled offences."
  That is the simple and limited object and effect of new clause 2. I hope that it will commend itself not only to the House but to the Government, bearing as it does the recommendation of the Baker report, which it has been the anxiety of my hon. Friends and myself as closely as possible to regard as the standard to be applied in judging this legislation.
  The mere certifying out of offences by the Attorney-General does not enable us to judge the continuing validity of the argument for the maintenance of the Diplock courts as long as certification out is limited, as it is at present. It is our understanding — I think this was made clear in Committee — that the Attorney-General in practice certifies out only where he is satisfied that there is no terrorist connection or connotation in the offence. For example, in the case of murder, if he is satisfied that the motives were domestic, he regards it as within his scope to certify out that particular offence so that it is not tried as a scheduled offence. However, we were led to suppose that the Attorney-General has regarded himself as, in effect, limited in the exercise of his certifying out power to removing from the Diplock courts cases where there is no reasonable ground for supposing a terrorist connotation or purpose in the offence.
  Obviously if that continues to be the rule applied by the Attorney-General, although it is nowhere prescribed in the legislation, we shall never have any evidence or means of saying, "Here is a scheduled offence which is terrorist in connotation. It has been proved possible in practice to try it by an ordinary court with a jury. Therefore, we are free from the automatic assumption that a scheduled offence not certified out on the present rule automatically and for ever must be tried without a jury."

  331
  Therefore new clause 3 and, in a different manner, new clause 7 open the door of experiment to differing degrees. The door is opened more widely by new clause 7 than by new clause 3 because, in the nature of this type of experiment, if we are going to engage in it at all, all we need to do is to give an indication to the Attorney-General that, in the exercise of his discretion, on the basis of all the facts put before him, he is free, if he so decides, to certify out a scheduled offence notwithstanding the fact that there are terrorist or paramilitary overtones to that offence. It is in no way a direction that he should do so, but it leaves the consideration open so that he can take that into account. He would be free to take into account — indeed, he would need to take into account — any reasons there might be for supposing that in that particular case a fair trial was possible in the ordinary courts.
  The material submitted to the Attorney-General, as it was explained to the Committee, already contains a far-reaching indication as to the exercise of the Attorney-General's discretion if he is given this additional hint. Of course, he has the power already and, as I understand it, there is no restriction at the moment upon his power to certify out. There is no specification of the grounds on which he must or must not certify out. Therefore, we are underlining the fact that there is no need for the certifying out power to he limited to cases where no terrorist connotation can possibly exist.
  In short, in the clause we are inviting the possibility of experimental certifying out being explored, however tentatively, by the Attorney-General in the exercise of his responsibilities.
  New clause 3 is a tentative hint. It may be that it is best to start such an experiment tentatively and, therefore, it may well be that new clause 3, as my hon. Friends and I believe, is a wiser approach than new clause 7. That will be a matter for debate. However, the purpose is the same, and I believe that it is a purpose which was felt strongly not only in Committee but quite widely in Northern Ireland and among persons of different political persuasions.
  If we can, we would like to find a gradual escape, if it has to be gradual, from a system of justice that is not comparable to that which prevails elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is for that purpose that, in due course, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall invite the House to consider that new clause 3 be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can now deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) as to whether it would be possible to have separate Divisions on new clause 3 and new clause 7. Consideration has been given to that matter and the Chair would be prepared to allow a separate Division on one or other of those new clauses, but not on both. The House might like to consider the matter as the debate proceeds.
  Mr. Archer:I am grateful for that indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps during the debate there can he consultation through what are sometimes known as the usual channels about how that matter should be dealt with.
  At the outset, I welcome the Attorney-General back to the Chamber, and particularly to this debate.
  As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has just said, all the new clauses that are the subject of this debate are attempts to find a way to bring
  332
  about a gradual restoration of normal jury trial in Northern Ireland. It was in 1972 that the Diplock commission recommended the suspension of jury trial for what it called terrorist offences. It argued that there may have been miscarriages of justice in trials for alleged paramilitary activities, and it said that it was concerned not at the prospect of perverse convictions—it thought that an effective judge would be able to prevent that — but at the prospect of perverse acquittals. The recommendations were avowedly intended to increase the conviction rate.
  That requires two comments at the outset. First, whether the interests of justice require an increase in the conviction rate must depend on whether it was guilty people who were being acquitted. What is a perverse acquittal is a subjective judgment. Secondly, it makes no contribution to reducing paramilitary activity or to protecting people from violence to convict the wrong people.
  The Diplock commission produced no evidence that there were too many acquittals and, so far as I am aware, no one has shed any further light on whether there are, or were, too many acquittals, except to make assertions and counter-assertions. The Diplock commission said that too few people were being convicted and it went on to prescribe two reasons for that alleged situation. Its major argument, as the right hon. Member for South Down has reminded us, was that juries were prejudiced. One might have thought that prejudiced juries would sometimes be led into perverse convictions, as well as perverse acquittals, but the commission said that it was not troubled about that. It was concerned that prejudiced juries would let out those who should have been convicted.
  At that time there was a property qualification for jury service and juries were predominantly Protestant. Therefore, all the fuss was about the danger of Protestant juries acquitting Protestant paramilitaries. Of course, since the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, any jury is likely to include members of both traditions. If jury trial were extended now, it is possible that there would he an undue number of jury disagreements. That is something that we have to see. It is something about which we can only speculate at the moment. The danger that most influenced the Diplock commission clearly no longer exists.
  The commission said that juries might be being intimidated. It produced no evidence, but what is always said is that there is no record of people complaining that they are intimidated—"They wouldn't, would they?" If people are frightened, they will not go around announcing why they are frightened. That invites two comments. First" we sometimes speak as if, when we have explained why there are no complaints of intimidation, we have produced a positive reason for believing that there is intimidation. Explaining the absence of evidence is not equivalent to producing the evidence. At best, it is neutral. As there is some obligation on those who wish to base their arguments on the existence of intimidation to establish that it really exists, that burden of proof remains undischarged.
  5.30 pm
  Secondly, it is not true that jurors never complain when they are intimidated. There are many cases on record" certainly on this side of the water—for example, in the Central Criminal Court—when jurors have reported to a judge attempts to intimidate them. If there are no similar

  333
  cases in Northern Ireland, that must be some reason for believing that intimidation is not, and was not, taking place.
  Indeed, we have a test even now as to whether there is likely to be intimidation if jury trial is restored. We know that there are cases being heard for offences which are not in the schedule and for which Diplock trial is not prescribed, but which have paramilitary connotations—cases of corruption, fraud and demanding with menaces, which relate to the methods by which some paramilitary organisations finance their activities.
  If cases in which paramilitary organisations were interested immediately attracted intimidation, we would expect to hear of intimidation in those trials. In fact, we hear no such thing. Of course, I accept that that is not conclusive. What matters is whether jurors will perceive themselves to be intimidated. They have to go back from the court and live in local communities. That is why we cannot simply return to jury trial at a stroke. The House is probably agreed on that. However, we can return gradually, as the right hon. Member for South Down said.
  As we take each step, we can monitor the consequences and see whether juries are perverse or whether they complain of being threatened. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the problem at present is that once we say that we are suspending jury trial because there is a danger of intimidation, we have no means of knowing whether there would have been intimidation if we had not suspended jury trial. We can learn that only if we return a step at a time. Until we break out of the circle, we have no means of knowing what the consequences would be if we broke out of the circle. Thus, we are exploring how we can begin the way back.
  We agree with the right hon. Member for South Down. We can go back at least as far as the recommendation of Sir George Baker. The Diplock offences are not defined by reference to the characteristics of any specific case, and we accept that they could not be. There could not easily be a separate investigation in each case. Those offences are defined by reference to the statutory provisions that created them or to the common law name that has been attached to them. No doubt they are those categories of offences that were thought to be most frequently committed by those engaged in paramilitary activities, but even the authors of the original Act in 1973 recognised that they do not always have a connection with terrorism.
  We are all familiar with the study by Mr. Dermott Walsh into people convicted under the Diplock procedure, in which 40 per cent. had no observable connection with terrorism. We know that the majority of the cases related to robbery aggravated by the use of real or imitation weapons. Many of those offences are committed, not for political reasons, but out of simple old-fashioned greed. When the category of offences that were capable of being certified out by the Attorney-General was extended in January 1986, that category was not included, although it was the category in which there was most obviously a problem.
  Even if an offence is connected with paramilitary activities, it does not follow that it is appropriate to apply to it all the provisions relating to scheduled offences. So it was thought that someone should have the power to
  334
  consider, in relation to each specific case, whether those provisions should apply — hence the power of the Attorney-General to certify out in those cases.
  The new clauses are about two things, as the right hon. Member for South Down said. New clause 2 provides that that power to certify out should be extended, at least to the extent recommended by Sir George Baker. We would argue that the Baker recommendations are not the ultimate in our ambitions, but anything less than Baker is totally unacceptable and new clause 2 seems to be the minimalist position that would begin the road back.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and concur with most of it. On reflection, does he not accept that it might have been an unnecessary imputation on the integrity of a jury that happened to be made up of householders that they would automatically discriminate against one religion because they were of another? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the real reason given to us in the early days for the abolition of jury trials was not intimidation of juries but intimidation of witnesses? That is not a reason for keeping the whole category. In other words, I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but I should like to pinpoint the fact that the only evidence of intimidation was intimidation of witnesses.
  Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a great deal in the Diplock report about the intimidation of witnesses, but it does not seem to me that that problem is somehow minimised if one abolishes jury trial. One needs witnesses, whether one has a jury or not. In so far as the argument rests on that, as the hon. Gentleman properly pointed out, that is not a reason for not returning to jury trial.
  In many ways, new clauses 3 and 7 are to the same effect. The burden is that when the Attorney-General is called on to exercise his discretion on whether to certify out he should consider, not only whether the case has paramilitary connections, but whether, even if it has, the reasons that induced the authors of the Act to provide for trial without jury operate in that case. Is there a reason to fear intimidation of jurors or perhaps witnesses? Is there a reason to think that the jury would be perverse?
  New clause 3 would give the Attorney-General a discretion, if it does not already exist, to take those matters into account. As the right hon. Member for South Down said, new clause 7 says that the Attorney-General must take those matters into account. We say that at least he should take them into account because they are clearly relevant to the decision that he has to make, but let me say at once that I do not feel so strongly on that that I would insist on a Division on new clause 7 to the exclusion of new clause 3. Perhaps we can discuss that.
  The issue is simple. If the old, valued, venerated right to trial by jury, which generations of our forebears have believed to be an essential bulwark of personal freedom, is to be denied to certain defendants in Northern Ireland, that denial requires to be justified by specific reasons. Once that is settled, if it is to be denied in a particular case, it should be a case to which those specific reasons apply.
  There are two very good grounds for trying to find a way back towards jury trial in Northern Ireland—not only that it is fair and in the interests of justice, but that

  335
  without it the Diplock procedure is more likely to alienate than to attract or inspire confidence in the legal system. It is less rather than more likely to bring terrorists to justice.
  Mr. Alton: I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) say that he would not necessarily press new clause 7 to a Division. In the spirit of gradualism referred to by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and because of the need to return to as normal a system as possible, given the circumstances, in Northern Ireland, new clause 3 probably goes sufficiently far enough at this stage.
  I want briefly to address my remarks to new clause 2. Sir George Baker's report has been referred to. Paragraph 136 of the report gives the most compelling reasons why we should follow the course advocated by the right hon. Member for South Down in new clause 2. Paragraph 136 states:
  "More importantly many witnesses have told me of robberies and aggravated burglaries which had no connection or certainly no apparent connection with terrorism or terrorists or paramilitary organisations but because 'a firearm, imitation firearm or weapon of offence was used to commit the offence' became scheduled and were not capable of being certified out."
  If we can remove as many cases as possible from those categories to enable normal circumstances to apply, so much the better.
  The Diplock courts in Northern Ireland at the moment deal only with scheduled offences— offences associated with terrorism as defined in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. There is widespread concern in the House and outside that the schedule is far too wide, in that offences committed by persons who are not connected with terrorism may nevertheless fall within the remit of the schedule. I understand that it was alleged in a recent study undertaken by the Cobden trust that no fewer than 40 per cent. of those tried by the Diplock courts had no apparent connections with terrorism. Therefore, I believe that it should be possible to deschedule cases that have no apparent connection with serious terrorist offences, to make them triable by a jury. I also believe that the list of scheduled offences should regularly and rigorously be examined with a view to excluding as many offences as possible. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to say something about that possibility.
  In relation to every scheduled offence, irrespective of where it appears in the schedule, the prosecuting authority should have a duty to consider whether the offence should be descheduled, and the descheduling should occur wherever possible. Furthermore, the accused should have the right to apply to the court to have his individual case descheduled on the ground that it is not connected with terrorism. That could take place either at the first appearance before a magistrate or in any subsequent appearance. The accused would have the right of appeal to the High Court.
  Through the introduction of such safeguards, and perhaps as a result of the introduction of a panel of three judges, reductions in the size of trials, reductions in the delays before suspects are brought to trial and a statutory limit to remands in custody, many of the anxieties felt by hon. Members about the use of the Diplock courts can be set to one side. We all accept that there must be a gradual approach, and the right hon. Member for South Down phrased his remarks in terms that ought to commend
  336
  themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House. If there is a Division, I intend to follow up the support that I have given to the right hon. Gentleman in adding my name to the new clause by joining him in the Lobby.
  Ms. Clare Short: The main factor that brings the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland into disrepute is that there are so many trials without juries. We had an important and useful discussion about that issue in Committee. We understand that current Government practice is never to certify out an offence in which there is any suggestion of terrorist involvement. That point was made very clear to the Committee.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers)indicated dissent.
  Ms. Short: I notice that the Attorney-General is shaking his head. I hope that he will give us further clarification about that.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said that that was a self-defeating strategy. It means that so long as anyone is willing to engage in any kind of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland we will always have trials without juries. We are not on a path that will take us back to full jury trial.
  My understanding, like that of the right hon. Member for South Down, is that the Government are not required, within the current powers to certify out, always to ensure that if there is any terrorist connection there should not be a jury trial. I very much hope that the Government—whose representative is not listening to my brief remarks — in responding to the new clause will at the very least, even if they do not accept the new clause, agree to some changes in the guidelines under which they currently operate. I hope that they will try to certify out initially —and I do not mind if the process is gradual in the first phase—some of those offences in which there is thought to be a terrorist connection to see whether a valid jury trial can take place.
  It seems to me and to all people of common sense that it is in the interests of everyone, including those who have been charged with terrorist offences, that they should be tried by a jury. The current practice brings the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland into massive disrepute among the nationalist community. I cannot remember the figure, but a shocking proportion of the people in that community have no confidence or faith in the criminal justice system at the moment.
  We were told in Committee that the Government will never certify out any case where there is any suggestion of terrorist involvement. We are asking for a change in those guidelines. We want the Government to try to certify out in certain cases as part of the progress towards a return to jury trial. I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has been shaking his head, but we were told otherwise in Committee. I hope that he has better news for us today.
  5.45 pm
  The Attorney-General: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his comments. We always consider the opinions and views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great care, especially on legal matters. His reputation as Solicitor-General will be remembered and respected for a long time by all hon. Members.
  As a very new Solicitor-General I was present during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency

  337
  Provisions) Bill in 1973 and I spoke in the debate. After that I went to Belfast and spent a long time with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland working out the procedure that we would adopt. It is interesting that the Baker report, in paragraph 139, emphatically rejects the criteria that would be set out. I want to attempt to assist the House with one or two examples.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has resumed his championship—which he did so well in Committee—of the Baker report and he has challenged me to explain why the scheduled offences that are triable summarily or have a maximum penalty of five years should not be made capable of being certified out. I hope that I shall not bore the House, but I must describe those cases that are still left with that ban. There are very few. In summary, the exceptions are breach of the exclusion order; contributions towards acts of terrorism; withholding information about acts of terrorism; offences under proscribed organisations legislation; unlawful collection of information; training in use of firearms or explosives; offences under the Protection of Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; making and possessing a petrol bomb; obtaining property by deception, but only where nuclear material is involved; escaping from detention; clothing, hoods, masks and things of that sort. The view that I and the Government have taken is that those offences are likely to be committed only by terrorists. It would be wrong to extend my discretion to those when in practice I would be totally unable to exercise that discretion.
  In a moment we will debate the criteria that I used in deciding whether to exercise discretion. I hope to persuade the House that if a particular case is "connected with the emergency", that is sufficient to justify a decision by me not to exercise discretion. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to "any suggestion of terrorist involvement". The procedure is nothing like as remote as that. If a case is "connected with the emergency", there is a real risk—and this repeats the argument that has continued since 1973 — that the outcome of any jury trial would be affected either by intimidation or by the juror's fear of subsequent retribution.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West mentioned perceived intimidation. In the unhappily divided society of Northern Ireland, it is also possible that jurors trying such cases may be swayed by sympathy with or opposition to the underlying aims of those in the dock to return perverse verdicts. It would be to abandon common sense and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it could lead to many hung juries.
  In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, those risks apply generally to any terrorist-related trial. If I were given discretion to certify out such offences, I would have to certify out cases which I simply cannot conceive would be covered by new clause 2. It is better that the mode of trial should he determined automatically on objective criteria by reference to the offence. My discretion to certify out mitigates the rigour of that approach and allows some cases involving scheduled offences to go for trial by jury, but my judgment is essentially subjective, and if we placed too much emphasis on it I might be put in an impossible position.
  338
  New clauses 3 and 7 address the basis on which I exercise the discretion conferred on me by schedule 4. I remind the House that the Government are firmly committed to the principle of trial by jury, and we look forward to the day when it will be possible to restore full jury trials in Northern Ireland. But, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded, that time has not yet arrived. There remains a clear risk that jury trials involving some offences in Northern Ireland would not result in true verdicts, either because of intimidation or because of prejudice leading to a perverse verdict. That is the justification for the Diplock court procedure.
  The issue contained in the new clauses is the basis upon which it should be decided that one person is tried by a jury while another is tried in a Diplock court. The Government's firm view is that the decision should rest as far as possible on objective grounds and that it should be determined not by reference to the offender but by the nature of the offence. That avoids any requirement for what could be a prejudicial decision, based on a subjective assessment, that a case should go for trial before a judge sitting without a jury. Just as Sir John Junor frequently does in his column in the Sunday Express, comparisons will be made between one sentence and another. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman with his legal experience will realise, until one knows all the facts it is difficult to compare one sentence with another and to criticise them.
  We recognise that that approach has limitations. That is why we have the fallback of the 1978 Act, which provides that I may certify some cases for jury trial. That exercise must rest on a subjective assessment, but at least the decision will not be prejudicial. For example, when a defendant appears in an ordinary Crown court, it will be because I have specifically decided that the offence has no terrorist connections. It could be summed up in a sentence —although I do not have the phrase exactly right—by saying that the offence should be causally, not coincidentally, connnected with terrorism.
  In the light of the Baker report, Parliament has already significantly extended the scope of my discretion to certify out. I assure the House that I exercise those responsibilities with great care, just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did while in office. I have maintained the practice of considering every case that is capable of being certified out, and I have tried to do so within 24 hours, because the granting of immediate bail may rest on my decision. I do so on the basis of a note about each case which has been prepared, with equal care, by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. The figures given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in the other place a short time ago show that, during the past five years, I considered 2,685 applications for certification and that I certified out 1,865 of those cases, which represents well over two thirds. That is a fairly large proportion, and it has come about because I receive the most carefully prepared notes on each case from someone of the rank of at least assistant director in the Northern Ireland Director's office. We do not rely on gossip or talk from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We need hard evidence before we refuse to certify out.
  I suppose that I could consider whether, in all the circumstances, any risk would be involved in sending a case for trial by jury. I doubt whether there is a distinction between asking, "Will there be a fair trial", and the causal connection approach. In considering whether a case is connected with the emergency, I take account of the

  339
  likelihood that such cases, if sent for trial by jury, would be affected by intimidation or by the jurors' fear of subsequent retribution and the possibility of a perverse verdict. That is why we have the Diplock courts. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, those risks apply generally to any terrorist-related trial. So, when deciding to issue a certificate for a case, I must decide whether, if I authorised a jury trial, it would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice for those reasons. It would be wrong to apply a specific criterion along those lines, whether on the face of the legislation or not, because it would suggest that there should be specific evidence of a risk of a miscarriage of justice.
  I have argued that, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, such a risk exists in a general sense, regardless of the precise circumstances of each case. It would not be in the interests of justice or of the community to tip the balance towards jury trials simply because there may be no measurable risk of a miscarriage of justice in a case.
  Those figures are available. I am sure that the House will accept my assurance that when I take decisions I am very well informed and do so with the greatest care.
  Ms. Clare Short:: The figures could be read in two ways. Either the Attorney-General carefully allows the jury trial in the maximum number of cases—1,865 out of 2,685—or the present line is drawn badly and the Attorney-General must carry out much unnecessary, exhausting, detailed work when instead he should amend the procedures so that he need not spend so much time certifying out so many cases.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Lady is saying that. I should delegate part of it——
  Ms. Clare Short: No.
  The Attorney-General: I do not see how else we can do it while we have scheduled offences.
  I said that I would give two or three examples. A terrorist, or illegally held, gun may be used by a man to murder his wife. That was an example given in the Baker report. We do not prosecute for possession of the weapon, which would be a scheduled offence, because it has been a long tradition in the Province that murder always stands by itself and is not aligned with other counts. If a police officer or a soldier used excessive force against a citizen —let us take the bad example of going as far as beating him up — and that citizen, purely in self-defence, punched the soldier to protect himself, I would certify out. If he over-reacted and produced a knife or an iron bar, it may be different, but we consider the matter as sympathetically as possible, as the figures show.
  This has been a useful debate, but this is not the moment to move so far in the direction suggested by the right hon. Member for South Down.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:——
  The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 189.

  Division No. 138]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Alton, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Anderson, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Barron, Kevin

  Boyes, Roland

  340

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Litherland, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Livsey, Richard

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McCusker, Harold

  Canavan, Dennis

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Madden, Max

  Clarke, Thomas

  Maginnis, Ken

  Clay, Robert

  Mallon, Seamus

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Marek, Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Martin, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Meacher, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Mikardo, Ian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Nellist, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dewar, Donald

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dixon, Donald

  Park, George

  Dobson, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Dormand, Jack

  Pike, Peter

  Dubs, Alfred

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Eastham, Ken

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Prescott, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Radice, Giles

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fisher, Mark

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Flannery, Martin

  Robertson, George

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Foster, Derek

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Garrett, W, E.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Soley, Clive

  Haynes, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Strang, Gavin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Taylor, Matthew

  Howells, Geraint

  Wainwright, R.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wareing, Robert

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Welsh, Michael

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Winnick, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. Ron Davies.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Leighton, Ronald

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amess, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Benyon, William

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Blackburn, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Conway, Derek

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Coombs, Simon

  341

  Cope, John

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Couchman, James

  Moynihan, Hon C,

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Mudd, David

  Durant, Tony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Fallon, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Farr, Sir John

  Osborn, Sir John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Pawsey, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Forth, Eric

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Powley, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Price, Sir David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Raffan, Keith

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Renton, Tim

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harris, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Harvey, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Heddle, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Henderson, Barry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hirst, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Holt, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Silvester, Fred

  Irving, Charles

  Sims, Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Speller, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spencer, Derek

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Knox, David

  Squire, Robin

  Lang, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Latham, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sumberg, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Terlezki, Stefan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maclean, David John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walden, George

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Ward, John

  Madel, David

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Malone, Gerald

  Watts, John

  Maples, John

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Marlow, Antony

  Wheeler, John

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Whitfield, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wood, Timothy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Woodcock, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mellor, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION
  'In Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act there shall be added after Note 4 the following Note—
  "5. For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the Attorney General may, in considering whether to give a certificate under Note 1 or Note 2 above, take into consideration, without prejudice to any other matters, any grounds on which it appears to him that that offence could be tried otherwise than as a scheduled offence consistently with the interests of justice having regard to all the circumstances.".'. — [Mr. Molyneaux.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 188.

  Division No. 139]

  [6.12 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Haynes, Frank

  Alton, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Howells, Geraint

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Beggs, Roy

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Beith, A. J.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Boyes, Roland

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Livsey, Richard

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McCusker, Harold

  Canavan, Dennis

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Madden, Max

  Clay, Robert

  Maginnis, Ken

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Mallon, Seamus

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Marek, Dr John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cohen, Harry

  Martin, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Corbett, Robin

  Meacher, Michael

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dalyell, Tam

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Nellist, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dixon, Donald

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dobson, Frank

  Park, George

  Dormand, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Dubs, Alfred

  Pike, Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Prescott, John

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Radice, Giles

  Fisher, Mark

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Flannery, Martin

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, George

  Foster, Derek

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Freud, Clement

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Gould, Bryan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Soley, Clive

  343

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Matthew

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wainwright, R.

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Henderson, Barry

  Amess, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Ancram, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ashby, David

  Hirst, Michael

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Holt, Richard

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Irving, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Knox, David

  Benyon, William

  Lang, Ian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Latham, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Blackburn, John

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  McCrindle, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Maclean, David John

  Budgen, Nick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bulmer, Esmond

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Butterfill, John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Madel, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Malone, Gerald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Maples, John

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Marlow, Antony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Cockeram, Eric

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Colvin, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Conway, Derek

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Coombs, Simon

  Mellor, David

  Cope, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Cormack, Patrick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Couchman, James

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Crouch, David

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Moate, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Mudd, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Osborn, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Pawsey, James

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Powley, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Price, Sir David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Harris, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Renton, Tim

  Hayward, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Heddle, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  344

  Rowe, Andrew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Silvester, Fred

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Speller, Tony

  Watts, John

  Spencer, Derek

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wheeler, John

  Squire, Robin

  Whitfield, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

  THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE
  `After section 20(9) of the 1978 Act there shall be inserted the following—
  "(10)(a) In the exercise of the duties and powers conferred on them by this Act, constables and members of Her Majesty's forces may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in lawful arrest of offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
  (b) For the purposes of (a) above, it shall not be deemed reasonable to use lethal force unless:

  (i) the person using it reasonably apprehends immediate death or serious injury to himself or another person, and the use of such force is necessary in the circumstances to prevent such death or injury; or

  (ii) the use of such force as is necessary to achieve the lawful apprehension of a person whom the person using such force has reasonable cause to believe poses a threat of imminent death or serious injury to himself or another person if not apprehended.

  (c) In (b) above, 'lethal force' shall mean such force as is intended or likely in the circumstances to cause death or serious injury.".' — [Mr. Archer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move, 'That the clause be read a Second time.
  This is an attempt to grapple with a problem which has occasioned a great deal of discussion in the courts, political circles and academic literature. We had an enlightening debate in Committee which I found valuable and which helped to clear my mind. We are all in agreement that the rule of law applies to Government and Government alike. We believe that the law should be enforced, but that those who enforce it should themselves carefully observe the limitations on their powers. Those who enforce the law cannot be allowed to destroy confidence in the legal system and the courts and they cannot be permitted to place at risk the values which the law exists to protect. So far. we are all in agreement, but differences begin at the next stage.
  Should the rules which are applicable to the security forces in Northern Ireland simply be rules which are applicable to the rest of the population so that the security

  345
  forces have no obligations and no exemptions which are not shared by the rest of us, or do the powers with which they are invested, the duties which we impose on them and the risks which they are called on to take require some different or more precise formulation?
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for pointing out the enlightening article on the use of deadly force by Mr. R. J. Spjut in "Public Law" for the spring of 1986. He sets out the existing position. Existing law would provide a defence to a prosecution for the use of lethal force if it were applied in reasonable self-defence, the defence of others or to apprehend a person reasonably suspected of having committed an arrestable offence or if it was to prevent the commission of a crime or the escape of an offender unlawfully at large.
  That does not end our problems; it raises numerous questions both about what the law now is and what it should be. There is what has been called the proportionality principle, and the report to the Criminal Code Commission expressed it in this way :
  "We take one great principle of the common law to be that, though it sanctions the defence of a man's person, liberty and property against illegal violence, and permits the use of force to prevent crimes, to preserve the public peace, and to bring offenders to justice, yet all this is subject to the restriction that the force used is necessary; that is, that the mischief sought to be prevented could not be prevented by less violent means; and that the mischief done, or which might reasonably be anticipated from the force used, is not disproportioned to the injury or mischief which it is intended to prevent."
  That principle becomes important when the force that is used is sought to be justified by the necessity of preventing the escape of a fugitive. What crimes may he commit if he escapes, and what is the likelihood of his committing them? How immediate should those consequences be before lethal force is justified? What degree of force would be justified to prevent them? Without attempting to review all that has been said on the subject, the law as it appears from the cases is by no means clear.
  We do not even know what instructions are given to members of the forces. The Ministry of Defence declined to publish the instructions on the famous yellow card, although it is not clear in what way that information would assist law breakers. Indeed, what purports to be the contents of the yellow card have been published from time to time. Mr. Spjut has alleged that they include instructions that there must be no firing of shots to warn or to wound and that any shots must he only to kill. There may be reasons for that, but if that is true it is somewhat surprising.
  In Committee we debated whether the area where an incident took place could ever be a relevant consideration. I remember the forceful, cogent remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on the subject and I understand the indignation of those who believe that the area where they live might be thought to be an area where lethal force could be justified, whereas other areas would not be. That would he an offensive suggestion to those concerned.
  We find little help from Sir George Baker, who considered the problem in paragraphs 401 to 403, but concluded that the matter was not within his terms of reference. I do not propose to repeat the debate that took place in Committee, but it is important that the House
  346
  should direct its mind to these questions and give considered answers, and that those answers should be embodied in legislation.
  That is necessary for three reasons. First, it is necessary in fairness to members of the security forces who should not be left in doubt about the extent of their powers and obligations. Often they must take decisions at a moment's notice on inadequate information and they should not have those difficulties multiplied by uncertainty about the options open to them. Secondly, it is important for the protection of the public. Those in an area of potential risk should be protected by clear provisions of which they and everyone else is aware. Thirdly, it is important to justify public confidence in the rule of law which has sometimes been endangered by events, as was made clear in the debate in Committee. We accepted the criticisms of our amendment in Committee. In drafting this new clause we have sought to take account of those criticisms. I shall not delay the House by going through its provisions in detail, but even if someone were to say, at this late stage, "We believe that these powers and obligations should be made specific and that account should be taken of the arguments which were used in Committee, but we do not agree with the precise way in which you have set them out in this new clause", I would not seek to go to the stake for this clause rather than any other.
  It is vital that the House directs its mind to these questions because they cannot be left at large. The answers that the House chooses to give should be embodied in legislation.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Maginnis: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) should move such a naive clause. He has clearly demonstrated that he does not fully understand the position in which members of the security forces find themselves when facing dedicated armed terrorists whose single objective is to kill and maim members of the security forces and the civilian population with whom they disagree. The wording of the new clause is so naive that it verges on being insulting to those who must face armed terrorists day in and day out.
  I shall describe a situation with which I am quite familiar. Let us suppose that members of an army patrol stop a car in the middle of the night and realise that three armed terrorists are getting out of it. They must quickly decide what level of force should be used to apprehend those terrorists. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that is laid down in the yellow card. They will use the minimum force which is necessary to effect an arrest. This new clause would bind them in their action, and that is especially illustrated in subsection 10 (b)(ii):
  "the use of such force as is necessary to achieve the lawful apprehension of a person whom the person using such force has reasonable cause to believe poses a threat of imminent death or serious injury to himself or another person."
  Does that mean that a soldier must wait until he can decide whether a person carrying a gun will run away or turn round and open fire on him? That subsection would pose that question in the mind of a member of the security forces. It is not something with which we should bind our soldiers or policemen.
  What does "threat of imminent death" mean? If I see a terrorist with a gun, I know that he intends death to members of the security forces or innocent civilians. What is "imminent death"? Is it within the next five minutes, the

  347
  next hour or the next week? I have a strange feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that it is not a period within the next week or couple of weeks, but if you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were likely to be the victim of a terrorist within the next week or two you and I would consider that death was imminent.
  Mr. Archer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back into our counsels. However, if we are debating which of us is the more naive, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the formulae in the new clause differ from the decisions which members of the security forces have to make under the present law?
  Mr. Maginnis: When members of the security forces fire their weapons— the right hon. and learned Gentleman hinted at this—they intend to kill the person at whom they are firing. They do not fire them to warn or injure. There is good reason why that should be the case. A weapon is designed to kill the enemy. If it is used in any other way, it becomes a danger to the person using it, those, if they are members of an Army patrol, with whom the person firing it is patrolling, and to members of the public.
  To draw up this strange criterion that we must expect our soldiers to use force which is not lethal in a situation such as is outlined in the new clause is to ask them to endanger themselves and other members of the public.
  Mr. Mallon: As to what the hon. Gentleman said about the wording of the clause, is he saying that, in circumstances where these conditions do not apply, it would be right to use that lethal force? Either it should be constrained by the conditions laid down in the new clause, or, if it is not, it must surely be wrong to use lethal force. I am trying to establish whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. Maginnis: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in any doubt as to what I am saying. I am not suggesting that force, other than the minimal amount that is required to effect an arrest—I am talking about terrorists, as, I presume, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was—should be used.
  The trouble with the new clause is that it clearly states that it is not reasonable to use lethal force unless it is believed that death is imminent. What is "imminent"? An armed terrorist who escapes will be back next week, the week after or some time in the foreseeable future. In such a situation death will be imminent for a member of the public.
  It is wrong to try to define the basis on which soldiers should use maximum force. That would be disadvantageous, and I implore the House not to give any consideration to a means of tying the hands of the security forces in protecting themselves and members of the public.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). He appeared to define the new clause in terms of a member of the security forces being faced by an armed terrorist. In those circumstances, any member of the security forces would, under the new clause, be more than justified in using lethal force. Anyone faced with an armed terrorist has a reasonable apprehension of immediate death.
  However, the new clause seeks to deal with the circumstances that arose in the McElhone and Jones case
  348
  where McElhone, a completely innocent person, refused to stop when summoned to do so by a soldier. He saw the soldier's gun, was scared and ran away. Bang—he was shot like a rabbit. That is the situation with which we are trying to deal. McElhone was unarmed and there was no evidence that the soldier felt that he was under any threat at the time. There was no evidence that McElhone. if he had been known to the soldier, had been involved in any terrorist activity, and yet he was shot.
  That is the situation with which the Standing Advisory Commission on Human rights was most concerned when it issued its press statement on the Bill. It said :
  "No opportunity is taken in the Bill to amend the law on the use of reasonable force as it applies to the use of firearms by the police and other members of the security forces. The circumstance in which resort may be had to the lawful use of firearms remains vague and unsatisfactory."
  That was the situation after our debate in Committee.. The Minister of State was prepared to leave the law as it was — vague and unsatisfactory. Therefore, Labour Members, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in particular, sought to take up the argument of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and to introduce a clause which properly and carefully protected the security forces in the reasonable use of force, and lethal force if necessary, in all circumstances when they could reasonably apprehend that they, or people in the area, were likely to suffer serious injury or death from terrorist activity We did not want to go back to the McElhone situation, which was unreal and unnecessary.
  Ms. Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) laid great stress on not liking the use of the word "imminent" in relation to violence from a terrorist? That suggests that he would support the armed forces shooting anyone known to be in possession of a weapon. whether they intended to use that weapon in one, two or six weeks. I cannot believe that lie really intended that the armed forces should shoot whether or not there was any danger of an individual being harmed by that weapon. That was the import of his speech, and that is a licence to a shoot-to-kill policy.
  Mr. McNamara: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I thought that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone went too far when he made that point. In retrospect, I do not think that he would have meant it to apply in such broad circumstances. Most of us here would consider it reasonable for a member of the security forces to shoot on seeing a person suspected of terrorism carrying a lethal weapon, in an area where there is a good deal of terrorism, if, after apprehension, the person ran away. But one could not shoot on the basis that Mr. X might or might not have a rifle in his house which might or might not be used on some occasion. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was saying, I am sure that no one would reasonably accept that as an interpretation of a proper use of lethal force under any circumstances.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am not saying that.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has now qualified his position as that which I originally described as the circumstances in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West drafted the new clause.
  Mr. Maginnis: I want to make it clear that in the McElhone case, with which I am familiar in so far as I used to teach in the area where McElhone lived, the soldier was brought to trial having been charged with rashly and irresponsibly causing McElhone's death. He had acted outside the guidelines laid down for members of the security forces. In that case the court accepted that the soldier had reasonable grounds for suspecting that McElhone was a terrorist, and he was released. But in another case, which has not been quoted, a similar situation occurred and the soldier was found guilty of acting irresponsibly. He is now serving a sentence of imprisonment for that.
  Therefore, the rules by which soldiers and other members of the security forces are guided are adequate and responsible. The civil law is adequate to deal with any member of the security forces who acts irresponsibly or maliciously outside the guidelines. My point was that I did not want this new clause, which would cloud, not clarify, the issue.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. McNamara: That was an interesting intervention. The two cases which the hon. Gentleman cited show the extent of the confusion over this important matter. It was said in the McElhone case that, because of the area in which the incident took place, one could reasonably accept that any person refusing to stop could be shot. It was, so to speak, bandit country—a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West referred.
  The hon. Gentleman has now accepted that he did not mean the extension of the case that he put forward. Secondly, he accepted that there must be a reasonable use of force in such instances. Accepting that there is uncertainty in the law, the logic would be to follow my right hon. and learned Friend's attempt to define the circumstances in which lethal force can be used.
  Finally, let me deal with the question of the yellow card. When my right hon. and learned Friend said that the instruction was only to use aimed shots and that that therefore meant shots to kill, not warning shots or shots to wound, the Minister of State appeared to shake his head. In Committee we outlined what we understood to be the contents of the yellow card. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is difficult to understand why it is a classified document. Any citizen should be properly entitled to know the orders under which members of the security forces are acting in their proper role of seeking to apprehend terrorists. That is a matter of common sense civil liberties.
  Therefore, if the Minister of State does not accept what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I hope that he will state his reasons. More importantly, when he has finished talking to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will not only deny what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but produce the yellow card so that the House and the country may know exactly the circumstances in which our people are operating.
  Mr Mallon: First, I should like to commend the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for trying to define the circumstances in which lethal force may be used. We must consider the other side of the coin because, in the absence of a clear definition, what will happen when the type of tragic situation that we have seen so often in Northern Ireland occurs?
  350
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a case that occurred some time ago and I wish to mention another, that of a young man named John Patrick Cunningham from Armagh. He was educationally subnormal and unable to hear or speak. He was terrified of any stranger. He was shot dead because, naturally enough. he ran away when stopped. That is the type of incident that we must guard against. That person was not carrying guns, nor was he in a position to know what was happening, but he had no defence in those circumstances.
  Frankly, I was astounded by the line of argument put forward by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I do not believe that he meant to say what we interpreted him as saying. I interpreted his remarks as suggesting that in circumstances in which there was no cause for suspicion a person could be the victim of lethal force. That is a dangerous concept, and if it proves anything to us it proves the need clearly to define the circumstances in which force can be used. We must judge what the absence of such a clear definition means because, in the light of experience in Northern Ireland, there is a danger of abuse.
  I wish to specify three incidents that occurred in Lurgan, in Armagh and in a hayshed in Ballyneary. The victims in those incidents are now known as the victims of the shoot-to-kill policy, otherwise known as the Stalker affair, otherwise known as the Sampson report. Those incidents would not have occurred had there been a clearly defined set of circumstances that laid down when force could be used.
  In the three cases none of the people shot was carrying weapons. It is true that in the hayshed at Ballyneary there was an extremely old weapon. However, I believe that the Sampson-Stalker report will show that that weapon was inoperative and also that the RUC members who shot those young people knew that it was inoperative. In those three cases, no one was carrying guns but, not only that, the people involved, the victims, were under surveillance for a considerable period. That has already been proved as a result of the court case that has taken place.
  What happens in the absence of guidelines? What are the wider implications and the effect on the community in the north of Ireland? The effect has been enormously bad. After five years, inquests have still not been held and no substantive report has been published. There is a large question mark in people's minds hanging over those incidents. What has been the effect on the police? Anyone who speaks to senior police officers will know that there has been a bad effect because it puts the good policeman who does his job properly in the same bracket as those who take short cuts and abuse their position. Moreover, we already know from one of the court cases that one of the constables who was charged was encouraged to commit perjury by one of his senior officers. That is bound to have a corrosive effect upon the police service.
  It produced a lack of confidence in the process of justice which at that time could be quantified in the north of Ireland and which has left a dangerous residue. What about the effects on the career of an extremely good, able and professional man, John Stalker? What about the effect on the career of the coroner who, rather than continue the charade that was presented to him and proceed with an inquest on the basis of information that was palpably untrue, resigned his position. Such are the effects of the absence of clear guidelines. We must prevent such cases from ever happening again.

  351
  We can prevent such incidents only by closing the loopholes. The only way that that can be done is by clearly defining the circumstances in which lethal force can be used. We do not have that definition in the Bill and that is a grave mistake. It leaves us wide open to a repeat of what has happened in the past.
  For those reasons, I again commend the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West for presenting the clause. I encourage him to divide the House because I believe that it is sufficiently important to justify doing so. I encourage all hon. Members to vote for the clause because it is crucial.
  Mr. Flannery: We are discussing something that is extremely complicated, yet, in a curious way, it is simple. I well understand the problems of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) who, I am sure, has faced circumstances not dissimilar from those we are discussing. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a part-time officer and he must have been confronted with such situations.
  I remember being over there myself—I am sure that many other hon. Members have had similar experiences —when a group of us, who had been out on a late night commitment and were on our way home, were stopped by a patrol at about midnight. I know what the Army is, many of us do, but I felt my back go cold when I saw the weapons around me. It was a terrible and difficult situation. People who must face such situations have my deepest sympathy. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) put his finger on it when he said that there is a loophole. It is necessary that we have a form of words to which reference can be made if anything goes wrong. It should be a cautionary measure for those people who find themselves in a difficult position.
  There is always somebody who is nervous on such occasions and who possibly slightly loosens the safety catch when he should not. We all know that there are people who, on occasions, are trigger happy. The expression, "shoot to kill" did not come from nowhere.
  John Stalker ultimately became a casualty of his inquiries, fortunately not a mortal casualty. That report has not yet come out. Those inquiries did not come from nowhere but were the result of incidents such as those we have already discussed. However, that inquiry is not complete, but nor are the guidelines in the law complete until this loophole has been filled.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone used the word "naive", but I am sure he did not mean it. This clause is a serious and honourable attempt —not emanating from one person—to close that loophole. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman ransacked his conscience he would discover that there were circumstances in which reference could have been made to such a clause—such incidents take place closer to him than to many of us. He is aware that, no matter what differences exist between us, we profoundly worry about the colleagues whom I am happy to see on the Bench behind me. I always make a point of saying that.
  I commend this clause to the House. It is sensible and necessary and an honest addition to the Bill. I believe that we should divide the House, but I hope that the clause will be accepted, possibly without a Division.
  Mr. Alton: The problem in a debate of this kind is that without the advice of Stalker or the Sampson commission,
  352
  and even with the Baker report, it is difficult to make a judgment on whether this new clause strikes the right balance in the safeguarding of civil liberties. I fully understand and agree with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). As hon. Members have already said, the number of references in the Baker report are minimal when it comes to the use of lethal force. I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman about what circumstances might make it legitimate for the security forces to use lethal force. They are in a very difficult position.
  I should not want to be the person having to make a judgment about whether he was under threat of imminent death from a member of a terrorist organisation who might just have committed a crime and be running away with a gun in his hand. Under this clause, I would have to make a decision about whether I was at risk. This matter needs further consideration and is not best left to a Division of the House. We ought to ponder it at greater length.
  7 pm
  About 200 members of the security forces have died in the course of their duties since 1969. Probably what is needed is not legislation but more appropriate machinery which we should use to deal with cases in which it is alleged that the security forces have caused death or serious injury.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about the findings of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I agree with what he said about the secrecy surrounding the use of the yellow card. That matter ought to be more open and we need to understand more about the circumstances in which it is permissible for the security forces to use force. The standing commission noticed a striking contrast between the investigation of deaths caused by the security forces in Great Britain and those caused in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain there is a reasonably quick procedure which involves the suspension from duty of the officers involved. There is then a report to Parliament and a fairly rapid submission of a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  By contrast, in Northern Ireland there have been complaints that the legal representatives of the relatives of dead civilians have been unable to secure access to papers or evidence. There have been accusations of irregularities in the police files relating to such cases. The ninth report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights says:
  "While the circumstances in Northern Ireland do differ substantially from those in London (for example, as regards obtaining reliable evidence), there is nevertheless no sufficient reason why the deaths of civilians at the hands of the security forces … should not only be treated but also be seen to be treated as a matter of equally urgent and immediate concern."
  It is my strong view that only an independent standing tribunal with investigatory functions can depoliticise the process of investigation. Such a tribunal would be required to investigate every case in which the use of force by the security forces has resulted in serious injury or in death. The tribunal should have a legally qualified chairman. Its members should be appointed for a fixed period of years by the Secretary of State. The tribunal would have the same powers as a tribunal of inq airy or local inquiry under the Police Act 1964. It would thus have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, insist on the production of documents, and take evidence on oath. Information could

  353
  be withheld from it only on the highest grounds of national security endorsed by the Secretary of State. In general, the reports of the tribunal would be published.
  At present it is not the Government's practice to publish the instructions given about the circumstances in which force might legitimately be used. The relevant instructions have been seen by members of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In paragraph 24 of its ninth report it concluded :
  "We were impressed by the strictness of these instructions. If obeyed by the security forces, no member of the law-abiding public need be concerned for his safety and neither need members of the security forces equally fear breaking the law. However, we feel that the circumstances in which the security forces may open fire should be a matter of greater public knowledge and public debate. If the circumstances in which the security forces are authorised to open fire were more widely known, there might be less danger of persons' lives being put at risk."
  That point was made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. Even if it is not considered appropriate to reveal the precise contents of the force instructions or the yellow card, it is at least desirable that the general conditions in which fire may be opened by the security forces should be properly and openly discussed. The Government should seriously consider making the instructions public and more precise.
  Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent crime, to arrest an offender or to prevent his escape. In 1984 in the Farrell case the European Court of Human Rights took the view that this provision was far too broad. More precise rules should be laid down embodying the principle that lethal force should be used only when necessary to save life or to prevent serious injury. A precise rule of this type would make it easier for prosecutions to be brought against policemen or service men charged with illegitimate killings.
  For those reasons, the new clause does not entirely fulfil the criteria that I have laid before the House. That is my view and the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am reluctant to vote with the Opposition on this clause, and hope that they will not press it to a Division.
  Mr. Scott: Let me say at the outset that I recognise that the use of force, and especially lethal force, by the police and the military in Northern Ireland is a legitimate ground for concern. Any incident involving death or serious injury in which the security forces in Northern Ireland are involved is fully and impartially investigated by the RUC and, as a matter of course, the papers have to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  In this debate we have heard the views of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Those views illustrate the different perceptions that people have about this very difficult situation.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) set out some admirable and uncontentious principles. However, the matter comes down to a single, simple question : should we rely on the law—"vague and unsatisfactory" is how it was described by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North—or should we seek to spell out in statute what the law might be and define it much more tightly than it is at the moment? The
  354
  right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West mentioned the principle of proportionality. While not saying that that principle has nothing to do with the matter before the House, again the question must be, should we try to spell it out in statute, or should we leave it to the courts to decide that the action taken was reasonable in all the circumstances?
  Even the new clause shows how difficult it is to specify in legislation guidelines on the use of lethal force that would cover every possible eventuality. The present law gives the courts the freedom to take account of all the circumstances and to reach a proper judgment on whether the use of force was reasonable. If we attempt to specify the guidelines, as this new clause attempts to do, it tends to expose the difficulties of going down that road.
  As it stands, I do not think that the clause would remove all areas of ambiguity from the law on the use of lethal force. In any case, on a matter of principle, the use of force should continue to be governed, as it is at the moment, by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. That Act provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the prevention of crime in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large. That rule applies to the exercise of ordinary police powers and to powers under the emergency legislation. It is also the basis of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which applies in England and Wales.
  In responding to what has been an interesting debate, I have to stand absolutely on that point of principle. It is right that members of the security forces exercising emergency powers should be bound by the normal rule of law in relation to the use of force. That was the fundamental question put to us by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. Should they be treated differently because of the special powers that they have and the special situation that confronts them in Northern Ireland? To that question I have to give an unequivocal yes.
  This new clause would apply one rule to the emergency powers and another to the ordinary powers. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to legislate on this matter in the Bill. I advise the House not to give the new clause a Second Reading.
  Mr. Mallon: Is there not something contradictory about the position? The powers in the Bill and in other amendments to the 1978 Act are tested by the touchstone of "reasonable grounds" for arrest, search or stopping people. The essence of the new clause is that it puts the onus on the person using the force to have "reasonable cause to believe". I am sure that we all want to establish accountability, rather than having to make the decisions about whether the force was reasonable. In terms of accountability, and of consistency with the changes that are made in the rest of the Bill, the onus of having to have reasonable cause is much more powerful and effective than having to define the reasonableness of the force used.
  Mr. Scott: I believe that in standing firm on section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 we were absolutely following that principle. It is for the court to decide whether the actions were reasonable in the circumstances. That is the point of principle on which I stand. Even the new clause shows how difficult it is to define precisely what alternative arrangements should be put in place. The new

  355
  clause does not remove all ambiguity from the law. The present position has worked well, and the I-louse would he wise to reject——
  Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in the course of his penultimate sentence. Will he address his mind to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and myself about the yellow card and information about it?
  Mr. Scott: If I have not done so, it is because I believe that the instructions on the use of force by the security forces are not directly relevant to the debate. This debate is about the law that should apply. not about the guidance that is given by the Chief Constable who is responsible for the operations of his force, or about the instructions that the Army Council gives to its soldiers on how best to stay within the law. Those are matters of operational concern for those involved in the operations of the police and the Army respectively. This debate is about the law, not about the guidance that is given on how to stay within it.
  Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that he is making a mistake about the yellow card? It is merely a restricted document—not a confidential or highly secret one. It would allay many of the fears that have been expressed today if the contents of that yellow card were made known. I do not doubt that other hon. Members have seen it. I, too, have seen it, and I think that nothing would be lost by allowing the public to know about the extremely strict rules under which members of the security forces must operate.
  Does the Minister agree with me that matters that are not pertinent to the debate have been raised today? The problem that someone may be nervous or trigger-happy will not be remedied by this type of legislation.
  Mr. Scott: The yellow card is not my responsibility but that of the Ministry of Defence. I believe that I am right in asserting that the contents of the yellow card are not at issue. What is at issue are the laws governing the use of force and lethal force. My contention is that it should be for the courts to decide whether the force that is used is reasonable in all the circumstances. Therefore, I must advise the House to reject the new clause.
  Question put. That the clause be read a Second time:——
  The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 185.

  Division No. 140]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Deakins, Eric

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dormand, Jack

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eastham, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Clay, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Foster, Derek

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Cohen, Harry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  356

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Park, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pike, Peter

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ronald

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Wareing, Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Sean Hughes.

  Nellist, David

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Alton, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Amess, David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Ashby, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Harris, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'flolk SW)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hayward, Robert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Heddle, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Henderson, Barry

  Benyon, William

  Hicks, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hirst, Michael

  Blackburn, John

  Holt, Richard

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Howells, Geraint

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Knox, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Lang, Ian

  Brinton, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Browne, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Lightbown, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Lilley, Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  McCrindle, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Colvin, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Conway, Derek

  Maclean, David John

  Coombs, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cope, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Couchman, James

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Malone, Gerald

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Maples, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marlow, Antony

  Fallon, Michael

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Farr, Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Favell, Anthony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Merchant, Piers

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fry, Peter

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  357

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Spencer, Derek

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Squire, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mudd, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sumberg, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Powley, John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Price, Sir David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raffan, Keith

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wainwright, R.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walden, George

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wallace, James

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Watson, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Scott, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wood, Timothy

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Silvester, Fred

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Speller, Tony

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

  REPEAL OF SECTION I2 AND SCHEDULE I OF 1978 ACT
  `Section 12 and Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 shall be repealed.'.—[Mr. Archer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This is a simple proposal. It is to repeal section 12 of the principal Act, which gives the Secretary of State power to inter someone without trial — not with a Diplock trial, not with a trial that is open to criticism, but without any trial at all. This provision places the liberty of anyone in Northern Ireland at the mercy of the Secretary of State. It is a draconian power and a worthy successor to some of those powers in the Emergency Powers Act 1920 to which a South African politician referred when he said that he would give up all the powers available to him for one section in the 1920 Act.
  This provision has not been used since 1976. I do not believe that any Government would attempt to justify itsuse. It is not even in force. What is at issue is the power of the Secretary of State to bring it into force under section 33. Sir George Baker recommended that the provision should be repealed. He cited the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which said:
  358
  "the retention of the power, perhaps as one of the last resort, is anathema to the rule of law and an obstacle to claims that human rights are as wholly protected in Northern Ireland as they ought to be in the current circumstances".
  Sir George said :
  "the case for repeal of Section 12 is pressed not only by the various bodies concerned with human rights, as is to be expected, but by many others, including those who have been involved in operating detention. A summary of their experience is that detention never worked and never will work; it is always counter-productive in the end as well as costly."
  One could not be clearer than that.
  What is the argument about? When I raised the question on 20 December 1984 with the former Secretary of State, he said that it was important to retain the power in case of
  "a sudden short-term crisis, which might occur when Parliament was in recess."—[Official Report, 20 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 581.]
  That is not the proper approach to emergency legislation. The whole point of emergency legislation is that it is found to be vital to the public interest for the time being, but that it is clearly a distortion of the normal legal system and should be repealed as soon as we can live without it. It will not do to say, "Perhaps, one day, we will need it, so we had better keep it."
  When the question was raised in Committee the Minister of State said, fairly, that he saw no prospect of that provision being used but
  "there is always the possibility of unforeseen sudden deterioration in the security position". — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 March 1987; c. 386.]
  Sadly, there is no Government proposal on the Amendment Paper to repeal the provision in the light of that debate. It is not for me to speculate on the tussle within the Government between the appeal of the Minister of State for common sense and fairness and the dull repetitious chant of the old guard, "You never know" and "It is better to have the individual by the throat, just in case."
  It is the function of hon. Members, especially those such as Northern Ireland Ministers, to tell the old apparatchiks that we do not run this country like that and that the public would not stand for it if we tried. I hope that that is right because, if it is not, freedom is no longer the healthy plant that it once was. The Opposition, at least, will give the House a chance to say, "Here is one emergency provision for which, if a case ever existed, no shred can now be made out." When that happens to a provision that was said at its inception to be introduced as a temporary measure to deal with an emergency, it is a power that the Government should relinquish.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. McNamara: Hon. Members who were on the Committee hoped that there might be some change in the Government's attitude at the end of the debate on this matter. We now hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State that that is the case.
  The point that I wish to make is that internment failed. It was the strongest recruiting force for the Provisional IRA; it almost gave it legitimacy. It turned a whole community against the rule of law in some circumstances. It caused grave difficulties, and it resulted in the deaths of many people — security forces, innocent civilians and members of both communities. It failed completely in the purpose for which it was introduced—to bring an end

  359
  to terrorism—because terrorism is still with us. It failed politically, because Stormont fell, the Unionists were divided and crushed, and eventually we had direct rule.
  The whole history of this power has shown it to have failed absolutely—whether its aim was to preserve the Queen's peace in Northern Ireland or to be an effective tool to ensure that terrorism could not succeed or could be suppressed. Moreover, the essence of it is a complete denial of human rights. It means a person being picked up on the whisper of an unknown informer, or on the basis that he is a civil rights campaigner or active in a trade union, or that he happens to believe that the partition of Ireland is not the best solution to the problems of the 32 counties. The system failed, and the evil men who saw all the signs of it coming escaped. In the days after internment, the same evil men for whom it was intended were fighting street battles with the security forces. Internment is a complete loss, and it should go.
  Sir John Farr: I share the views expressed so far about the desire to end the power to introduce or use detention. However, I should have thought it impossible to choose a worse or a more inopportune time to introduce the change.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, the power has not been used for many years. However, I believe that it must remain on the statute book as a weapon in the armoury of the forces of law and order, in case it has to be utilised again. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, to utilise it would involve a serious downgrading in the security position. But did he consult the security forces in Northern Ireland before he tabled the new clause? Has he obtained their advice on whether it would be beneficial?
  I would expect the security forces to be almost 100 per cent. agreed in their answer, especially after the nights of rioting in west and north Belfast yesterday, the troubles in County Londonderry and all the other difficulties in the troubled Province. I would expect them to say, "Certainly we are with you, but not at the moment. It will be construed by the men of evil as a sign of weakness, and we cannot afford that."
  Mr. Mallon: There have been two events in my life that I recall so well that I can remember exactly what I was doing and the exact moment in the day when I learned of them. One was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; the other was the introduction of internment in the north of Ireland.
  I remember saying to someone when I heard about internment, "This is the end of the north of Ireland as it has been known since the state was formed." I think that those words were reasonably accurate. Internment was a watershed in the history of the north of Ireland. Most people would agree that at the moment when that terrible mistake was made the north of Ireland, as it had existed until then, was finished. We should keep that in our minds today when we debate this measure.
  There are very few issues in northern Irish politics about which I feel certain, but I am sure about one thing: internment will never be used there again. It has been such an utter and terrible mistake and has fostered such violence, subversion and alienation, that I do not believe that any Government would make such a mistake again. I say that with a degree of confidence and not a little hope, for, if they were to do so, it would be said not just that it
  360
  was the end of Northern Ireland as it has been known since the state was formed, but that it was the end of the north of Ireland.
  I do not believe that internment could ever be introduced again, given the demographic, political and social changes and the rise of paramilitary groups in the north of Ireland. In any attempt to achieve political stability that did not involve radical changes, those radical changes would have to take over.
  Even at this late hour, I ask the Government to reconsider. Why should we keep on the statute book a measure that will not be used again and that, if it were used again, would be even more disastrous than in the past? Why should we not give a signpost to the people of the north of Ireland, showing that at least the Government had the conviction and the resolution to return to the highest and most normal standards—even if there were men of violence in the north of Ireland who did not wish it to happen? That would be a potent message from the Floor of the House to the people of the north of Ireland.
  I ask the Government to act with resolution, because resolution will be needed, and also with realism, because, if they are realistic, they will accept that they are keeping a dead letter on the books.
  The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke of what happened in the north of Ireland over the weekend. I should like to refer to that as well, but from a different perspective. Within the advice given in Northern Ireland, there is still the residue of a belief that problems can be solved by means of punitive legislation and force. The force that was used at this week's funeral must have revolted any person with any sensitivity or concern for human life and respect for the dead. It must have forced people to ask questions. It must certainly have forced people to ask why this enormous show of force was used on such a sensitive occasion when the only winners, at the end of the day, were those who were trying to manipulate it.
  The argument that is advanced is that a show of force was necessary to prevent people from firing shots over the coffin. There is some validity in that argument. I f, however, we ask why shots are fired over coffins. the answer is that it is to get publicity. The net result of this ill-advised course was that they got two and a half or three days of free publicity worldwide.
  One of my fears is that if this provision remains on the statute book, advice of that type will always be available. There will be those who feel that that is the way to deal with the matter and that, when they offer advice of that type to the Government, they are doing what is right. The way to prevent that type of mistake over internment from ever happening again is to make sure that that provision does not remain on the statute book.
  Mr. Alton: I support what has been said. Internment will be regarded by those who write the history of the last 20 years in Northern Ireland as one of the saddest decisions that was ever taken. It led to the alienation of an already distanced group of people in Northern Ireland's minority community. I vividly recall the letters that I received and the conversations that I had with those who felt very emotional about what was happening in Northern Ireland. It caused enormous trauma. Internment led to the hunger strikes and to bitterness and death. I hope that such incidents will never be repeated.

  361
  I recall my first visit to the Maze, which must be one of the most extraordinary places that anybody can enter. I was shocked by the conversations that I had in the Maze and by the attitude of the people there. The attitude of most of them was formed during their period of internment. It provided a breeding ground that enabled the IRA and the other terrorist organisations to make many recruits.
  For those reasons, I do not believe that the Government would ever contemplate reintroducing internment. This antiquated and unnecessary measure remains on the statute book, and I hope that we shall repeal it. It is very much out of line with the Secretary of State's approach. He accepts that if there is to be reconcilliation and coexistence in Northern Ireland the alienated community must be brought back into the equation.
  Reference has been made to the events of the last 24 hours. They should be a useful signal to those who might be tempted to think that if battles are fought on the streets of Belfast they will bring about change. I have always disputed the view that that is the way to bring about change. The appropriate place to bring about change is in this debating Chamber. People should take their place here, whether from the Unionist or the Nationalist tradition, and work in a democratic Chamber to bring about the kind of society in which reconciliation might take place.
  Reconciliation will not take place in H-blocks, through internment, or, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has just said, through punitive legislation. Reconciliation will be brought about by the kind of initiative upon which the Secretary of State has very bravely embarked in the last 18 months. Therefore, I hope that he will take seriously the new clause that has been moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)
  Mr. Flannery: I do not know how much notice will be taken of this debate, but I feel confident that if we decide to abolish internment it will command attention. The abolition of internment would weaken the hand of the terrorists. Internment strengthened their hand. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has just said, it would demonstrate that we want conciliation to be brought about in Northern Ireland. Both communities would gain from the passing of new clause 6. Internment greatly strengthened the hand of the terrorists. The Government would be taking a progressive step if they removed from both communities the threat of internment.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Maginnis: I have mixed feelings about the retention of internment, which is provided for in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Internment has been used in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. It has been used wisely, discreetly and with discrimination.
  Mr. McNamara: That is what we were complaining about.
  Mr. Maginnis: I thought that that particular word might alert hon. Members.
  Internment was used to take out of circulation terrorists who could not be dealt with by means of the civil law.
  362
  Innocent people in Northern Ireland are being gunned down by the score, but that is seldom referred to in this Chamber. I shall quote again figures that I have quoted before. In my constituency, 181 members of the community have been gunned down, but only 27 of those murders have been solved, so 154 out of 181 murders remain unsolved. The security forces know who is responsible for many of the killings, but they continue to say to us that the civil law is inadequate to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: Not now.
  My community would like internment to be used as wisely as it was used by the Northern Ireland Government on various occasions over many years. It would not wish internment to be used as it was used in 1971. Although the legislation was enacted by the Northern Ireland Government, internment was not carried by that Government. It was implemented out by the Westminster Government, who have assumed powers over security. Their information was inadequate and internment did considerable harm.
  Although I do not always believe him, the Secretary of State tells us that intelligence has improved a hundredfold during the last 17 years. We now have the necessary information to effect a form of internment that would alienate nobody but that would take out of circulation the terrorist godfathers. It would provide an opportunity for those on both sides of the community who want to be rid of the terrorists to make some progress.
  It is amazing that when we talk about internment we hear that it, and it almost alone, was the thing that caused the alienation of the minority community. Let us debate in the House another subject that is politically unacceptable and we will hear that it, and it alone, caused the alienation of the minority community. By now I am used to hearing that it was 50 years of Unionist Government that caused the alienation of the minority community. It is so easy for people who want to make that political point to choose anything with which they disagree and say that that was what caused the alienation of the minority community.
  I am talking about the alienation of an entire community, a community alienated by terrorism. For 17 years successive Governments have done nothing to quell that terrorism. There has been almost total failure. In fact, there has been what many of us see as something approaching abject surrender to terrorists. Points of view have been put across here suggesting that one might go a little bit easier.
  When we are talking about internment, I do not know how we got on to the subject of a funeral. However, as that is a subject to which I can now allude, is there not a great deal of ambivalence in the attitude adopted by Father Faul? I quote Father Faul in so far as I believe that he is a man who genuinely detests terrorism. He is a man who does not want to see the terrorist succeed and who has no desire, as I suspect some people even in the Chamber might have, to ride on the back, or at least to take advantage of, the terrorist as he operates in Northern Ireland at present. Father Faul has suggested that that incident will alienate the minority — let us call it the Roman Catholic —community. If we did not prevent a display of terrorism at the funeral. the majority community and a sizeable

  363
  number of the minority community would be disgusted by a display such as we saw a week or two ago when firearms were taken from a church to demonstrate that terrorism held sway in Northern Ireland. Terrorism does hold sway in Northern Ireland, so let us not try to hide that fact, and the Government have proved to be impotent in dealing with it.
  Senior policemen to whom I speak suggest—they are talking about a comparative few—that if they could take only eight people out of the east Tyrone area they would have a tremendous advantage in the fight against terrorism. Those policemen are faced with a situation where they come to the courts — it does not matter whether it is Diplock courts or jury trials—and find that the evidence they are able to reveal to the court is inadequate.
  That is not the only criticism that I have of the courts, but I do not want to go down that road too far, except to say that it amazed me to find in my constituency quite recently that three men caught with a 6001b car bomb, taking it in to blow apart a town that is predominantly Roman Catholic, were given suspended sentences. They were not lads; they were grown men. I observed that one was probably more likely to get a prison sentence for having 6001b of smuggled butter than a 6001b bomb. However, at least I noticed that the fourth member of the gang was imprisoned for five years. The judge apologised to him and said something to the effect "My dear fellow, you will feel that you are badly done by, but I think it is ridiculous that your fellow bombers got off scot free, so I am going to sentence you to five years"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the clause that we are discussing.
  Mr. Maginnis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for digressing.
  My point is quite simple. The law is inadequate. It is proven to be inadequate. The 154 unresolved murders, out of a total of 181, in my constituency cry out for some sort of justice. I believe that by taking the known godfathers out of the community by internment we could achieve some degree of success. If the Secretary of State is not to use internment, if he is not to take his courage in his hands and give us what we need to defeat terrorism, let us not deceive the people any longer. Let us get rid of the section. Either make use of it, or get rid of it. It is only an aggravation to those who are opposed to it to have it there, and it is only a frustration to those who want it there if it is not to be used.
  Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) put before us terrible figures of the number of his constituents who have been killed and the small number of cases that have been cleared up. He went on to say that the security forces know who was responsible for the murders and therefore we should have internment because the people involved should be locked up. That is an extremely dangerous argument. I sympathise with the emotion that he must feel about the terrible number of killings, but such an argument rules out the rule of law everwhere. The police will say up and down this country that they know who the bad families are who are doing the burglaries on estates and so on. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. If one goes around locking up individuals who one thinks are
  364
  responsible, but one is wrong, one causes enormous bitterness and a sense of injustice that polarises, divides and leads to more violence, more distress and more deaths among the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  Although I am sure that we all understand and sympathise with the anger that the hon. Gentleman must feel, I think that the course he suggests of allowing the security forces to lock up those who they think are responsible, without having any evidence to prove that they are responsible, is far too dangerous. If those involved, the godfathers as the hon. Gentleman called them, all known to the security forces, are six in number and are responsible for large numbers of deaths, the security forces would have to be very incompetent if they could not follow them and obtain the evidence to convict them. That leads me to suspect that they might not be correct in their suspicions and that the policy recommended by the hon. Gentleman is very dangerous. However, I note that his conclusion agrees with that of most Opposition Members. He says that if the Government are not to start using internment again, they should not have the power in the Bill. I agree with him on that, as do many of the hon. Members who have spoken.
  I shall not repeat the arguments, but my view is similar to that of others who have spoken. I believe that internment was a disaster for Northern Ireland. Many innocent people were interned, which led to enormous anger and bitterness, with the families of those who were interned becoming involved with paramilitary organisations because of the anger that they felt. I saw that process at work on my visits to Northern Ireland at the time. It was a disaster which should not be repeated.
  If, in future the Secretary of State thinks that it is necessary to introduce internment, surely he should come before the House and seek those powers. It is such a serious move and change that we should not simply have powers in legislation lying on the table to be picked up whenever the right hon. Gentleman feels like using them. As I read the Bill—I can hardly believe that I am right — the right hon. Gentleman can start doing that tomorrow without any permission from the House of Commons. He could go home tonight and decide that., as he was getting a bit irritated, he would start interning a few people. That is outrageous and extraordinary.
  The Government may argue—I do not agree —that internment is a solution that they may have to consider in future. I say seriously to the Secretary of State that, even if he believes that, he should withdraw the powers from the Bill and give us the undertaking that if he ever proposes to introduce internment he will bring a new Bill before the House of Commons and let us debate it, rather than use those powers on his own, without even having a debate in the House.
  8 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) suggested that we should have an opportunity to debate a new Bill prior to implementing detention. I humbly suggest to the House that to some extent that is what happened with the tragic use of detention in the 1970s. In other words, instead of using the power correctly and selectively, the Government signalled their intention for weeks, so that the people who should have been lifted had long since gone. There was bungling of other intelligence. As a result, the whole community was flabbergasted and incensed.

  365
  The emotional arguments that have been put forward against the principle of selective detention are suspect in themselves. It has been suggested that detention has been used on only one occasion in Northern Ireland and that it had a tremendous impact upon the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who remembers it. Selective detention had been used before then. I believe it was not detention but an accumulation of attacks, which ultimately was a challenge to the state. I believe that that was mishandled for well over a year and that conflagration was bound to come, just as we have seen with the apparently successful settlement of an internecine feud recently. The paramilitaries in Belfast and throughout the Province are now unleashing their forces against the state rather than against one another.
  We should at least examine what this is all about. It is easy for an hon. Member in the House to say that the security forces are incapable if they cannot bring the evidence to a court of law, which would bring conviction. Even in the normal process of justice, when we sit in a court, we are never terribly sure who is the accused—whether it is the person bringing the charge or the person in the dock—because we bend over backwards to put the weight of evidence in favour of the accused. The only legislation that has been introduced to the opposite effect has been the most recent Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which places some responsibility upon the accused to prove his innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt.
  In dealing with hardened terrorism, when we start the normal process of British justice and give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, it is extremely difficult to be sure that there is cast-iron evidence that will stand up—whether it is forensic, collaborative evidence or accomplice participation. All such evidence, at whatever level, can be suspect.
  I recognise that there are divided opinions in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was one of the first to speak against detention, and there are others who are not in favour of detention. Frankly, I still believe that selective detention is a weapon in the armoury of any democratic state, which it cannot willingly throw away without deep consideration.
  I call in my support not, I suspect, a biased Unionist, not even anybody with suspicious religious convictions, but the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the former Prime Minister of the Irish Repulic, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who have both said in my presence that no democratic state should throw away the armoury of selective detention. It may he debatable whether it should be used in certain circumstances or in a particular case. It had been suggested in the debate that we should take it away from our legislation and that if we want to use it on another occasion we should have a debate in the rational atmosphere of the House of Commons while the terrorists, who should be moved on quickly, continue to do their dirty business or get offside so that they cannot be apprehended. That is the height of lunacy. While I can sympathise with some aspects of the arguments in the debate, I believe that it would be folly to remove the provision from the statute.
  Mr. David Winnick: I disagree strongly with the arguments that have been put forward
  366
  today by the representatives of the Unionist party. It is a good sign that they have come back to the House, and I welcome that, but internment in itself would be wrong on the grounds of civil liberties. Of that there is no doubt at all. That is not to deny for one moment the sheer evil of a sustained terrorist compaign. As we know, most of that terrorism comes from the Provisional IRA and sister organisations on that side of the sectarian divide, but there is terrorism on the other side, which I am sure hon. Members will not wish to deny.
  To a large extent, the debate is like last week's debate on capital punishment. I did not speak in that debate, but I strongly took the point that to bring back capital punishment for terrorists would play directly into their hands. No matter what the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein may say publicly about opposing capital punishment, we all know instinctively that they would like that. They would like it for all the reasons that were deployed in the debate last week.
  Surely the same, to a large extent, applies to internment. Again, it would be a powerful propaganda weapon for the Provisional IRA. It would be able to show that people had been taken in and locked up and not convicted of any offence, because, in essence, that is what it is all about. They would be placed in confinement, not because of proceedings in court, but because they had been suspected of various offences. That goes against the grain of what we believe to be the rule of law.
  Not only is the Provisional IRA affected. I am very pleased about the fact that when Provisional Sinn Fein stood for the first time in elections in the Irish Republic it received less than 2 per cent. of the vote. As I have said on several occasions, that somewhat undermines Sinn Fein's claim to speak in the name of 1798 and 1916.
  If internment took place once again, if a feeling grew in the Republic that people were being locked up without just cause, it would be argued that that was the case not because they were terrorists, but because they happened to take a nationalist point of view. I wonder whether the vote for Provisional Sinn Fein would increase in such circumstances. What would be the effect in other places abroad, such as America, where there is anti-British feeling —and I believe that I am right to describe it as such—over Northern Ireland? What would be the effect among people who are not willing to consider the facts or to recognise that terrorism is precisely terrorism? Would we not be playing into their hands? That would be a shortsighted move and would be counter-productive. It could only play directly into the hands of the terrorists.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the Secretary of State should not have his powers over internment. If such a circumstance were to arise, the Secretary of State should have to come to the House and argue his case accordingly. For those reasons, I strongly disagree with the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Before I respond to the points in the debate, may I state that I regard it as a privilege to be able to join in the proceedings. I read with great interest the reports of the debates that took place in Committee. As an observer I must state how much I respected the constructive approach taken throughout the discussions in Committee.

  367
  I hope that those hon. Members who served on the Committee feel that the Government have in a significant number of areas sought to respond to those discussions. We will shortly come to a number of Government amendments that have been tabled in direct response to points made in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will feel that that is a proper response.
  I have also had the opportunity to read the debate that took place in Committee about this new clause. An amendment was tabled in Committee on this subject, but was not voted upon. I understand why my hon. Friend the Minister for State and others believed that this matter should be brought to the Floor of the House for a fuller discussion. I welcome the fact that the House has had the opportunity to hear both sides of the argument and to consider the difficult issue of how to deal with terrorism and fight and combat it as effectively as we can under the rule of law. It is right that we should consider the place that this provision might or might not have in that context.
  Arguments have been raised about the merits of introducing detention. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was the only hon. Member to advocate the introduction of selective detention. He made it clear that he would prefer to see it introduced now, but if it was not to be introduced he said it was more honest and straightforward to abandon the power and seek a fresh authority if we decided to change the policy. I recognise that others did not argue the case for detention. Indeed there were strong criticisms of it. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made his concerns clear—as he did in Committee—about the damage that he believes is caused by the existence of the provision and the extra propaganda weapon that it gives to those who seek to attract support to their cause and who try to maintain alienation and not to work for reconciliation.
  8.15 pm
  As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, this is a question not whether we should have detention now, but whether the power should remain on the statute book to be exercised in a particular circumstance. All the points that I could have made have been eloquently made already in the debate. There is considerable force in the comments made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone about the different situation that presently exists. It is fair to point out that the previous introduction of internment was made under the Northern Ireland Government in 1971. We inherited it through the introduction of direct rule and it continued to operate under new arrangements. Clearly there were great problems and a new situation now exists. Intelligence is now very much better and in certain circumstances many among the security forces would argue that there is a possibility that the provision could be operated in a very different way.
  However, it would be difficult to defend the position from arguments that the misrepresentation and the propaganda weapon that the provision would provide and the apparent abandonment of the normal conventions of the rule of law would be valuable ammunition—I use that term in the metaphorical sense—to the terrorists to allow them to argue the case that they were not living in a just society, and that they were entitled to the support of others in their fight for fairness and justice. This is a difficult matter to make a judgment upon.
  368
  It is appropriate that I should reply to the new clause. It is the responsibility of the holder of my office to think very carefully before reaching a balanced decision about whether it would be right to surrender the emergency reserve provision. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev Martin Smyth) used that phrase. I have not heard it, as he said he has directly from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) or from the former Taoiseach. The hon. Gentleman said that no responsible Government could lose from its range of possible measures possible recourse to such a power. I am aware that the power exists in the Republic and I have heard similar comments elsewhere.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State explain why it does not apply on the mainland of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's question would lead me to a much wider discussion if I had to recount the distinctions and differences in that matter. The fact is that the position is different. In some ways, that is perhaps the understatement of the evening. There is obviously a difference in the level of problems that we face in Northern Ireland with regard to terrorism.
  Mr. Mallon: Is it fair to quote the opinions of two political leaders in Ireland that are not on record as far as I know? Is it fair for the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to quote an opinion which is not on record and for the Secretary of State to take up and use such an opinion? As I understood it, from the way in which the point was made in the House, those opinions may have been voiced as private opinions in private conversations.
  Mr. King: I am trying to respond to the debate and to the points that have been made. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I said that I had not heard the hon. Member for Foyle and the former Taoiseach use that phrase. But I understand the argument and have heard it elsewhere.
  The question is whether we can ignore the unforeseeable. I recognise Sir George Baker's forceful recommendation that the powers should be removed, but chapter 6 of the report, on the detention of terrorists, says this:
  "The question is whether to repeal these provisions. This appreciation was written before the Darkley chapel killings on 20 November 1983 and the Harrods' bomb explosion. I have reviewed my conclusions having regard to the universal condemnation and loathing since expressed. I have altered nothing."
  Sir George Baker reviewed his recommendation against those events to see whether it still stood. Interestingly, he accepted implicitly that, because of those events, he should go back to see whether it was necessary to reconsider his recommendation, which had not been published at the time of those events. He believed that the events did not justify his changing those views.
  The question that I put to the House is this. Could it become necessary to reconsider the position if there was a sudden deterioration in security or if a serious problem arose in the ability of the courts to deal with terrorist crimes that might necessitate emergency action for which the alternatives were all unpalatable or full of difficulties? I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee: there is no prospect of the powers being brought hack into force. But there is always the possibility of a sudden deterioration in the position. I should tell the

  369
  hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that it is not an untrammelled power or one that I could exercise without reference to the House. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that speed and surprise are important elements if the power is to be effective, but there is no question of my exercising it without reference to the House. For it to be effective, it would have to be confirmed by the House.
  Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has given that welcome assurance. Sir George Baker said in conclusion at paragraph 236:
  "If 'doomsday' arrives in whatever form it will be the duty of the then Government to bring any necessary legislation before Parliament immediately."
  He went on to say that, after the Birmingham bombing, that was precisely what the Government did. Given that the powers could be exercised rapidly, why does not the Secretary of State accept the Opposition's arguments?
  Mr. King: The power exists, but there is no proposal to reintroduce it. As Sir George Baker said, detention is phased out in fact but kept available in law. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that a problem could arise while the House was in recess. We must consider whether, in all the circumstances, we can be sure of being able to act promptly. We must then assess whether this reserve power, with all the problems that it created and all the background history, is none the less the least worse approach to an as now unforeseen problem which no Government could stand idly by and fail to tackle.
  Mr. Archer: The Secretary of State has puzzled some of us. A few moments ago, he assured us that he could not activate the power without reference to the House.
  Mr. King: I said that it would have to be confirmed by the House.
  Mr. Archer: I am still not wholly clear. Does the Secretary of State mean that he might activate the power without reference to the House and act under it before the House had an opportunity to consider it? That is the problem about which some of my hon. Friends were worried. But if he says that he needs the power in case the House is in recess, it negates the argument.
  Mr. King: I could act under an order, which could come into effect immediately, but it would be subject to affirmative resolution of the House.
  This must be a matter of judgment. I am also conscious that it is a matter of perception. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) mentioned the attitude of the security forces. I consulted them to discover the perception that would exist. If the power was removed, even though it is not used and is held in reserve, people might think that Parliament was not even prepared to treat it as an ultimate fallback. We have heard lucid accounts which represent fairly the feelings of many people, especially in the border areas, but in other parts of the Province too, as well as the challenges, dangers and tragedies to which they have been exposed. If we accepted the new clause, those people might perceive that the Government and Parliament were not prepared, in an emergency, to make available that weapon in the armoury of the state in this respect.
  370
  On balance, I reach the judgment that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said to the Committee, I cannot recommend the House to accept the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 168.

  Divison No. 141]

  [8.28 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Alton, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Barron, Kevin

  Leighton, Ronald

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Beith, A. J.

  Litherland, Robert

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McWilliam, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Madden, Max

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Marek, Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Clay, Robert

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Nellist, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Corbett, Robin

  Park, George

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pike, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dalyell, Tam

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Dixon, Donald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dormand, Jack

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Eastham, Ken

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flannery, Martin

  Strang, Gavin

  Foster, Derek

  Wainwright, R.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Wallace, James

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Wareing, Robert

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Welsh, Michael

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Winnick, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hume, John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Browne, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope,John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Benyon, William

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Blackburn, John

  Durant, Tony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Favell, Anthony

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brinton, Tim

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  371

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Powley, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Price, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Harris, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harvey, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Heddle, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hicks, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ryder, Richard

  Hirst, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Holt, Richard

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Latham, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Speller, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spencer, Derek

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Squire, Robin

  Lightbown, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lilley, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Madel, David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Major, John

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Malone, Gerald

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maples, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Marlow, Antony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Walden, George

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Ward, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Watson, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Watts, John

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wheeler, John

  Moate, Roger

  Whitfield, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Norris, Steven

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Onslow. Cranley

  Wood, Timothy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Woodcock, Michael

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Pawsey, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Francis Maude.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

  SEARCHES OF PERSONS
  `In section 15(3)(a) of the 1978 Act there shall be inserted after "person", the words "whom he reasonably suspects of having with him unlawfully, munitions in any public place, or having with him any transmitter"; after "he has any", the word "such"; and after "him or any", the word "such".'.—[Mr. Archer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  With this and the ensuing new clauses we come to the whole troubled area of the powers vested in the members
  372
  of the security forces to stop people and to search them. Of necessity, they are powers to stop people who may well transpire to be blameless, respectable citizens going about their lawful business, and who may well be in a hurry for legitimate reasons. The Opposition accept that in the conditions that exist in Northern Ireland some such powers are essential and that their existence imposes some restraint on the men of violence and may lead to their detention and arrest. However, those powers are fraught with possibilities of trouble. Even if everyone concerned is patient, courteous and sensitive, there is a potential confrontation which, by reason of its purpose, is impregnated with suspicion. There is suspicion of the person who is stopped and searched, because without that suspicion there would be little purpose in stopping and searching him. The person stopped is suspicious that the power is being exercised, not for its real purpose, but for that of arrest.
  It is all highly susceptible to misunderstanding, and that is true even if everyone is on his best behaviour. Given that we are talking about human beings who, like you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are sometimes irritable, who sometimes get out of the wrong side of the bed, and who sometimes carry with them a memory of some former bad experience, it is virtually inevitable that there will sometimes be irritation on both sides.
  It is not surprising if the powers are sometimes used to pay off old scores, to give vent to discriminatory prejudice, or to flaunt a position of advantage. Even when that is not the case, it is not surprising if sometimes the powers are perceived in that way. We heard examples in Committee of how such powers are sometimes abused, and sometimes seen to be abused. Therefore, it is vital that the relationship between the various powers in the Bill is clearly understood and kept in mind throughout the episode. Of course, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) reminded us, the person who has suffered inconvenience and delay, who may have been at the receiving end of insults, and who may have been made to remove his shoes and jacket, may not feel any great academic interest in the subsection that is applicable to that specific stage of the episode. It is vital that all members of the armed forces should not attempt to exercise powers that Parliament has not given to them.
  Sir George Baker gave us many examples of powers that have apparently been abused or, at best, used pointlessly. As we were reminded in an earlier debate today, the members of the security forces are fallible, but we impose heavy burdens on them and require them to expose themselves to great danger. They have to make instant judgments and sometimes, if they are wrong, the penalty can be high. If, to all that, one adds the fact that they, too, may be browned off, exasperated or irritable, we must seek a delicate balance between insisting on high standards and occasionally making allowances. I say that about this group of new clauses.
  New clause 10 is the first to raise such questions. It relates to the power in section 15(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 to stop a person in any public place and to search him for unlawful munitions or a transmitter, with a view to exercising the powers conferred by subsection (4). The only limit that is imposed is on the power to seize unlawful munitions or a transmitter. There is no limit on the power to stop and search someone for that purpose. The person need not

  373
  have behaved suspiciously. A person may be stopped for no reason at all. The purpose of the new clause is to limit the power to circumstances of reasonable suspicion.
  I understand the value of having a power to stop and search at random. If the only test to be applied were whether that was of advantage to the security forces, clearly that is an advantage. However, when against that there has to be set the aggravation to innocent people, the opportunity for harassment, the occasions for misunderstanding, and the loss of public confidence in and support for the security forces, a balance must be struck.
  I hope that I am being fair in saying that what I think emerged in Committee was that a distinction seems to be drawn between stopping and searching vehicles and stopping and searching people. I think that a consensus emerged that there can be no real complaint about the random search of vehicles under other powers, provided that it is conducted without discrimination and with sensitivity. However, with persons who are not in vehicles, or even when they are in vehicles, if nothing suspicious is found in the vehicle itself, I think the consensus was that the balance should be the other way. I shall not elaborate on the reasons at this hour, but say only that this new clause would give effect to that consensus, if I have got it right.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a rum clause. I have read section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 more times than I have found enjoyable and I find it more difficult every time I read it. Evidently my difficulties are shared by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) who drafted what is not the most elegant of the new clauses that have been placed before the House. However, it is a consolation to me that we are the first House to consider this Bill. Perhaps the words that are shed during this debate may bear fruit in another place among Lords who are learned in the law.
  I shall explain some of the curious features about this new clause in case something can be done about it later, because it is indeed awkward and rum. I begin with the observation made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West on section 15(3) of the 1978 Act which quaintly states:
  "Any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty or any constable may—(a) stop any person in any public place".
  That is absolutely unqualified. It gives unqualified power to any member of the forces on duty or any constable to stop anybody. However, the matter ends there. A member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable can stop a person, can go on stopping him or, presumably stop him again and start him again. He cannot do anything but stop him. There is no qualification of the stopping power, and that is curious—at any rate in the context of the rest of the section.
  The curious thing about this section is the mounting excitement with which one approaches subsection (4). In subsection (1) there is a power to enter any premises, other than a dwelling house, and to search it, but only
  "with a view to exercising the powers conferred by subsection (4) below."
  Therefore, we wait to find out the powers that are conferred by "subsection (4) below." Then we come to subsection (2) which states that any member of Her
  374
  Majesty's forces may enter, if authorised, any dwelling house in which certain things are suspected but, however strong his suspicion may do that only
  "with a view to exercising the said powers."
  Holding our breath, we continue. We already have powers to enter premises other than dwelling houses and to enter a dwelling house. Subsection (3) is prefaced by the words:
  "Any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty or any constable …"
  may not only stop that person—that is an unqualified power on which I have already descanted —but can search him, but only
  "with a view to exercising the said powers."
  The excitement is now at fewer pitch. The subsection continues by stating that the purpose of searching him is to ascertain
  "whether he has any munitions … or any transmitter with him."
  Then, under subsection (3)(b) that member of Her Majesty's forces or constable can do something else, with a view to exercising the said powers. Again, he can search a person
  "not in a public place"
  —in fact, he can search him in a private place, but he must do that
  "with a view to exercising the said powers."
  At last, having cleared subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 15 of the principal Act, we come to the answer to all our expectations, in subsection (4). What is the purpose of exercising the powers in subsection (4)? It is to seize any munitions found in the course of the search—unless it appears that they are being used for a lawful purpose—and, if necessary, to destroy them. Therefore, provided one intends conscientiously to seize and destroy munitions, one can do all the other things that are set out in the subsection.
  But who can do that? I return for the umpteenth time to a study of subsection (4) which states that it is a member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable who is authorised to search any premises or other place or any person under the Act. I am told that they get that authorisation either under subsection (2), which refers to subsection (4), or in subsection (4) itself. Therefore, a person is authorised to do these things in subsection (4) provided that he is doing them for the purposes of subsection (4). This is the rummest of all pieces of drafting.
  I am sure that the new clause has its value, even if it will not be accepted exactly as it stands, as I suspect it will not be, amidst such a cloud of difficulties. I hope that it will be taken by the Government as a signal that the parliamentary draftsman needs to take away this subsection from the principal Act, to make decent, logical, progressive sense of it, and not leave it in its present tumultuous position.
  Mr. Scott: The power that is conferred on the RUC and members of the armed forces to stop any person in a public place and search him is wholly exceptional. I shall not follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in his canter through the logical or illogical order in which the various powers are set out in section 15, but after the debate I shall study carefully what he has had to say. These powers are exceptional, which is why they are in the emergency provisions legislation with all the other exceptional provisions; why they are all kept under constant review; and why, if the Bill passes into law, they will have a maximum life of five years.

  375
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will simply recall that we amended section 15(4) in Committee to get rid of the particular difficulty about authorisation. That may meet one scintilla of his case. The House knows why these powers are necessary. Serious terrorist threats exist in Northern Ireland and the power to stop and search people is an important element of prevention and deterrence. It makes the terrorist aware that if he moves illicit material around, either on his person or in a vehicle, he is liable to be stopped and searched. If the new clause is accepted, it will weaken the ability of the security forces to deter and prevent such activity. It will remove what has been a serious constraint on the ability of terrorists to make preparations for terrorist attacks, whether by carrying firearms or explosives. That, in essence, is my case.
  I know that difficulties arise, and I would be the last person to claim that the power has never been used unreasonably. I am sure that occasionally it has been abused. But the House knows that my ministerial colleagues and I are always ready to investigate genuine grievances. The fact that the security forces have this power is a considerable reassurance to the majority of people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland who do not resent being stopped. Many of these stops are over in a matter of seconds—a minute or two at most — before those searched go on their way. I would equate it with the power to stop and search passengers before they board an aircraft flight. It is a measure of reassurance that others are being subjected to the same treatment and that everyone is in a greater state of safety as a result. It would not be right to remove that power from the security forces.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister seriously saying that there should be a power to stop, but not to search? That is the point that is raised by new clause 10. At present, on any ordinary construction of section 15(3), that is exactly the law. There is a power to stop without searching.
  Mr. Scott: It may well be that the sole purpose of stopping someone would be to establish his identity—to do what in common parlance in Northern Ireland is called a "P-check" — and let him go on his way without proceeding to search him. Under other powers, having searched and found something, the person may be arrested. There is a logical progression. Certainly there should be a power to stop people and establish their identity. This power has an important deterrent effect on the activities of terrorists, so I ask the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Had the Minister not sat down I would have referred him to section 18 of the 1978 Act, which states that a constable may stop and question any person for various purposes. Surely the Minister is not seriously saying that there should be a power per se to stop, unless the stopping is for the purpose of either questioning or searching.
  Mr. Scott: In practice, the powers under section 15 would be used to search and those under section 18 to stop and question. That is absolutely fair. I told the right hon. Gentleman that we would consider the drafting, if that was the point at issue. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was questioning generally whether there should be a power simply to stop.
  Question put and negatived.

New clause 12

  POWER TO STOP AND QUESTION
  `In section 18(2) of the 1978 Act the words "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or", and the words ", or both" shall be deleted.'.—[Mr. Archer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 29.
  Mr. Archer: I am sorry that the literary style of new clause 10 did not meet with the approval of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and I hope that he finds new clause 12 more pleasing.
  We continue to deal with the problems arising from the power to stop people and to do various other things to them, such as question or search them. Section 18 of the principal Act enables the forces to stop and question someone. Already we have found ourselves once again in difficulties about how these various powers fit together.
  In Committee we observed that the obligation on a member of the public to answer questions put to him by members of the forces was a serious inroad into the right of silence which is a much vaunted feature of our constitution. We did not seek to remove the obligation, but we observed that the penalty for refusing to answer, which runs to a maximum of six months' imprisonment, seemed to be draconian. The new clause seeks to remove that penalty, leaving the alternative penalty of a fine of up to £ 400.
  I note that in amendment No. 29 the Government have given us all that we asked for and more. I welcome the prospect of the Minister speaking to the amendment, so I shall not delay the House further.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be churlish of me not to respond to the almost pathetic appeal which was addressed to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I am afraid that my answer will disappoint him : I prefer Government amendment No. 29 to his new clause.
  9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has acknowledged, Government amendment No. 29 seeks to achieve the same effect as new clause 12. It makes two changes to section 18 of the 1978 Act, both of which arise from discussion in Committee. The first resolves the drafting point which was raised by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and makes it clear that the power to stop and question persons includes the power to ask what they know about any recent explosions and other recent incidents which have endangered life.
  The second part of the amendment abolishes the penalty of imprisonment for the offence of failing to stop or refusing to answer questions. In Committee the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) raised this matter, and on consideration the Government agree that the penalty of imprisonment is disproportionate to the offence.
  I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West moved his new clause, but, in

  377
  the event that he did and that he now withdraws it, I should be happy formally to move amendment No. 29 at the end of this brief debate.
  Mr. Archer: For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that it was not my intention to move the new clause.
  Dr. Mawhinney: In that case, I move Government amendment No. 29——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Chair must deem that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) moved his new clause. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to withdraw his new clause?
  Mr. Archer: Having got myself into a procedural difficulty, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will be called in due course formally to move Government amendment No. 29.

New Clause 13

  POWERS OF ARREST BY MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES
  `The following section shall be inserted after section 14(1) of the 1978 Act—
  "(1A) No cause of action shall lie against a member of Her Majesty's forces below the rank of sergeant by reason only of the arrests without warrant of any person in circumstances where the arrest was carried out on the orders of a member of Her Majesty's forces of superior rank. It is hereby declared that in such circumstances, the member of superior rank shall be held responsible as if he had himself made the arrest.".'.—[Mr. Archer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  In this debate we continue to grapple with the problems that arise from the various powers to stop and search, their proper construction, the conditions to which they are subject and their relationship to one another.
  In paragraph 384, when discussing section 18, Sir George Baker related some of the problems of construction which arise, and he commented :
  "Why should a soldier know what he can do if a lawyer does not?"
  He was appealing for the powers to be clarified. That appeal was echoed by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). Sir George Baker claimed that they should be clarified in the interests of those who must operate them.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) commented that the power should be in a form which enabled instructions to be given to soldiers simply and clearly. They have neither the training nor the time to engage in academic speculation about problems of construction.
  Reflecting on that, after the Committee stage, it struck the Opposition that a member of the armed forces of whatever rank, including a recently enlisted private, would be personally liable in civil proceedings for any restraint that he might place on a member of the public if it transpired that that restraint was not authorised by some statutory power. That would be the case even if he were acting on orders, if those orders were not authorised.
  378
  It may be said that that is a traditional way of dealing with such situations in the United Kingdom. Anyone who purports to act in pursuance of a power is personally answerable if that power does not exist. If we were dealing with a criminal offence, I would not seek to argue otherwise; but where we are concerned with actions for damages, the victim probably would not be troubled who paid the damages provided they were paid. It seems hard that a junior member of the forces, acting on orders, should be personally liable to an order for damages. It would impose a heavy obligation on a private to say that he should have recognised that the instructions that he received from a major were unlawful and that he should have refused to carry them out. I do not think that that would be realistic and I am not sure that it would be in the interests of good discipline if he were encouraged to speculate on such matters.
  Any superior officer who gives an order which he is not authorised to give would be responsible to the victim since he would have made his subordinate his agent for that purpose. For the avoidance of doubt, we have sought in the new clause to declare that that should be the effect. The victim will not lose his remedy and justice will be done. The unfortunate individual at the receiving end of the unlawful order will be protected. That is the purpose of the new clause.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I found the new clause a most fascinating one to study, partly because the rank of sergeant seems to be the only one between private and brigadier that I did not occupy during the late hostilities. It is inherently strange that one should stop at the rank of sergeant in this business of transferring upwards through the ranks whatever liability is caught by the new clause. The distinction between a private and a lance corporal is one of the biggest chasms in the class systems which it is possible to cross, ought at least to have been recognised, if only in passing, by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
  There is another difficulty. When the ball comes to rest with the sergeant, it is the member of superior rank who is to be held responsible. But what if it was a staff sergeant or a company sergeant major or a regimental sergeant major who gave the order? Will that be satisfactory? I noticed that a commissioned officer seemed to be in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind.
  I am not sure whether the clause, in its present form, whatever might be the excellence of its intentions, is either fair in itself or likely to achieve its object. I imagine that in that respect I am at one with the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Scott: If the main object here is to protect the position of any victim of an action to ensure that proper recompense can be made, I can set at rest the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) by saying that, if any civil action were taken, the Ministry of Defence would be vicariously liable, not officers of non-commissioned or commissioned rank. I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman and that there will be no need for him to pursue the new clause.
  Mr. Archer: I am not sure that I am wholly convinced but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

  EXERCISE OF ARREST POWERS
  `The following section shall be inserted after section 20(8) of the 1978 Act—
  "(8A) No detention or arrest without warrant of a person which is incidental to the exercise of a power contained in this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be authorised unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances, and does not exceed a period of four hours.".'.—[Mr. Archer]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I looked somewhat surprised because I was not expecting to have to move this new clause, but it seems that I am left holding whatever baby is enshrined in it. Not only can I speak briefly; I have to.
  In Committee, a discussion arose about what we might call incidental powers to detain people when, for example, in the course of the search of premises they sought to interfere wth the search, or it became necessary in some way to restrain them in order that the search could proceed, or when exercising any of the other powers in the principal Act it became necessary as an incident to the exercise of those powers to restrain someone.
  My recollection is that the Minister of State, helpfully setting out the position as he understood it, said that one does not need to spell out all those powers specifically because they are incidental to the exercise of the powers which are given and therefore they are implied. Someone —it may have been the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—asked whether that was a rather dangerous way to proceed and whether it would be better to spell out the powers so that we would know precisely what their limits were and the conditions to which they were subject.
  The purpose of this new clause is to meet that problem. It may not be all that specific, but it is intended to say that powers which are exercised as being incidental to other powers set out in the principal Act shall be exercised reasonably.
  Mr. Scott: There are two elements in the new clause. The first concerns the incidental powers, and the second concerns the time limits themselves. My concern on time limits is that the proposed new clause could turn out to be counter-productive in that the time limit which it spells out might easily become the norm. I am legally advised that the rest of the new clause is unnecessary because any incidental power to detain a person while he, his home or vehicle is searched, or while he is answering questions put to him under section 18, is already constrained by the requirement that it should be reasonable in all circumstances. Therefore, the new clause is unnecessary.
  Mr. Archer: Again, I am not sure whether I have wholly taken in the Minister's argument or whether I wholly concur with it. I believe that it is a matter to which we should all give much more careful consideration than seems possible at this stage. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Cause 1

  LIMITATION OF POWER TO GRANT BAIL IN CASE OF SCHEULED OFFENCES
  Mr. Scott: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after (1)', insert
  `Subject to subsection (6) below,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 4.
  Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 33, at end insert
  ',or

  (c) who was a serving member of any of Her Majesty's forces, or a serving member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and on duty, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.'.

  Government amendment No. 6.
  Mr. Scott: In Committee some concerns were expressed about the position of serving members of the security forces under section 2. In giving effect to Sir George Baker's recommendation that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve should be put on the same footing as serving members of Her Majesty's forces, the Government's intention — as I told the Committee—was that a magistrate should be able to bail serving members of the security forces into military or police custody as appropriate. The option of bail into military or police custody would be available only where the scheduled offence was alleged to have been committed in connection with the duties of the soldier or policeman.
  Some hon. Members — notably the right hon. and learned Member for Warley West (Mr. Archer), the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) -pointed out that the clause as drafted goes further than this: it would except, in its present form, serving members of the security forces altogether from the scope of section 2. This has, of course, been the position in regard to serving soldiers since the bail restrictions were first introduced in 1973, and I am not aware that this has caused any difficulties in practice. However, the Government accept that the clause needs tightening up. These amendments therefore provide that a magistrate may grant bail to a serving member of the security forces only if he is satisfied that the person concerned can be held in military or police custody, and the magistrate must impose a condition that he is to be held in such custody. If military custody were not available, or the policeman or soldier wanted to apply to be released from all custody on bail, he would be subject to the same restrictions concerning bail as any other person charged with a scheduled offence.
  Mr. John McWilliam: I welcome Government amendment No. 1 without reservation. However, the Minister will recall that in Committee we were concerned about the clear distinction between the treatment of a member of the security forces or a soldier who was on duty, and one who was not. I think that I prefer the wording in amendment No. 5 to the wording in Government amendment No. 6, but I shall not pursue that. I shall not move amendment No. 5, and I accept the other amendments.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At an earlier stage in our proceedings the Minister seemed somewhat aggrieved that

  381
  his efforts to meet points made in Committee were not receiving the recognition that they deserved. I hope that we shall now be able to glut the Minister with good things. I recognise that Government amendment No. 6 fully spells out, as it should be spelt out on the face of a statute, the intentions as they were explained by the Minister to the Committee on that occasion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'may, in his discretion,' and insert `shall'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 2A.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
  `(3) In exercising his discretion the judge shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including:

  (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence charged;

  (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant;

  (c) the nature of the evidence;

  (d) the time spent or likely to be spent in custody if bail is refused.'.

  Mr. Archer: In Committee we explored with some thoroughness clause 1 and debated it at some length again earlier this evening. It is the clause relating to bail. Widespread concern was expressed today, as it was in Committee, that people who had not been convicted of any offence might be detained in custody, awaiting trial, for what could be the equivalent of a substantial custodial sentence.
  I do not propose to detail all the matters that were explored in Committee and in the earlier debate, but two things in particular exercised some of us. In paragraph 81 Sir George Baker recommended that the judge, in considering whether to grant bail, should be declared to have a wide discretion and should be given guidelines about the matters that he may take into account. That was the purpose of our amendment No. 3. It is reflected, and perhaps more brilliantly reflected, in Government amendment No. 2A. We are grateful to the Government for responding to what we said and I do not seek to take that matter any further.
  9.15 pm
  The other matter that concerned us was the imbalance between the granting and the refusing of bail. Clause 1 provides that if certain matters are established the court must refuse bail, but that if they are not established it may grant bail. That seemed strange to us, because we had assumed that matters that the Government regarded as obstacles to bail would be listed in the clause. If none of them is established, it is not easy to understand why bail should not be granted.
  If it is said that the judge should have a residual discretion, it is not clear why he should not have a discretion both ways. We were prepared to consider resolving the asymmetry by providing that in either event the judge should have a discretion. However, we discovered that there was a procedural problem about the amendment, because it would make nonsense of the clause. It would have said that the clause provided that the judge should have a discretion whether or not any of the listed objections were established. We moved the
  382
  amendment to remove the discretion in either case so that the House could have an opportunity to discuss the matter.
  Having explained that, I would respond sympathetically if the Government were to say that they will redraft the Bill to resolve the asymmetry by providing that there should be a discretion both ways, rather than only one way. I do not propose to repeat all the arguments that were ventilated in Committee. I think that I have explained the purpose of the amendment.
  Mr. Scott: On reflection, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) feels that Government amendment No 2A fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee and is an important step forward. What we have sought to do is to introduce into the clause a list of the considerations to which the judge, in exercising his discretion about bail, can direct his attention. I shall come to the point of the Opposition amendment in a moment.
  I should make it clear that this list is not intended to be exhaustive, but I got the feeling in Committee that hon. Members would welcome matters being spelt out at somewhat greater length. Of course, the judge can take into account other factors that are not included in the Government amendment, so we are not limiting or indeed extending the judge's existing total discretion in these matters. Having reflected on this matter, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to make the grant of bail mandatory if none of the conditions in the new section 2(2) applies. The point here is that we feel that our emergency legislation should interfere as little as possible with the operations of the ordinary law in Northern Ireland.
  I am afraid that there is a pressing security-related need for special restrictions to apply to the grant of bail in scheduled cases in Northern Ireland. Where those restrictions do not apply, the ordinary law of bail, which in Northern Ireland is common law, should continue to operate. It is that common law that gives the judge unfettered discretion. If he had to grant bail where none of the stated conditions applied it would, in theory, be because the judge has been forced to grant bail to a person accused of a scheduled offence in circumstances where a magistrate might well have decided to refuse bail to someone accused of a non-scheduled offence.
  Therefore, the Government's view is that it is right not to use the emergency law to interfere with the operation of the ordinary law on the granting of bail in Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will agree that the incorporation of considerations on the lines proposed in the amendment is an honest attempt to meet the concern that was expressed on this point in Committee.
  Mr. Archer: That is what the Minister said in Committee. I do not find it any more persuasive now than I did when he said it in Committee, but I am conscious of the fact that the Government obviously addressed their mind to our arguments on this whole matter. They have responded admirably to one of our arguments and it would be churlish of me to proceed with the other one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 2A, in page 2, line 13, at end insert —

  383
  '(2a) In exercising his descretion in accordance with subsection (2) above in relation to a person, a judge shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to him to be relevant, namely—

  (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence with which the person is charged.

  (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the person,

  (c) the time which the person has already spent in custody and the time which he is likely to spend in custody if he is not admitted to bail, and

  (d) the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence,

  as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.
  No. 4, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'fourteen' to end of line 27.
  No. 6, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  '(6) Subsection (1) above shall not preclude a resident magistrate from admitting to bail a person to whom this section applies if—

  (a) the person is a serving member of any of Her Majesty's forces or a serving member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and

  (b) the resident magistrate is satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for the person to be held in military or (as the case may be) police custody, and imposes a condition on admitting him to bail that he is to be held in such custody.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

  Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 6, at end insert—
  '(3) Where in any such proceedings the prosecution proposes to give, or (as the case may be) has given, in evidence a statement made by the accused, and it appears to the court that, having regard to the circumstances in which the statement was obtained, its admission in evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it, then the court shall do one of the things mentioned in subsection (2)(i) to (iii) above.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—
  '(12) Where a court finds that the powers conferred by subsections (7) and (10) above have been exercised unreasonably, any statement by the accused obtained in the absence of a solicitor shall be deemed inadmissible in evidence.'.
  Mr. Archer: I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) whether he would speak to these amendments. He kindly said that he would, but we then discovered a procedural difficulty because the amendments were not tabled in his name. May I deal with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by moving the amendments formally and leaving my hon. Friend to ventilate the arguments about them?
  Mr. Winnick: No one underestimates the difficulties that one faces when dealing with matters of justice in Northern Ireland. Much of what we have debated this evening arises from the situation in the Province. Undoubtedly the terrorist campaign is a factor that affects those who are charged with various offences. However, that makes it all the more important that justice is seen to he done in Northern Ireland. Surely it is only in the interests of the terrorists, from whichever side of the sectarian divide they may come, to be able effectively to question the way in which the courts and justice in general operate there. If the terrorists discern doubts in the minds of those who are not in their ranks, that is clearly a victory for them.
  384
  The purpose of the amendments is to eliminate the possibility of unfair convictions as a result of improperly obtained confessions. Our argument is based to a large extent on section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In Committee, the Solicitor-General referred to the circumstances of Northern Ireland when dealing with this aspect of the 1984 Act. He said:
  "it should be open to a court to admit a confession statement notwithstanding that there is a taint, a hint, the merest vestige of unfairness to the accused or a hint, a taint, the merest vestige of a fact that it would be otherwise adverse to the interests of justice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 January 1987; c. 93.]
  We can hardly be happy with that interpretation of such an important matter. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said in Committee, the Solicitor-General was making a startling proposition. I am not a lawyer, but I certainly believe in the rule of law. The view that was expressed by the Solicitor-General did not strike much confidence in me. I do not know what it would lead to for people in Northern Ireland. What the Solicitor-General's remarks come down to is this: "Well, it does not really matter at the end of the day, in view of the circumstances in the Province, if there is a wee bit of unfairness towards the accused, or of it is adverse to the interests of justice in some other way. Let it pass." We strongly disagree with that point of view.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred on numerous occasions to the importance of the rule of law. Even faced with a sustained terrorist campaign, the rule of law should apply in Northern Ireland. That is why we believe that the amendments are necessary.
  I return to the main point of the amendment—that "having regard to the circumstances in which the statement was obtained its admission in evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings"
  that we believe that the court should not admit it. If it is clear that the accused's statement was obtained by means that would not be allowed in court on the mainland. it should not be allowed by a court in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 24, which calls for the presence of a solicitor when a prisoner is questioned by the police, is self-explanatory.
  These amendments are necessary. Terrorists should not be able to argue that they cannot rely on the courts and justice in the Province. It should not be thought in the Irish Republic or in any other country that circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that we have abandoned the rule of law. If certain provisions as laid down in the 1984 Act should apply in the United Kingdom, they should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Solicitor- General placed great emphasis on the word "may". It is up to the courts to decide. We know how courts, in the main, decide in Britain. The position should be the same in Northern Ireland.
  For those reasons, I believe that the amendments should be supported.
  Mr. Scott: I find it difficult to disagree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which makes it all the sadder that I have to advise the House to reject both amendments.
  Amendment No. 9 would remove from judges in Northern Ireland the discretion which Sir George Baker found that they were in practice exercising fairly to exclude confession evidence in the interests of fairness. It would make the exclusion or disregarding of evidence or the

  385
  ordering of a new trial mandatory, not discretionary, where the courts find that it would be unfair to admit it. This is not a matter in which a mandatory provision such as this would be appropriate, because it must be for the courts, in considering the whole position, to decide whether the circumstances are such that they should take one of the specified courses. I do not think that the amendment would help the courts in deciding when the circumstances were such that they should require exclusion.
  Broadly, the Government are satisfied that Sir George Baker was correct in concluding that the exercise of this discretion by the judge operates well. We do not seek to change the practice of the courts. It is therefore right that new section 8(3) should be declaratory, as Sir George Baker recommended. We agree with him that the courts have interpreted section 8 fairly and sensibly in a way that fully protects the rights of defendants in Northern Ireland. Clause 4, as drafted, seeks to put that practice on a statutory basis. The amendments would go further than that and, in doing so, disturb the careful balance that has to be struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of society as a whole to expect authorities to deal effectively with terrorism by bringing terrorists to justice before the courts.
  Amendment No. 24 would require a court to exclude a statement made by a person in police custody if the police had unreasonably exercised their power under clause 13(7)—the power to delay access to a solicitor or to direct that consultation take place in the presence of a police officer. It is better that this matter should not be left to the discretion of the judge. He has the discretion, to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred, to exclude any statement to avoid unfairness to the accused or otherwise in the interests of justice. Anyone who has studied the practice of the courts in Northern Ireland in recent years could not conclude other than that they have operated this fairly and in the interests of the accused.
  I must therefore ask the House not to change the present arrangements and to reject the two amendments.
  Mr. Archer: Trying to be objective, I am bound to say that, by any test of logic, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) had the better of that exchange. This is not a matter on which we feel so strongly that it would be right to divide the House at this hour. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

  EXTENSION OF CATEGORIES OF PERSONS ABOUT WHOM IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COLLECT INFORMATION
  9.30 pm
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 6, leave out from beginning to first 'any' in line 11 and insert
  (b) after paragraph (d) there shall be added "; and (e)'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 11, in page 5, line 6, leave out `paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph:.
  No. 12, in page 5, leave out line 7.
  No. 13, in page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 10.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I note that the Government amendment is paralleled by the amendment tabled by the official Opposition and the Official Unionists.
  When clause 8 was discussed in Committee, the two members of the Committee most closely concerned were the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Both selflessly and passionately rejected the proposal that section 22(2) of the 1978 Act should be extended so that elected representatives in Northern Ireland were afforded a protection not shared by their constituents. In the light of their reaction, the Government have reconsidered the clause and decided that the only extension should be to include former members of the categories already listed in section 22(2), namely, the security forces, the prison service, the judiciary and officers of the court.
  Mr. Archer: I rise only to say that I endorse all that the Minister has just said. In the circumstances I do not propose to move our amendment.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is one of the many matters in which a degree of unanimity, which perhaps surprised members of the Committee, was achieved as a result of our discussions. It remains for me to add only that, having further consulted my colleagues, I found them fully in agreement with the line that I took in Committee. We therefore welcome the Government amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

  OFFENCES RELATING TO BEHAVIOUR AND DRESS IN PUBLIC PLACES
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No.14, in page 5, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
  "Display of support in public for a proscribed organisation.
  `9 — (1) The following section shall be substitued for section 25 of the 1978 Act—
  25. Any person who in a public place—

  (a) wears any item of dress; or

  (b) wears, carries or displays any article,

  in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, shall be liable—

  (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six moths or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

  (ii) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine, or both.".'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 15.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Amendment No. 14 redefines the offence under section 25 of the 1978 Act so that it is now identical to the equivalent offence in Great Britain under section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) questioned how the original form of the provision, which refers to a person behaving in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a supporter of a proscribed organisation, might be interpreted. The amendment narrows the offence to

  387
  certain types of behaviour — wearing, carrying or displaying any article that is likely to arouse such apprehension -and so removes some areas of doubt.
  Amendment No. 15 is purely consequential.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 5, line 16, leave out 'that section and in'.

Clause 11

  EXPIRY AND EVENTUAL REPEAL OF 1978 ACT
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 5, at end insert—
  '(10) The repeal of the 1978 Act shall not affect the application of any provision of sections 28 and 28A of that Act in relation to any right to compensation under section 28 which arises before the date when the repeal takes effect.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 26.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The amendment safeguards the position of any person who suffers damage or loss through an action taken under the Act before its repeal. If a person has a claim outstanding when the repeal takes effect, that claim will continue to be dealt with as if the Act was still in force. Similarly, if a person has suffered loss or damage and has not yet made a claim, he may make his application after the repeal, provided that he does so within the time limit provided in section 28.
  Amendment No. 26 simply provides that new subsection (10) shall not itself be repealed when the 1978 Act is repealed.
  These are straightforward amendments, and I trust that they will command the support of the House.
  Ms. Clare Short: I echo the words of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). In Committee, it was surprising how much we agreed on, despite the varying views that were taken. I think that there is a case for discussing some of the legislation in detail. The convergence of views is encouraging for the democratic process. This is not a controversial Government amendment. It protects those who need to be compensated for the damage that they have suffered as a consequence of the unhappy politics in Northern Ireland. The Opposition, therefore, accept the Government amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

  RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED OF DETENTION UNDER TERRORISM PROVISIONS
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 13, at end insert—
  '(1A) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection (1) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom that subsection applies.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 22.
  Dr. Mawhinney: In Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) moved an amendment requiring that a person on whom statutory rights are conferred—clauses 12 and 13 — should be informed of these rights. I should emphasise, as did my
  388
  hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, that in practice when a person is arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 or for any scheduled offence the RUC is careful to ensure that he is aware of his rights, and it provides him with a card setting out those rights. However, the Government accept that it would be appropriate to set out on the face of the Bill the requirement to inform a detained person of his rights, and these amendments to clauses 12 and 13 achieve that aim. I commend them to the House.
  Mr. McWilliam: I thank the Minister for putting into legislation the undertaking that was given in Committee. It was a serious debate. We felt very strongly about this matter, and the new wording fully brings the Bill into line with what we discussed in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 22, leave out from 'period' to end of line 24 and insert—
  'referred to in subsection (4A)'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 and 23.
  Dr. Mawhinney: These amendments are intended to meet the criticism that was made in Committee by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that the wording of clauses 12 and 13 concerning the maximum period for which the exercise of the rights conferred by those clauses may be delayed was ambiguous, or at least unclear. The amendments do not change the substance of the provision for delay, but they show more clearly the extent of the permitted delay. Where the detained person was being examined before his detention in accordance with an order under section 13 of the 1984 Act—for example, by an examining officer at a seaport or airport— the period of 48 hours runs from the start of the examination. In all other cases, the period of 48 hours runs from the time that the person was detained.
  I trust that the House will welcome these amendments in the interest of clarification.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am in duty bound to express satisfaction with the amendment. It does not often fall to us to get the better of a parliamentary draftsman. On the rare occasions when we do, the draftsmen are always very generous and ready to come to our aid with an even better proposal than that which we had put forward. This, for me, will remain one of those occasions.
  Mr. McWilliam: I echo what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee. The debates about draftsmanship were at least as interesting as the debates about the substance of the Bill. I welcome the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No 21, in page 9, line 24, at end insert—
  `(4A) That period is

  (a) (except where paragraph (b) applies) the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when the detained person was first detained under the terrorism provisions;

  (b) where the detained person was, prior to the lime when he was first so detained being examined in accordance with any order under section 13 of the

  389
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when he was first so examined.'.

Clause 13

  RIGHT OF ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 10, line 16, at end insert—
  '(1A) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection (1) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom that subsection applies.'.
  No 23, in page 10, line 30, leave out from 'period' to
  '; or' in line 32 and insert
  `referred to in section 12(4A)'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 24
  COMMENCEMENT, EXPIRY, REVIVAL AND EVENTUAL REPEAL OF ACT
  Amendment made: No. 26, in page 17, line 5, leave out `(9)' and insert `(10)'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]
Schedule 1

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 18, line 31, at end insert—
  `(a) he may detain all or any of the persons found on those premises for the duration of the search.'.
  During the debate in Committee, hon. Members on both sides were startled to discover that the power to search premises was thought by implication to include a power to detain persons, other than the particular person who was the object of the search, who might be present on those premises at the time. There was a general feeling that if that power was implicit, it ought to be made explicit in the terms of the statute, and in particular that the length of any such detention should be limited. That anxiety had been expressed by Sir George Baker in his report.
  In Committee, we considered whether it was practicable to provide a four-hour period of detention in those circumstances, but upon consideration it seems more reasonable that the power to detain, without which some searches would be physically impracticable or liable to frustration, ought to be limited to the duration of the search itself. I hope that that will be found acceptable to the Government.
  It may be that the interpretation is correct, that a power to search implies the power to direct any person not to leave the premises or to move from one part of the premises to another, but, in the light of the tense circumstances in which those powers are exercised, I hope that the Government will agree that it would be far better, as a minor amendment, if those powers were set out precisely on the face of the statute.
  Mr. Scott: In view of all the pleasant things that have been said during the course of this stage of the consideration of the Bill about the confluence of views and so on, it would be nice if, on this last amendment, it was possible for me to accept the reasonable point that has been put by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). However, I am afraid that I have to act the hard
  390
  man for once, and reiterate what I said in Committee when a similar amendment backed by the right hon. Gentleman was under consideration.
  It is quite clear in law that the statutory power to enter and search premises does implicitly carry with it the power to do anything that is reasonably necessary to achieve the object of the search. There are other statutes that confer such powers — for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Criminal Law Act 1967, and drugs legislation—but nowhere do they spell out the ancillary steps that may be taken in order to make a search effective. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable case, it would be odd to single out searches under this particular piece of legislation in the way proposed by the amendment when it is not reflected in other legislation that provides the power to search. Therefore, I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There may be a disadvantage in varying in this instance from the conferment of powers to search in other statutory contexts. Therefore, although I think that there is some danger attendant upon the exercise of a power to search without specific power to do those various things in the course of a search, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 18, line 40, at end insert—
  ' In section 18 (power to stop and question)

  (a) in subsection (1)(b), after "other" insert "recent"; and

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words from "imprisonment" onwards substitute "a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".'.

  No. 31, in page 18, line 41, at end insert—
  ' In section 32 (orders and regulations)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after "orders conferred by" insert "section 9A above and";

  (b) in subsection (3), for the words from the beginning to "Schedules)" substitute "Subject to subsection (5) below, no order or regulations under this Act";

  (c) in subsection (4), for the words from the beginning to "approved) shall" substitute "Subject to subsection (5) below, orders and regulations under this Act shall, if not so approved in draft,"; and—

  (d) after that subsection add—

  "(5) Subsections (3) and (4) above do not apply to—

  (a) any order under section 19A above or under Schedule 1 or 3 to this Act; or

  (b) any regulations under section 5A above; but a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Dr. Mawhinney]

  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  There are two points that I should like to put on record at this stage of the Bill that I hope will show the willingness of the Government to respond to some of the views put forward in Committee.
  Those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall the general concern that was expressed during the course of our discussions to ensure that Parliament was able to scrutinise effectively the emergency provisions legislation on the occasion of the

  391
  annual renewal debates. I gave certain assurances about the provision of extra information—for example, that the Government would provide what statistical information was available. However, I believe that it would be for the assistance of the House, and, indeed, the other place, if, each year, a more objective assessment of the way in which the legislation had been operating could be prepared. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is therefore considering whether it might be right to ask an independent person of standing to conduct a review and prepare a report for Parliament. I hope that that will facilitate the Houe in coming to a view about the way in which the Act is working.
  The House will recall that we will renew the Act on an annual basis and that it has an overall life of five years. In Committee I was anxious to ensure that that annual review was as meaningful and penetrating as possible. I hope that if my right hon. Friend decides that eventually that is the right course to take, that approach will commend itself to the House. I shall be glad to take account of anything that is said in response to that during this Third Reading debate.
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend and I acknowledge the desirability of providing a clear statement of the powers available to the security forces under the emergency legislation and giving a clear indication of the ways in which those powers should be exercised. As I said in Committee, it is the Government's intention to introduce for Northern Ireland, by Order in Council, provisions equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including provisions requiring the introduction of codes of practice equivalent to those drawn up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those codes would be of general application.
  However, it is clear that codes directly equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes would not bite on the exercise of emergency powers. Code A, for example, deals with powers of search that are exercised on the basis of "reasonable grounds for suspicion", whereas some of those in the emergency provisons Act are exercised in order to "ascertain whether" munitions and so on are present. There are similar limitations on the other codes.
  We believe that what is required is a separate code of practice governing the exercise of powers under the emergency legislation. The Government, therefore, intend to introduce a code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers in Northern Ireland. The code will not be a statutory code. We believe that such a code will be in the best interests of the security forces by contributing to greater understanding and confidence between them and the general public. It will also be in the interests of the general public to have a clear statement of the security forces' powers and of the way in which those powers should be operated.
  I should like to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. I compliment all those who played any part in the earlier stages of the Bill on the constructive way in which they approached it. We improved the legislation substantially on its way through Committee. I hope that the Government have been seen to respond positively and constructively both in Committee and today on the Floor of the House.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Archer: This is not the time to embark on a further debate, and I do not propose to do so. However, I endorse
  392
  what the Minister said in his final remarks. On Second Reading I called the Bill a mixed bag because I could not think of a more elegant expression on the spur of the moment. I said that we would place no impediment in the Government's path when they introduced progressive measures. The Bill represents an improvement in a number of respects on the previous law, and I hope that we shall continue to encourage the Government in well doing.
  We have debated the less attractive parts of the Bill. That was possible because the Government introduced the provisions by way of a Bill, not by unamendable orders. I imagine that that was because the Government had to do it in that way, and not because they had acquired a sudden aversion to unamendable orders, although I might wish that it were otherwise.
  We have had profitable debates. We have not reached unanimity, but we have directed our minds to one another's arguments and I believe that the Bill is better in consequence. Even at this late stage, the Minister has given us two items of good news. I shall not attempt to react to them now. In any event, it may be better to reflect on them before we say any more, but good news they certainly are. I, too, pay tribute to all those who have contributed to our debates. We have had enjoyable and useful debates and I hope that we shall have such debates more often.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Molyneaux: During the day we on this Bench have been asked why we are participating in the debate. The answer will be obvious to some, but not to all. It w ill not be obvious to all, because those who were elected to this House in 1983 from all parts of the United Kingdom have probably never seen Northern Ireland legislation being treated in the normal way by a Bill and not by an Order in Council. This has been a lesson for all of us who have been present in the Chamber since the debate began in mid-afternoon and for those in the Palace of Westminster who occasionally looked in upon our deliberations. We are grateful for that passing interest.
  The House has been inquiring how these complex issues could have been dealt with by an Order in Council. You, Mr. Speaker, know very well what would have happened had this been an Order in Council instead of a Second Reading, a Committee stage upstairs and now Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House. We would have had a debate of 90 minutes, two fairly lengthy opening speeches, a limited number of contributions, a curious eagerness on the part of the Minister replying to encourage as many contributions as possible, and then, not surprisingly, find that he had insufficient time to deal with the many points that had been raised. He would then offer the consolation that he would write to every hon. Member who had raised points in the course of the debate.
  In his earlier contributions to the debate, the Secretary of State expressed appreciation of the privilege that had been his of reading the Hansard reports of the Committee stage and of being here — like myself — at a comparatively late stage in the proceedings having followed those earlier discussions in Committee. The Secretary of State said that the House had benefited from the debate being taken on the Floor of the House this afternoon and this evening. He is in the very happy position of being able to perpetuate that sense of privilege and pleasure by simply deciding that from henceforth all major Northern Ireland legislation will be treated by Bills in the normal way and not by Order in Council.

  393
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) reminded us that the Bill is merely one part of the necessary legislative armoury, given that the emergency may continue for some considerable time. Even that armoury in total will make no significant impact upon the continuing terrorist campaign. It is continuing, because there has been no reduction in violence since the year in which the present Parliament was elected and since the present Government were reinstalled in office in 1983.
  Far from a reduction, the violence has increased, despite the fact that in a press release on 15 November 1985 — a year and a half ago — the Prime Minister explained and justified her reasons for signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the following terms :
  "I entered into this agreement because I was not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence."
  After a year and a half of experimentation and unfounded optimism, the Prime Minister is still tolerating that continuing violence. We would not unreasonably ask from this Bench, "How long is she prepared to tolerate it?"
  While the Committee has laboured diligently, and the debate in the House has to some extent supplemented the Committee's work, and while I join in the tributes paid to those who served on the Committee, it is my clear duty to warn the House that if and when the Bill receives the Royal Assent the effect on murder and destruction will be very marginal indeed.
  I shall not transgress by dealing with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The less said about cases of terminal illness, the better. Because we are considering a measure that deals with security, or the lack of it — a measure that will become part of a larger apparatus — we should not deceive ourselves or the country by subscribing to the mere superstition that any promises of co-operation from any Dublin Government who depend upon the life support system of one or two mavericks in the Dail will ever make a significant contribution to eradicating terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  Recently, the Prime Minister took issue with me when I said that at least 18 people had been murdered in the first three months of this year. She said that some victims of the strife were members of the so-called Irish National Liberation Army, to which I must reply, "So what?" She ignored the fact that those murdering one another had crossed and recrossed the frontier to commit those crimes. Although I do not wish to disillusion and dishearten those who served on the Committee or who contributed to the debate today by suggesting that their work has been in vain, I should say that unless Her Majesty's Government bring themselves to recognise that they must recast their entire political, economic and security strategy, it will have been in vain.
  The Secretary of State quoted Sir George Baker's conclusion at page 71 of the report, which stated :
  "If 'doomsday' arrives in whatever form it will be the duty of the then Government to bring any necessary legislation before Parliament immediately."
  There is a real fear in many minds that the Province is careering towards "doomsday". In words slightly different from those used by Sir George Baker, I say with the support of my colleagues on this Bench that it is the duty of the Government to free themselves at long last from the shackles imposed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, as
  394
  Her Majesty's Government, to take single-handedly such action as may be necessary to arrest the drift that has gone on for far too long.
  9.57 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has borne many burdens in a tortured Province with courage, humility and patience. I heartily agreed when he said that he was glad that the legislation was in the form of a Bill. Many Conservative and Unionist Members agree that, as far as possible, Northern Ireland legislation should be conducted like other legislation and that Northern Ireland should be treated as though it was truly part of the United Kingdom. But I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I shall not comment on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My views on it are known to the House.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) rightly commented on the amenity of our debates on the Bill. His attitude and speeches contributed greatly to that amenity. What has also been agreeable is the way in which nationalist and Ulster Unionist Members have taken part in our debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House and have been in full agreement on some amendments and new clauses. This one Parliament of the United Kingdom is where dialogue can take place between nationalist and Unionist as it has not always taken place in assemblies constructed artificially across the water. There has been unity——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[ Mr. Neubert.]

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Although there have been differences, there has been unity in the House and in Committee on the desire that as soon as possible emergency powers should be dispensed with. In all quarters of the Standing Committee and in the House there have been diligent searches to find ways in which the powers can be lessened or softened without prejudice to that supreme interest—the safety of the subject.
  I support the Third Reading and congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Bill.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Alton: I shall not disappoint the Government and Opposition Whips who wish to commence the debate on the next business as close to 10 o'clock as possible.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) about the unanimity in the Chamber today. Although I could not be a member of the Standing Committee, it is clear from the debate that an attitude of partnership prevailed there and that the Government conceded some of the suggestions. I am grateful to them for that.
  Today's debate has demonstrated that when hon. Members come to this Chamber it is possible for them to

  395
  argue their case and to ensure that the legitimate views of the Unionist majority can be put forward in a place where they will be listened to. If there is to be any hope in Northern Ireland, it is vital that debate should take place in the Chamber and not on the streets of Belfast. Therefore, it was conforting to hear the remarks of several Unionist Members but especially those of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who always speaks with enormous sincerity and considerable force about the problems facing the Province.
  If there is to be dialogue in the Chamber and partnership amongst parties in trying to ensure that there is victory over the IRA and other terrorist groups, there must be cross-border co-operation. That is why I believe the Government's strategy of endeavouring to achieve agreement across the border through cross-border co-operation on security is right. The tragedy of the last 18 months, to which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred, is a tragedy not just of the last 18 months but of the last 18 years almost during which 2,500 people have died, of whom 200 were from the security forces, and 24,000 have been injured. That is why there is such a desperate need for co-operation on both sides of the border to achieve the objectives enunciated during today's debate.
  I am glad to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Bill. We wish it were not necessary to have emergency powers legislation. We wish it were possible to have fewer Orders in Council and more opportunities like this to debate the issues across the Floor of the House, but we recognise the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we will not oppose the Government tonight.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The people of Northern Ireland have been told by the Government that this Bill will
  "make possible the effective pursuit of terrorism".
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State told the House that it was the Government's
  "determination to pursue the campaign to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from the … Province". — [Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1084.]
  How often have the Government said that from the Dispatch Box during the past 18 years? More times than I care to remember. Ironically, it is most emphatically declared immediately after some fresh horrendous terrorist atrocity in Northern Ireland. When such declarations are made by Government spokesmen, they are usually made in ringing tones to emphasise the Government's determination and resolution.
  However, the truth is that it is the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army who have to face the relentless campaign of violence and death at the hands of the evil men who, for too long, have paraded and damned the face of Ulster. That truth is known throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. Of course, it does not stop there. Every decent law-abiding citizen lives under the shadow of death from the bomb and the bullet of the Provisional IRA gunmen. In that, I include any other terrorist, no matter what his political aspirations or religious affiliations.
  I do not believe that this Bill will protect individuals in Northern Ireland from the terrorists. Having listened to the speeches today, I have come to the conclusion that the
  396
  Bill is a nice exercise in British statesmanship, showing how moderate the Englishare. I doubt whether the French, the Germans, the Japanese or any other people who are subjected to terrorism would have given way to some of the expressions that I have heard in the House today.
  However, at least this debate gives me the opportunity to pay another tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. to those gallant men who live in Northern Ireland and whose wives and children are in Northern Ireland and are all too easily a target for the IRA. I pay tribute to them and to the regular members of the Army and the UDR.
  It is ironic that the Irish Republic, which the Government tell us is more committed than ever before to fighting IRA terrorists in conjunction with the United Kingdom, delivers the most thunderous protests to London whenever a British soldier wanders a few yards across the border on to Republican soil. The Irish Republic is jealous of its territory. I wish that the United Kingdom was jealous about the territory of Northern Ireland and made sure that the Irish Republic abandoned its claim to be part of the United Kingdom.
  However, what sickens me more, and what sickens many people — it is in this light that the present legislation will be viewed—is the abject apologies which follow from the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign Office the moment that Dublin protests. Our counterparts in Europe would have a pretty robust answer to anyone who criticised a soldier for, for example, putting a listening device a few yards in to the Republic to protect himself and his colleagues, his brother soldiers, from the IRA.
  I have only a few more minutes and wish to make only one more comment. I should like permission to make that comment and, if I am out of order, I know that you, Mr. Speaker will call me to order. Every time during the past decade that Unionists have urged Her Majesty's Government to take steps to restore a degree of democratic control to the elected representatives of the Ulster people, the answer has always been the same: no devolution of power can be made without the support of both sections of the Ulster Community. We accepted that over a period. It was the solemn pledge given by the Government. However, that solemn pledge was shamelessly abandoned when, behind the backs of the Ulster people, and without consultation with the representatives of the Unionist majority, the Government entered into the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  I am convinced that there can be no political progress in Northern Ireland until the accord is replaced by an agreement worked out by the elected representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That is where the Government have created a bar to progress, because the creation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement stops that. Until we make progress—I hope it comes sooner rather than later — we shall listen to pious words from successive Secretaries of State about the Government's determination to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. Sadly, the death toll will continue to climb.
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Maginnis: Just as on Report I said that I had mixed feelings about the detention provision, so I have mixed feelings about the Bill as a whole. I come, as on Second Reading, without any abatement of the feeling of alienation that I suffered in this House on 15 November 1985. The people who have died in Northern Ireland to

  397
  maintain their British citizenship have been betrayed and there has been no sign from hon. Members that that is understood.
  The Bill is just so many words, and it will do absolutely nothing to solve the problems that we face in Northern Ireland. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State tell the House that he was retaining in the Bill the element that deals with internment or detention because an emergency may arise or a Doomsday may come when no Government "could stand idly by". Those were his exact words. The Government have stood idly by for the past 17 years and allowed terrorism to march unhindered through the Province. I know that it is hurtful to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to hear these facts yet again, and I shall not dwell on them, but 154 of the 181 murders in my constituency have not been resolved. In the words of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, following incidents of violence, the people of Northern Ireland take hope or fall into the pit of despair.
  On 30 March, sadly, a Regular soldier, Iain O'Connor, was killed in Belfast, and the Northern Ireland Office provided the BBC with a statement, as it always does. In that information it stated that this was the first death of a Regular soldier for eight months, so there had been a reduction in violence in Northern Ireland. I doubt whether the Ministers even remember that on 9 July 1986 the last two regular soldiers to be killed were members of the Royal Anglians, Karl Davies and Robert Bertram. We all regret the deaths of members of the Regular Army.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) paid tribute to the RUC. I should like to pay tribute to the Regular Army which serves in Northern Ireland and the Ulster Defence Regiment. If, for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, the measure of violence is the number of Regular Army men who die, and whom obviously we must hear about, I have no faith in them and I despise their efforts to solve our problems.
  What they did not tell us was that 42 other people died in Northern Ireland in those eight months. Those facts were hidden from the great British public. I wish that the Minister would stop muttering to himself and listen to what I have to tell him. He has become the Robinson Crusoe of the Conservative party. He is the longest serving Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and he has caused more offence to the people of Northern Ireland than any other Minister. It is intolerable that we must listen to a Minister whose rich and fruity tones—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to say something?
  Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I muttered that I thought the hon. Gentleman was not enhancing his case by indulging in such personal remarks.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry if the facts of the tragedy of Northern Ireland offend hon. Members.
  The Minister, as a wine drinker, may appreciate this. I was saying that his rich and fruity tones are galling to the people of Northern Ireland when they listen to him on the television trying to justify the unjustifiable—the failure of the Government to deal with the tragedy of our Province.
  We have now reached a stage when Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are disliked— I shall use only the word "disliked"—to an extent which is second only to the extent that we dislike, detest and revile the terrorists
  398
  who kill our people. They have mocked us through the television screen. They have been the apologists for the Government of the Irish Republic—a country which, whether we like it or not, has given solace and shelter to the terrorists who kill my constituents.
  Last Friday my 32nd constituent died at the hands of terrorists since my election to the House on 9 January 1983. How many hon. Members, if they had to come to the House and speak of 32 people who had died at the hands of terrorists in their constituencies, could accept the charm and honeyed words — words of apparent understanding — which have come from the Dispatch Box this evening? For the Northern Ireland Office to tell the great British public that terrorism is on the decrease in Ulster is a shame.
  I shall not go back to the pre-Agreement days. Let me go back to 1986. Between 1 January and 8 April, 10 people died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. In 1987 in the same period 22 people died, an increase of 120 per cent. Yet the Government tell us that terrorism is being contained.
  Cross-border co-operation has existed as far back as I can remember, right back to the first time that I put on a uniform in 1958. It existed because decent members of the Garda Siochana liaised with decent members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on a buddy-buddy basis. It was not good enough, because it was always hindered by the Government in Dublin, but it worked. It was never satisfactory, but it was done with good will. We have now formalised that agreement. No longer can the Garda Siochana liaise on the buddy-buddy basis with their counterparts in the RUC; rather they must feed upwards through the bureaucratic system what information they have, feed it across and back down again.
  Ministers must listen and stop shaking their heads. I talk to the policemen who have to do the work on the border. I am talking not about the constables or the sergeants, or even the inspectors; I am talking about senior police officers. They tell me that co-operation has never been less effective than it is today.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Look at the Minister of State laughing and shaking his head.
  Mr. Maginnis: Of course he is still laughing and shaking his head. Despite all the years that he has spent with us, he is incapable of understanding how we feel. He tends to believe the propaganda of those who tell him that it is a sectarian problem; the "Prots" do not like the Catholics and the Catholics do not like the "Prots". That is the greatest load of rubbish. If the Minister knew what went on in my constituency, where I represent my entire community, he would stop shaking his head and listen.
  The hon. Member for North Down alluded to the fact that the Secretary of State made the most abject apology to the Government of the Irish Republic. That Government have been set in joint authority over the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman made the most abject apology about a listening device placed a few yards inside the Irish Republic. Not only did he make the most abject apology, but he assured his counterpart that the officer or officers responsible would be disciplined for committing the offence. In reality, that offence was an attempt to try to save the lives of their own men.
  On another occasion that co-operative Government detained a Regular Army soldier who happened to cross

  399
  a farmyard out of Northern Ireland into Southern Ireland. that farmyard belonged to "Slab" Murphy. Hon. Members may have seen an article about him and the way in which he has exploited the situation over the years for personal gain. He is a smuggler. He has close connections with and could operate only with the permission and acquiesence of the Provisional IRA. It was from his yard that the soldier was abducted and taken off to the local Garda station. I agree he was released, but I did not hear one word of objection from the Northern Ireland Office about the way in which our soldiers are treated when they happen to move across that imaginary line and transgress, by a few yards, the territory of the Irish Republic.
  In the past I have come to the House and told how terrorists walk the streets of my town. They are known terrorists. I named one of them in this House. He was later arrested in Scotland where he had gone to perpetrate an outrage against the Great British public. He is now in prison in Great Britain. Those terrorists who still walk the streets of my town are not the first or second, but the third generation of terrorists since the 1970s. Terrorists tend to be men in their twenties. Those terrorists of the 1970s retired two generations back. Most of them retired unscathed to encourage the next generations to follow in their footsteps. Their advice was, "Be fleet of foot. We will condition you on how to deal with the RUC when they interrogate you about a crime. The law is inadequate so do not worry. There will be no or only minimum convictions against you." That is what we face when we discuss the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. We are discussing something against which this Bill is ineffective.
  I see two generations of known gunmen walking the streets of my town. They are free men, freer than their victims or potential victims—those people who uphold and try to enforce the law. That is the reality. It is something with which the Northern Ireland Office, the Bill and, sadly, the Government are impotent to deal.
  I know that Conservative Members believe that they will be returned to Government at the next election, be it May, June or October. They will consider inflation and tell us that it is steady or, indeed, going down. They will consider the way in which the Government have dealt with militant trades unionism and the problems in our schools. They will claim "Success, success, success."
  400
  Those hon. Members should consider the streets of their towns. I have had invitations to speak in the constituencies of hon. Members. and I go round and meet members of the Great British public. At such meetings I say, "So you feel your Government have succeeded. But would you feel content walking down the streets of Wolverhampton, Bournemouth, Preston, Liverpool, Glasgow or London at half-past 10 at night with your handbag on your arm?" The little old dear sitting in the front row looks horrified, because she would not. I tell those meetings that if their Government have not got the courage to deal with law and order at that level, how can they deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland?
  What emergency will force or motivate the Secretary of State to take action against terrorism? What is that emergency? How many people have to die before the Secretary of State realises that British citizens in Ulster deserve more than the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have brought to them over 17 years?
  Does the Secretary of State honestly believe, and can he stand up and tell me that the time that we have given in this House today to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill will make one iota of difference to the people of Belleek, Garrison, Aughnacloy, Newtown Butler or Rosslea? If the Secretary of State can say that, I want to hear it and my people want to hear it. Despite the welcome that I received from the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland, there is no point in my coming here in the belief that I can do good for the people I represent unless the House is willing to listen to me and to take this piece of paper and study it. Is the Secretary of State willing to take it?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Maginnis: If he is, Mr. Speaker, I apologise. If he is not——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the Benches and not remain in the Gangway, please?
  Mr. Maginnis: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  National Health Service
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 368), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient for the House to discuss also the following motions:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 371), dated 10th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987 (S.1., 1987, No. 401), dated 11 th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 367), dated 4th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 385), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 386), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 387), dated 9th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th March, be annulled.
  Mr. Dobson: These days a lot of attention is being paid in the House to the next general election, although in view of the recent polls the Prime Minister may have missed the 7 May boat and the general election could be as many as 14 months away. But first, I should like to draw attention to the general election of 1979.
  Mr. James Couchman: Boring.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman says, "Boring." I should like to draw attention to the basis on which the Tory party fought that general election.
  On the Thursday before the 1979 general election the Daily Mail, which has always been a favourite gutter rag of the Tory party, obliged its Tory friends by running a major headline which read, "Labour's dirty dozen". It said that the Labour party was putting about 12 lies and it would give the Tory answers. Lie No. 9 was said to be:
  "There are Tory proposals for higher prescription charges … Truth: 'We have no intention of increasing … such charges', says Mrs. Thatcher".
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: That is an old lie. In the course of this nonsence, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Prime Minister actually said on 18 April 1979? She said at a press conference:
  402
  "I doubt very much whether any responsible Government could say that over a period of five years, regardless of what happened to the value of money, they would not put up prescription charges."
  Mr. Dobson: The Daily Mail article was published a week before the general election.
  Mr. Nicholls: So was this.
  Mr. Dobson: The Tories were in opposition and the Prime Minister was quoted. This is in quotation marks in the Daily Mail. She never sought for one moment to deny what was stated in quotation marks on the front page of the Daily Mail that Thursday.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Dobson: I certainly will not.
  What is more, the right hon. Lady then rewarded the editor of the Daily Mail with a knighthood. Either he was lying and she gave him a knighthood, or he was telling the truth and she gave him a knighthood. She probably has ceased to distinguish between the two.
  When that promise was made on the front of the Daily Mail, the prescription charge was just 20p. The Tories won the general election and, before the year was out, that charge which was not going to be increased had been increased twice to a total of 70p — a 350 per cent. increase in a year.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way. There is not enough time.
  There have been seven more increases since those initial two increases, taking us to the present proposition of a total of 240p—an increase of 1,200 per cent. That rate of increase even exceeds the rate of increase in the value of British Telecom multiple share purchases by Tory Members.
  The Labour party is opposed in principle and in practice to these charges. No other party is so opposed. With the benefit of the document which reads
  "Conservative Research Department Brief on the English and Scottish National Health Service charges",
  which was prepared for this debate, under the "general points to make" given in the advice to Tory Members we find the following:
  "The Conservative party has always maintained that those who can afford to should make a fair contribution to the costs of the NHS."
  The fairest tax is income tax. People who can afford to pay income tax can contribute to the costs of the National Health Service in that way.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I certainly will not.
  The SDP, which could be described as the spiritual home of prescription charges, remains in favour of them. I understand that the Doctor has told the other David that the Liberal party is in favour of prescription charges. Therefore, the Labour party remains the only party opposed to these charges.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us for the record why in the original Bill the Labour party provided that there should

  403
  be a facility for charging and why the Labour Government in the 1960s, having abolished prescription charges, reintroduced them?
  Mr. Dobson: In my view, they brought them back under pressure from people in the City who had no intention —[Interruption.] I may look as though I am getting on a bit, but no one can accuse me of being in the House as long ago as 1966. In my view, that decision was wrong and the increase should never have been introduced in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who was present then, was one of those who voted against the introduction, and all credit to him.
  We believe that the implementation of these charges proves to be a deterrent to people seeking treatment.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not. I shall develop my own arguments. [Interruption.] I am normally very willing to give way, but as the Government, who organise the business of the House, have organised it in such a way that a debate of an hour and a half has already been reduced to an hour by the previous debate running over, I do not think that it is reasonable to be expected to give way.
  Other people share our concern about the impact of prescription charges on poorer people. The British Medical Association says that the charges have reached a level that deters people from seeking medical treatment.
  It says:
  "Any extension of the present exemptions"—
  which has been suggested as a way round the problem by some people—
  is likely to introduce further anomalies and raise disproportionately the burden on those paying the charges" It describes the present list of exemptions for the chronically sick as incomplete, illogical and open to attack —and the members of the British Medical Association are masters of understatement.
  In Stockport recently, I visited the Shaw Heath health centre. A general practitioner there told me that he now asks his poorer patients if they are exempt from charges. If they say, "Yes, we are exempt from charges", he prescribes all the drugs that they need. If they say that they are not exempt, he either omits the second or third most important item—if it is a multiple-item prescription—or puts all the items on the prescriptions and tells the patients which are the most important items so that if they cannot afford all of them they will know which they can best do without. The other doctors present— and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single one, including that doctor, is either a member or a supporter of the Labour party—said that they did the same.
  Figures from the prescription checking bureau, which are available to Ministers, confirm that that is so, with as many as 100,000 items a year on multiple-item prescription forms not being bought.
  A further development is that doctors whose social consciences exceed that of the present Government —and, God knows, that must include most of the medical profession — are increasingly prescribing more than a 30-day supply of drugs for people on repeat prescriptions to keep down the costs. In the spring of 1986, the proportion of 30 days-plus supplies had reached no less a level than 16·5 per cent. of prescriptions. That response by doctors is at the same time both humane and disturbing:
  404
  most people agree that supplies prescribed should be kept to a minimum, because access to large numbers of drugs and long supplies are potentially dangerous both to the patients and to other people living with or helping them. All those are the consequences of the grasping policies of the present Governent.
  No doubt the Minister will switch on his Norm-speak auto-pilot and repeat all the stuff about three quarters of the public not paying for their prescriptions — [Interruption.] Oh, it is true. He will go on to suggest that the remaining quarter who pay for the 80 million prescriptions that are paid for are flush with money— perhaps not the sort of people who could afford to make multiple applications for privatised shares in public assets, but people for whom paying, say £7·20 for a three-item prescription will not be a strain. But of course not everyone is a QC specialising in company law.
  Let me advise Ministers — and any hon. Member proposing to support them in the Lobby tonight — to look at the official leaflet entitled "NHS Prescriptions: How to Get them Free". Tory Members will no doubt be able to call on the services of their accountants or lawyers if they find it difficult to understand—and I suggest that they may find it difficult to understand. The section on low incomes reads as follows:
  "What counts as a low income depends on how many people there are in your family and how much money you've got left after you've paid essential outgoings and taken account of certain allowances. You can work this out for yourself (all these amounts are each week)".
  It then lists
  "rent or mortgage rates life insurance premiums HP payments for essential household goods fares to and from work of you and your partner trade union subs"—
  they have not noticed that yet
  "cost of care of a child or other dependant while you are at work £4 of your earnings £4 of your partner's earnings if you are a lone parent, half your earnings between £4and £20".
  When we have done all that it says:
  "Take this total away from the money you have coming in each week and see how much you have left. Now see whether it's worth claiming free prescriptions. It's worth claiming if, for example, you're single, not a householder, and don't have much more than about … £33 left each week, or if you're a couple and don't have much more than about £53 left each week … or if you're a couple with two children, one aged under five … and don't have much more than about £75 left each week."
  Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall finish this point, and then I will decide whether to give way.
  Ministers should consider the finances of those who have just a little more than that left at the end of each week and who therefore do not qualify for free prescriptions. Using the family expenditure survey that is provided by the Government, a couple—after the deductions I have mentioned—with £56 or £58 left to them at the end of each week will spend more than £45 a week of that on fuel, light, food, clothing and footwear alone, leaving them with £11 or £13 a week. Out of that, they have to pay for everything else that I have not already listed: for soap, washing-up liquid, matches, shoe polish, phone calls,

  405
  stamps. That leaves them with less than a fiver. They will be unable to save up for a holiday, yet they will have to pay for prescriptions. At the end of the week they will not have enough money left to pay for a three-item prescription.
  Mr. Favell rose——
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not burden the House by giving other examples. Many people who are not well off are having to pay for prescriptions and are deterred from seeking medical treatment because they have to pay. That is borne out by the prescription checking bureau figures, by the British Medical Association representations and by the representations that are made by doctors to Members of Parliament. If I had to choose between all those bits of evidence and something from a Minister in this Government, I know where I believe the truth lies.
  I do not intend to refer tonight to dental charges other than to welcome the news that they are not to be increased.
  Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a parliamentary private secretary and that it is traditional for parliamentary private secretaries to keep their traps shut.
  Mr. Favell rose——
  Mr. Dobson: Regulations are also before us tonight that will increase the charges for overseas visitors who fall sick when they are here.
  Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned my constituency and made certain allegations about a health centre in the constituency. In those circumstances, is it not usual to allow an intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman knows that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who is addressing the House whether he gives way.
  Mr. Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It can hardly be further to a point of order that was not a point of order.
  Mr. Nicholls: It is a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Front Bench Opposition spokesman in the middle of a speech to yell over the Dispatch Box, "Keep your trap shut?" So far as that is a call to order, should it not be a matter for the Chair?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that such matters are best left to the Chair. As I understand it, it was part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Dobson: I always try to raise the tone wherever I go.
  Certain people have always put it around that it is possible to come to Britain deliberately to obtain free medical care. It was never free on the NHS. The Government introduced charges for people who fell sick while they were here. There were many people, including some Conservative Members, in 1981 and 1982, when the matter was debated, who felt that it would be damaging to our international reputation to introduce charges for such people.
  406
  Nevertheless, the charges were introduced with effect from October 1982 on the assumption that they would bring in the princely sum of £6 million a year. The Government sold our reputation for a mess of pottage. The charges have scarcely raised £6 million in gross takings since their introduction. The Government have consistently refused to give any estimate of the cost of collecting the charges. Nor have they made any estimate of the cost of establishing the charging system, which has had to be set up in each of the 214 health authorities and boards in England, Wales and Scotland.
  The Opposition regard the charges as shabby. They are an affront to the principles on which the NHS was established.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Gentleman made it absolutely clear that, in his view at least, prescription charges ought to be abolished. Will he make it plain whether the next Labour Government, if such should ever be returned, would enable people to come here for free treatment under the NHS?
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister——
  Mr. Nicholls: Answer.
  Mr. Dobson: I am happy to answer. The Minister said that people would be able to come here for free treatment. People were never entitled to come here with the intention of receiving free treatment. The Minister should not try to give that myth another run.
  Mr. Newton: Does that mean that, in addition to every other control on immigration, visitors must be asked whether there is any possibility of their needing medical treatment while they are in Britain?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that many visitors are already asked that question on arrival. We think that it is wrong that that question, and many others like it, should be asked. It was never lawful for someone to come here seeking free treatment under the NHS, and we do not propose to change that.
  Prescription charges are damaging to our health care system. They are damaging to people who are not very well off and who do not benefit from existing exemptions. It is the Labour party's policy, on being returned to office, to reduce them substantially immediately and to phase them out in the lifetime of one Parliament.
  10.54 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I had thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to wind up the debate because I imagined that at least one or two other hon. Members would wish to take part in the debate, but as it seems to be the wish of the House, and certainly of the Opposition, that I should speak now, I shall do so. However, I shall not make many of the remarks that I had intended to make in outlining what these various regulations will do. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) paid scant regard to a large part of the subject matter of tonight's debate and strayed in various ways. Although he gave us a good deal of entertainment, he hardly raised the level of debate on these serious issues.
  In the light of the history of this matter, in terms both of the record of the last Labour Government and some of the suggestions about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the election campaign in 1979,

  407
  I found some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks extraordinary, and they were convincingly and effectively disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
  The great point on which the hon. Member appeared to be clear early in his speech, and about which I understood him to make a ringing declaration, was that prescription charges would disappear in a puff of wind if and when he and his hon. Friends got into office. Although it sounded like that at the beginning, it did not sound like that at the end. By the end, one got the clear impression that these were promises to be made before an election, only to be run away from after it.
  Dr. John Marek: The hon. Gentleman can talk!.
  Mr. Newton: Not only can I talk, but I intend to talk. What is more, I intend to ask one or two questions of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. It is all very well for him to come here and say that he knew that a Labour Government abolished these charges in 1965, only to reintroduce them in 1968, and when challenged say that had he been here he might have voted against that being done because he thought it was wrong.
  Mr. Dobson: That is a loose paraphrase.
  Mr. Newton: It is not all that loose.
  At any rate, we now know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour Government's of 1964 to 1970 were wrong on at least that matter. The rest of us could probably think of many other matters on which they were wrong. What I want to know from the hon. Gentleman is what gives him any conceivable grounds for believing, in the light of the record of that Government, and of the intervening Labour Government, that any future Labour Government would get anything any more right.
  Mr. Dobson: The problem was caused by the City.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman thinks that City gents were responsible for the failure.
  Mr. Dobson: There are no gents in the City.
  Mr. Newton: It was chaps in the City, or, for all I know, gnomes in the City. I wonder.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was too young to have been here in 1968, and I shall not speculate about that. However, I know that he has been in politics for long enough to know that it was not the people in the City who caused the problems for the Labour Governments of 1964 to 1970. The people in the City ran out of their capacity to finance a profligate Labour Government, who had to turn to the international bankers. We had the International Monetary Fund here.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: This Government have broken their promises.
  Mr. Newton: I can deal with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) as well if need be.
  The memory of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does not embrace the fact that the following Labour Government were also involved with the IMF. That Labour Government got it all wrong as well, and on that occasion the casualty — more significantly than anything that we are talking about tonight—was the whole National Health Service and above all the hospital building programme. With such a track record in the
  408
  1960s, and another in the 1970s, on what does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras base the pathetic belief that any future Labour Government would do any better?
  Mr. Michael Stern: I can offer a possible solution to the dilemma that my hon. Friend has just posed. He will recollect that one of the principles to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred — the basic principle of the Health Service, to which he wanted to return — was that the Health Service would eventually wither away. Could a future Labour Government be proposing a return to the basic principles of the Health Service by claiming that they will deal with prescription charges by allowing the Health Service to wither, as they did when last in government and as they had done previously?
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is very likely right. I do not say that a future Labour Government would intend the Health Service to wither, but the consequence of their policies in the past has been to wither the service and it is only by dint of considerable effort and, above all. additional investment by this Government that the hospital building programme is now recovering from the effects of the previous Labour Government. Against that background, I find it incredibly stupid — apart from anything else—that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should come here tonight and say that he is willing to give up about £150 million of revenue for the Health Service, which I believe is raised reasonably, which is certainly making a very useful contribution to other aspects of the Health Service and which no Government in their right mind would throw away in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman, at one blow, or gradually as he suggested at the end of his speech.
  I shall not speak for much longer, as I believe that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
  If I understood the other arm of the policy adumbrated by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, it was that he would abolish prescription charges at some stage and fund that substantial sum of money by increasing income tax. Has he considered what that would mean for pensioners, who are currently exempt from prescription charges, but who are certainly not exempt from income tax? Has he tried that line on the pensioners? Has he—
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: Does my hon. Friend know how much that would cost the taxpayer? If not, would he let me know later?
  Mr. Newton: It would cost about £150 million. That is the income from prescription charges. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has said that he will add that to income tax.
  Having commented on the main points raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I want to make another point, on which I pressed the hon. Gentleman in interventions during his speech. However clear the House may feel that the hon. Gentleman's position is on prescription charges — and I, at least, thought that he shifted his position from the beginning to the end of his speech—we need to have a clear understanding of what a Labour Government's attitude would be to those who come to this country as visitors and are treated under the Health Service. We need to know whether that would be free.

  409
  The Government's position on that matter is absolutely clear, and has been throughout. We think that it is reasonable that people coming as visitors to this country should be expected to cover the costs of the medical treatment that they receive here, in the same way as citizens of this country who have to visit the United States, for example, are expected to insure within the terms of the health service operating in that country, and have appropriate cover for most other countries in the world.
  I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the British public believe that that is common sense. They would regard it as something of scandal if nothing had been done about people coming to this country, often—although this is difficult to check specifically—with the intention of receiving free treatment on the Health Service. That prospect is obviously re-opened by the implied policy stated by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tonight.
  Mr. Haynes rose——
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Ashfield is great at diversionary tactics. Let me just——
  Mr. Haynes: Do not dodge the issue.
  Mr. Newton: I would not want to dodge the hon. Gentleman, nor would I want to tempt him into making more of his flattering remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, which have kept her in the newspapers heavily for the best part of six weeks.
  Mr. Haynes: The Minister is jealous.
  Mr. Newton: I am not looking to the hon. Gentleman to describe me as attractive or pretty. I shall leave him to continue his dialogue with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
  I shall return to the serious issue from which the hon. Member for Ashfield was trying, understandably, to divert the House. The debate should not be allowed to end this evening without a much clearer-cut statement from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on his party's policy on charging those from overseas who come to Britain to receive treatment on the National Health Service, or to need treatment on it while they are here for another reason. Whether the cost is £6 million or any other sum, there is a point of principle, and certainly of common sense, that needs to be established. We are entitled to a clearer answer than anything that we have heard so far from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
  With the leave of the House, I shall happily comment upon any of the other contributions that are made in the debate. For the moment, I shall rest my case.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall vote against the Government measures that are before us. I have done so on previous occasions when charges have been increased by more than the rate of inflation since the Government have come to power.
  Although there are difficulties, I do not take the unrealistic line that the Labour party propounds. There is no doubt that the rate of increase in the charges since 1979 has been substantially above the rate of inflation. There
  410
  was an increase of 125 per cent. within the first year alone of the Government coming to office. If the basic prescription charge had been raised in line with inflation since 1979, the charge would now be about 37p. If the charge had been raised in line with inflation from the time that the moderating charge was introduced in the early 1950s, it would be about £1. Unfortunately, the Government have not been consistent. Indeed, this year's increases were such that the Daily Telegraph on the day after the Minister's announcement, described them as "higher than expected". That appeared on the front page in the leading article.
  The second unfairness about the increase in the charges in that there is a 9 per cent. increase in the basis prescription charge while the amenity beds charge is increased by only 8·3 per cent. over two years. and private out-patients' charges have been increased by only 6·1 per cent. this year. There should be a consistency in the increase in the changes
  There is an unfairness in treatment between the NHS generally and the private sector. There is also the issue of uncollected charges. To impose charges that amount to the rate of inflation and then to fail to collect them leads to a double disadvantage. I hope that we shall hear sooner rather than later about what the Minister intends to do about uncollected charges. I believe that he owes me a letter on that issue. I ask him also to justify the lower than 9 per cent. charge that has been imposed on the private sector.
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister does not owe the hon. Member as much as the private patients owe the NHS.
  Mr. Hughes: I have made the point: there is a lot of uncollected money, not least in Camberwell health authority area, part of which I represent.
  The view of the Liberal party has never been that prescription charges should be abolished. Indeed, right from the beginning the Labour Government provided for charges in the legislation by which the Health Service was set up. The moderating fee was introduced early in the life of the National Health Service. I have always believed that a fee is proper because people need to be reminded that they are getting things which cost the public sector money. After all, 75 per cent of people are exempt. In general terms that covers the most vulnerable groups.
  The Minister should answer one further valid point that has been made. The British Medical Association and other professional bodies make the point consistently that the level of charges now is a deterrent to some people having prescriptions. That is clear evidence that the substantial increase since 1979 is unjustified. I accept that there should be charges but when charges start to deter, that is tilting the charging balance too far in the wrong direction.
  It is also ludicrous that some prescriptions, if obtained through the NHS, will cost £2·40 if these regulations are accepted, when their real cost is substantially less. I appreciate that nothing can be done about this before we vote tonight on the regulations. but the Minister should look into the matter. Some commonly used and easily obtainable drugs are available for, say, 50p. In such cases people should not have to pay the substantial amount of £2·40. Of course, there is always an averaging job to do, but, as I understand it, 32 per cent. of prescriptions issued cost in real terms less than the £2·40 charge.
  There is no reason why people coming to Britain should not be required to pay. I have a clear view on that. As the

  411
  Minister rightly said, when we travel abroad we have to insure ourselves and make proper contingency plans. People should not come to Britain with the presumption or expectation that they will be treated free.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution to the debate. As I understand it, he says that he agrees with the principle of charges being made. In a sense he could not deny that, because that point was made by Lord Grimond when the Labour party introduced prescription charges. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce the criterion of charges at a level which will not deter people from getting prescriptions, what evidence can he produce to the House that the present level of charge is deterring people who would otherwise take up prescriptions?
  Mr. Hughes: There is a factual answer to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question. The number of prescriptions issued has gone down. There are several reasons. General practitioners and dispensers can testify to one reason, about which there has been much survey evidence—that the level of charge has a deterrent effect.
  The argument about prescription charges is always how one balances the books for the Health Service. The Health Service benefits from charges.
  The Minister may have seen in New Society last September an article headed :
  "Should drugs be free? The Labour party last week promised to abolish prescription charges. Jeremy Laurance asks if this is a sensible priority."
  The article ended :
  "Removing the charges risks stimulating demand, and putting an extra financial burden on an already stretched NHS."
  My colleagues and I cannot say that we will abolish prescription charges, much though we would like to do so in an ideal world. Something else in the Health Service would suffer if that were done. There will be prescription charges, but at no stage will they be increased by us by more than the irate of inflation, as far as one can possibly help or predict that. However, I am unwilling to compromise other areas of health care when the majority of the vulnerable are exempt. Certainly, a few people still suffer when they should not, and exemptions should be extended. However, in general terms, the criticism is not that there are prescription charges but that under this Government those charges have increased much more than they need have done, and have done so with unfair consequences.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: There is something deeply disagreeable these days about the nature of the Labour party. Because Labour Members have lost the political argument, they seem to concentrate on personal attack. There is grave disgrace as far as their party is concerned at the moment. Where they are still involved in the political argument, they seek not to illuminate but to misrepresent.
  Who would have thought from the behaviour of those few Labour Members who are here this evening that on one occasion during this debate — a deeply important debate, so we are led to believe by the Labour party— there were only three Labour Members present? That, too is a disgrace. Who would have thought that during the lifetime of this caring Government there has been an increase of one quarter in expenditure on the Health
  412
  Service? For every £4 that was spent when this caring Government came to power, £5 is now spent on the needs of the unhealthy and of the people who we in this country, and in this Government, want to take care of? Who would have thought from the weasel words of Opposition Members that three quarters of prescription charges do not need to be paid and that three quarters of prescriptions are paid for by the taxpayer, and quite rightly so, as well? Who would have thought that the most disadvantaged in society do not have to pay prescription charges? Who would have thought that all men over 65, women over 60, children under 16 and mothers do not have to pay prescription charges? The chronically sick do not have to pay prescription charges. Season tickets are available for those who want them to pay for their prescription charges.
  Opposition Members do not care. They do not want to inform; they want to misinform. When there is rationalisation in the Health Service, when old, inefficient and inadequate resources are put on one side and the money saved from those resources is put into new hospitals, new buildings and new operating theatres, we do not hear anything from Opposition Members. All they seek to do is to misrepresent. All they seek to do, for their own grubby political ends, is to lower people's faith and to undermine their trust in the National Health Service for their dirty, grubby, deep, unpleasant, sanctimonious ends.
  Out of the £1·8 billion that prescriptions cost this country, a mere £145 million is raised through prescription charges. That money is spent in the Health Service. That money is spent on providing free syringes for people who did not have them before, for diabetics. This is another side of the caring Government. What is the Labour party going to do? It will not get into power, but what would it do if it did get into power? Would it provide those free syringes? If it did, where would it get the money from? About £145 million is spent on care in the Health Service as a result of prescription charges being paid only by those who can afford to pay them.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is on page three now.
  Mr. Marlow: Mr. Deputy Speaker, for 27 minutes of this debate, that giggling idiot on the Labour Front Bench——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not helping the debate. He should withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Marlow: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spent 40 per cent. of the debate addressing the House with weasel words and reading from his text word by word, yet he is accusing me of reading when I have no notes before me.
  Labour Members have no policies or facts. All they seek to do is to disrupt, to undermine and to lower people's faith in the Health Service that the Government are rightly giving to the country.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has reaffirmed from the Front Bench that the next Labour Government will proceed to reduce, and eventually to abolish, prescription charges. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why there should be such maniacal screeches from the Conservative Benches.

  413
  My time goes back further than that of my hon Friend and I am not sure what stage of development he had reached in 1966——
  Mr. Dobson: Innocence.
  Mr. Foot: Yes, innocence and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend retains a large proportion of that innocence even now. I remember vividly how the Conservative party did everything possible to oppose the introduction of a free National Health Service. Tory Members voted against it on Second Reading and again on Third Reading, which was a further confirmation of their opposition to the principle of the service. One of the elements that they particulary hated was the idea that the service should be free to the patient. Because of the Socialist idea to provide the service on the basis of need, not money, and other practical reasons, the service was introduced in the first place. That was undoubtedly why Conservatives at that time were so bitterly opposed to it.
  I know that we cannot necessarily restore the NHS all in one go, although it would not be impossible. I understand that the cost would be £360 million, and in the Budget the Government could easily have raised £360 million from people who have been drawing £360 million in tax reliefs ever since 1979. They could easily contribute that sum, partly to restore the principle of a free Health Service, and partly to restore some parts of the Health Service——
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foot: No, I shall not give way. Because of the way in which the Government have mismanaged the arrangement for this debate there is hardly a minute left, so I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman is in a fit condition to be given way to.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that your hearing is at least as good as mine. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind by making a slur like that. On reflection he may feel that he should not only withdraw it but give me a chance to intervene.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the right hon. Gentleman was saying was not clear to me.
  Mr. Foot: I am glad that the Labour party is now recommitted to the restoration of a free NHS. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I hope——
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foot: I hope that the——
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was getting to his feet to withdraw the imputation that I was incapable of making an intervention. Will he withdraw it, or not?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman did not make any specific allegation about the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] The right hon. Gentleman did not feel that the hon. Gentleman was making the right interjection.
  Mr. Foot: I did not hear you make any request to me to withdraw my comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly do not think that I have said anything that requires to be withdrawn.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Knowing the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that if he had made any allegations that the hon. Gentleman was in some sort of condition, he would withdraw it.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Foot: If I had thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is addressing me.
  Mr. Foot rose
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had called Mr. Foot. He was going to make some explanation to me.
  Mr. Foot: I do not think that I made any reflection on the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that required any withdrawal. If he thinks that any withdrawal is necessary, he must have an even thinner skin that I thought. When I depart from any parliamentary procedure and I am asked to withdraw by any occupant of the Chair I obey, but no such requirement has been made.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson rose——
  Mr. Michael Stern rose——
  Mr. Foot: I am glad that my hon. Friends have given a commitment to the restoration of a free National Health Service——
  Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was not in a fit state to make his speech or intervention. He has not withdrawn that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman may have meant that the hon. Gentleman was over-excited — [Interruption.] Order. I am anxious to help the House. I did not sense a personal attack.
  Mr. Foot: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you are right. I was following your instructions——
  Mr. Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I naturally accept your hearing of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I think that we are entitled to some consideration. I was in the direct path of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and it seemed to many Conservative Members that there was a clear implication in what he said. One would hate to think that the right hon. Gentleman was using his seniority in the House to get away with something that many hon. Members would not be allowed to get away with.
  Mr. Foot: Anyone who listened to what I said could see how justified it was.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the second time that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that I am not in a fit state to speak in the House. Your must have heard that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say that any hon. Member was not in a fit state.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should study Hansard tomorrow and look at the facts of the matter.
  I am sorry that more time was not provided by the Government for the debate. I am sorry also that some Conservative Members thought it advisable to take up time with bogus points of order to stop the debate proceeding.
  It is right that we should make clear to the country that one of our objectives is to re-establish a free National Health Service. We know that it will cost something. I should like to see it extended to the restoration of a proper dental service, the restoration of a proper optical service and the restoration of the ideals that prevailed when the service was introduced, which was why the Conservatives tried to prevent its being brought into being. That is the kind of service that we want to see re-established. The sooner we start that task, the sooner we shall be able to carry it through to completion.
  At the beginning of his speech the Minister for Health pretended that the Prime Minister had not sought to mislead the public on whether the Government intended to introduce prescription charges. The Prime Minister said that she had no intention of introducing prescription charges, yet we are discussing those increases. No hon. Member could make that excuse and think that he would get away with it.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I want to ask the Minister one factual question which concerns dental charges. My evidence, frankly, is only anecdotal, but it seems to many of us that decisions are made not necessarily on the clinical judgments of dentists, but on their assumptions, right or otherwise, about a patient's ability to pay. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, there is a deterrent here. I simply ask, in the time available, whether the Department recognises that there is a problem.
  Mr. Newton: I am in some difficulty because there are no proposed changes in dental charges in the regulations.
  Let me tell the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that the ideals of the National Health Service, on his analysis, lasted for only about three years because the then Labour Government introduced charges in 1951——
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).
  Question put :—
  The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 142.

  Division No. 142]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Alton, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beith, A. J.

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyes, Roland

  Dalyell, Tam

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  416

  Deakins, Eric

  McWilliam, John

  Dixon, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dobson, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Dormand, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Eastham, Ken

  Nellist, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Raynsford, Nick

  Foster, Derek

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wareing, Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Welsh, Michael

  Kennedy, Charles

  Winnick, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Chris Smith.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  McNamara, Kevin

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hirst, Michael

  Amess, David

  Holt, Richard

  Arnold, Tom

  Jackson, Robert

  Ashby, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Knox, David

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Latham, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Lightbown, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  McCrindle, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Maclean, David John

  Benyon, William

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Blackburn, John

  Major, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Malone, Gerald

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Marlow, Antony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Merchant, Piers

  Brinton, Tim

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Browne, John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Butterfill, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Neubert, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Newton, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Conway, Derek

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Coombs, Simon

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cope, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Couchman, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Powley, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Price, Sir David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Raffan, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Favell, Anthony

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Harvey, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Hayward, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Heddle, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  417

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Silvester, Fred

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waller, Gary

  Speller. Tony

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Derek

  Warren, Kenneth

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, John

  Stern, Michael

  Whitfield, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Woodcock, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Francis Maude.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Defence
  11.40 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following motion :
  That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
  Mr. Stanley: The two draft orders are complimentary.
  Headquarters United Kingdom Air was first established as a NATO major subordinate command in 1975 and since then has been manned by personnel from the Headquarters Royal Air Force Strike Command. It has now been decided to bring this headquarters into line with other NATO major subordinate commands by establishing a small international staff to integrate the command more closely with NATO which has agreed to provide funding for this measure. We are also taking the opportunity to designate the Commander Submarines, Eastern Atlantic as an international headquarters following the granting of international status by the NATO Defence Planning Council in 1982.
  The International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) Order 1965 designated the headquarters of the three major NATO commanders and three subordinate NATO commanders and also the NATO Channel Committee at Northwood and conferred on them such capacities, immunities and privileges as are needed to achieve their efficient organisation and operation. The effect of the first draft order is to add Headquarters United Kingdom Air and the Commander Submarines, Eastern Atlantic to the list of subordinate headquarters covered by the 1965 order.
  The second draft order similarly amends the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1965. This order was made under section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, which provides for the application to visiting forces of law relating to home forces.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: We welcome the fact that CINCUKAIR and COMSUBEASTLANT are to become international headquarters. Our air and submarine forces play a vital role in NATO's collective defence. Therefore, it is sensible that representatives from the armed forces of our allies should be constantly available and we welcome the installation of a small international staff at these places.
  Of particular importance to NATO is CINCUKAIR because one of Britain's most important roles in war would be as a staging post for the reinforcement of Europe. Air defences are absolutely critical if allied defence plans are to have any credibility, yet according to senior RAF officers our air defences are in peril. We rely on 30-year-old Lightnings which leak and 30-year-old Shackletons with no adequate radar and not enough pilots. By making CINCUKAIR an international command headquarters we will give our allies every

  419
  opportunity to voice their concern about the lamentable state of our conventional air defences, and then perhaps the Government will do something about it.
  I have one question to ask about CONSUBEASTLANT. Will the command remain at Northwood, which is already an international headquarters? If it is to stay there, why is there a need for the change?
  I should like to move to the amendment order for the Visiting Forces Act 1952 so that it may apply to the two new international headquarters. Since that Act came into effect in 1952, we have had a number of reservations about it. Indeed, on Second Reading, Mr. Eric Fletcher, the former Labour Member for Islington, East, said :
  "This Bill … removes from the jurisdiction of the courts of this country a very large number of people … There has not been anything like that in this country since the Middle Ages … when there was a certain Papal jurisdiction which could defeat the claims of the English common law courts." —[Official Report, 17 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 586.]
  It looks as though the Visiting Forces Act is taking over the role of the medieval papacy. Therefore, I have a number of questions to put to the Minister.
  Can the Minister assure us that, despite the internationalisation of these establishments, they will at all times be guarded by British service personnel? Can the Minister assure us that any foreign service personnel working at these two establishments who break British law will be brought to justice and that they will be kept in the United Kingdom pending investigations of any allegations against them and not flown quickly home to avoid investigations, perhaps resulting in injustice to British citizens? Will civilians in the United Kingdom have recourse to the law on compensation if they are the victims of motor or other accidents involving foreign service men from these two establishments?
  These two orders, although small and technical, are important. We welcome the fact that these headquarters will be part of an internationally recognised headquarters and that international staff will be there. The Labour party regards Britains contribution to NATO as the most important part that we play in having an effective defence for our country.
  The Visiting Forces Act will be a continuous source of embarrassment to successive Governments until something is done to satisfy public worry about the effects of the apparent exemption of visiting forces from the ordinary course of the law. That is a problem. We realise that the Visiting Forces Act had the best of intentions, but to give every member of visiting forces the equivalent status of a foreign diplomat or ambassador seems somewhat overgenerous in the circumstances. There is a need for this matter to be properly considered again by the House.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: We welcome the integration of NATO commands which is evident in the two orders. When I hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) waxing eloquent about Labour's commitment to NATO, my mind goes quickly back to that recent Washington visit and the attempt to explain how NATO could continue with no American nuclear forces as part of our strategic deterrent. But, thankfully, that issue goes wider than these two orders.
  Mr. McNamara: What has happened to the great Liberal tradition of democracy when majorities at party conferences are overturned on the whims of leadership on exactly that same principle?
  Mr. Beith: I am glad to say that the majority at every Liberal conference I have ever attended, which has been all of them in recent years, have supported the maintenance of NATO's strategic nuclear deterrent on British soil. As long as the deterrent is necessary, they will continue to do so.
  I share with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North concern about aspects of the Visiting Forces Act. They have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) as well. I have one point to put to the Minister which should be fresh in his mind. He will have been looking at the Act because these orders extend its application. Why do not the relevant Government Departments—in part the Home Office and not just the Ministry of Defence — collect and retain information about how the Act operates in practice? My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil pointed out that it was necessary to obtain from readily available information in the United States the details that
  "420 members of the United States air force had infringed British law in relation to drug abuse and that 388 of them had been removed from the jurisdiction of the British courts". —[Official Report, 20 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 402.]
  We all know that there has been a serious problem in the American forces and the American authorities are doing their best to deal with it. It is not intended as a criticism to raise the matter in that way. The concern is that the information is simply not being collected. This gives the impression that British Government Departments do not know how serious the problem is, do not know how much it is impinging on British life in the areas concerned, do not therefore know whether the problem is properly controlled, and do not, of course, know the extent of punishment of those service men.
  I should like the Minister to say whether, in the light of these extensions, he is doing something about the obvious gap in the information that Government Departments ought to hold.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to say something on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  Last Friday I attended a political meeting in Dumbarton. There was much concern, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, about the relationship between service men and a drug problem. I shall not exaggerate; I do not believe that it is widespread, but it is there, and we require a statement on the policy of the Ministry of Defence.
  Part of the debate relates to the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT. On 27 January, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) saying that he in turn had received a letter from his constituent Mr. George Turner, of 23, St. Philip's street, Blackburn, Lancashire. My hon. Friend wrote :
  "I should be most grateful if you could let me have any up to date information about this so I may decide how to pursue the matter for him."
  The letter that he received from his constituent read :
  "As a retired ex Royal Air Force Technician, (30 years service), I am curious as to whether any disciplinary action was taken against the submarine Commander regarding the

  421
  `lost' ship's log —a most serious offence, and definitely a court martial offence … I would be grateful for any information."
  On 10 March, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces wrote a letter with the reference number D/US of S(AF)RNF 2301. It stated :
  "As Mr. Turner may be aware, a Board of Inquiry was held into the apparent disappearance of HMS Conqueror's navigational log for April to September 1982, once this had been discovered in October 1984. The then Secretary of State for Defence"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the second order or the first? He must relate his speech to the orders that we are discussing. It seems to me that he is now dealing with an internal disciplinary matter of the Royal Navy.
  Mr. Dalyell: I was referring to the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT, which is quite clearly in the explanatory note. The Minister properly said that it was about the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT, and I do not know what the Clerk was suggesting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make those accusations. I merely want to keep him to the orders. One is addressed to the desirability of extending the privileges to the two headquarters, and the other to the desirability of the change in legal status of the headquarters.
  Mr. Dalyell: In his opening remarks, the Minister clearly said in our hearing that the debate was about the efficient organisation of COMSUBEASTLANT. Those were his words.
  I shall be brief. Let me add that the Ministry of Defence knows about the reference to the letter.
  I now give a recent quotation from the principal warfare officer on board a Navy frigate. He says :
  "I was in the Falklands and when we got back I was responsible for all the records and logs on our ship. We thought something odd was going on because instead of being told to send our log books off to Hayes as normal, we were told to collect all our log books together and send them to the Ministry of Defence. It had never happened before, and I know for a fact that this order was given to all the ships and submarines as well. I know exactly where the Conqueror's logs are, they're at the Ministry of Defence. Everyone in the Navy knows that. The so-called missing log book is a load of rubbish."
  I think it is fair to ask, after all this time, the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was asked: what became of those log books? Is not this an opportunity for the Ministry of Defence to come clean, and say that no log book ever went missing from that ship? I take it on my own responsibility that I was told by members—in the plural—of the crew of the Conqueror that, if I thought that any of them had pinched the control room log book of the only nuclear submarine that has ever been used in earnest to put as some kind of ornament on their sideboard, I must be out of my mind. No one did that. There was a very efficient debriefing. No log book ever went missing. It was used by the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), as a smokescreen on the morning that he was to appear before the Select Committee.
  It is all a load of hooey. I believe that, rather than in the submarine control room headquarters, the log book of
  422
  the Conqueror is sitting in the Ministry of Defence, where it ought to be, and that it is known to Ministry of Defence Ministers that it is among the public records. It is all a load of rubbish, and it is legitimate to raise the matter in this debate.
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When the Minister of State for the Armed Forces introduced the order, he drew attention to the Visiting Forces Act 1952. It is reasonable that hon. Members should ask him, when he replies to the debate, to deal with the effect that the new orders will have on the operation of the 1952 Act and to say whether he will inform the House in future about offences that would be tried by British courts if the Visiting Forces Act did not give almost complete immunity to members of foreign forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to Mr. Eric Fletcher, the previous Member of Parliament for my constituency, who in a debate in 1952 said :
  "This Bill, in effect, removes from the jurisdiction of the courts or this country a very large number of people. In other words, the members of the visiting Forces and their civilian components will be able to commit crimes which cannot be tried in the courts of this country. That is something which, prima facie, shocks those who have been brought up to respect the deep-seated constitutional principles of our land." —[Official Report, 17 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 586.]
  He went on to say that there had been nothing like it in this country since the middle ages.
  It is extraordinary that the Act should have been on the statute book for so long and that its provisions should be allowed to be extended by the passing of orders late at night. The large number of American forces stationed in this country — about 30,000 of them — have complete immunity from prosecution under both the civil and criminal law. Questions have been asked on a number of occasions about the number of offences that have been committed that have been recognised as offences by the American forces leading to the removal of those individuals from this country, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench have been absolutely silent.
  We are entitled to ask when the Minister expects to be in a position to tell us about the operation of this Act. It is unacceptable that he should be able to move yet a further extension of the Act, but not answer questions about the number of drug offences, motoring offences or other offences that have been committed by members of visiting forces who have been allowed to get off scot-free.
  The Government say that the collection of information is difficult. There must be something very badly wrong with the arrangements under which American forces are stationed here if no information is passed to the Ministry of Defence about what members of the visiting forces have done.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what information is collected in the Ministry of Defence and whether local police and local courts keep any records of offences committed by members of the visiting forces. I object strongly to the Visiting Forces Act. I see no reason why forces from a foreign power stationed in this country should be exempt from British law. I find it even more offensive that we do not even know what offences they have committed and that all we have is the information

  423
  collected by Duncan Campbell and others, which has been printed in the New Statesman. I hope that the Minister will answer those points.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked whether COMSUBEASTLANT would remain at Northwood. It will. He asked why, if COMSUBEASTLANT had international status in 1982, it was now necessary to involve it in the orders. Although it had international status agreed by NATO in 1982, there has not been a convenient opportunity formally to designate it for the purpose of this legislation until the orders came forward. This is a tidying up provision. We have taken advantage of the opportunity created by the designation of UKAIR to designate COMSUBEASTLANT at the same time.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised various points about the Visiting Forces Act 1952. It is important to make one or two general observations because from what has been said, it is clear that there is considerable misunderstanding about it. Although the Act is British legislation, it reflects a NATO-wide agreement involving reciprocal arrangements regarding the jurisdiction provisions for military personnel stationed in each others countries.
  Exactly the same legal rights which are given to American service men in Britain are enjoyed by British service men in Germany. They are important to our service men there. The Act has now been on the statute book for more than 30 years, and the criticisms that have been expressed by Opposition Members must be seen against the background of several Administrations being responsible for overseeing the Act, which has evidently proved satisfactory to successive Labour Governments.
  Mr. Corbyn: In view of what the Minister has said about reciprocal arrangements, can he say whether the German civilian authorities are informed—and publish the information — of the misdemeanours of British service men stationed there as part of the British Army of the Rhine?
  Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall continue with my speech as I was about to deal with that matter.
  The hon. Gentleman is clearly under a misapprehension about the effect of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 if he talks of American service men having widespread immunity from United Kingdom law. The provisions are somewhat complex, but they do not represent overall immunity. The hon. Gentleman might like to read, in Hansard of 19 December 1983, the detailed and excellent exposition of the Act's effects by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. If he does, the hon. Gentleman will see that the full effect of United Kingdom law applied to all offences committed off duty, which are the great majority. Even for offences committed on duty, there is reserved to the host country a right to request the Government of the visiting forces that the right of jurisdiction should remain with the host country and that
  424
  the Government of the visiting forces should surrender their right to exercise jurisdiction. It is not correct to suggest that this legislation creates some wholesale immunity or exemption from the effect of British law.
  The statistics on offences show that more than 2,000 American service men have been convicted in the United Kingdom courts, and that the vast majority of those convictions relate to road traffic offences, which were specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. As to the adequacy of the statistics that are collected within the Government about the operation of the Visiting Forces Act—a point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed — I will draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. His Department has the lead ministerial responsibility for this legislation, and I am sure that he will note the points that have been made on that score in this debate.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am interested in what he says about civilian offences committed when troops are off duty, but I am concerned about the actions of American forces on duty — for example, when they have been travelling with the cruise missile conveys in the Salisbury plain area. I have reason to believe that offences have been committed by those soldiers against British civilians, but no action has been taken and no redress is possible for the civilians, because those service men were on duty at the time and the Visiting Forces Act therefore grants immunity. For example, there was a problem when an American vehicle ran into a churchyard wall, causing it severe damage, and slightly injuring some people at the same time.
  Mr. Stanley: Any particular details that the hon. Gentleman produces will be examined.
  I stress that the provisions of British law apply to American service men here, whether they are on or off duty. The only issue is over the rights of jurisdiction. and those rights can be applied by the Government of the visiting forces in respect of their service men for offences that have been committed on duty, but that does not mean that while visiting service men are here they are not subject to United Kingdom law.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will, I hope, be aware that these orders relate to the designation of COMSUBEASTLANT, which is a NATO headquarters. He was referring to a matter that arose in not a NATO, but a national, context. He will be aware that the loss of the log of HMS Conqueror has been the subject of successive parliamentary statements, and the outcome of the board of inquiry was the subject of detailed investigation by Parliament and of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State. I am afraid that I cannot add to that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designations and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Portillo.]

PETITION

  Rolls-Royce plc
  12.8 am
  Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to ask leave to present a petition, which has been signed by more than 267 pensioners of Rolls-Royce plc. These pensioners live in my constituency, in other Bristol constituencies and wider afield, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon (Mr. Cope), for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), and in and around Coventry.
  The petition relates to a difference between a pension that is given to Rolls-Royce pensioners who were members of the former Rolls-Royce pension scheme and other, similar pensioners, who were members of the former Bristol Siddeley Engines pension scheme and who retired between 1978 and 1984.
  The petitioners pray :
  That this honourable House should ask the Government while it retains its position as sole shareholder in Rolls-Royce plc to procure that the company give equal treatment to those Bristol Siddeley pensioners who retired between 1 April 1978 and 31 December 1983 to the treatment given to such pensioners who retired after 31 December 1983.
  I willingly add my support, as indeed do many of the colleagues to whom I referred earlier, to that prayer.
  To lie upon the Table.

  A34, Stone
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now ajourn.—[ Mr. Portello]
  12.10 am
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I am extremely grateful for this opportunity, even at this late hour, to raise this issue. In the words of the letter that I wrote to Mr. Speaker on 20 March :
  "I would be grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the need for a bypass of Stone, Staffordshire, in my constituency."
  I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for sharing this late hour with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with me and with the Whip on the Government Front Bench. I shall be suitably brief.
  Perhaps I can put the problems of Stone — a delightful town and I take this opportunity to invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit it to see the problems that I am about to describe to the House in practical everyday terms—in the context of the correspondence that I will now recite to the House.
  In a letter dated 17 November 1986, Mr. Onions, the county surveyor to the Staffordshire county council—a man whom I respect enormously and who I must say is a revered constituent of mine — wrote to Mr. John Blundell, the chairman of the Stone chamber of trade— and I want a place on record my gratitude, as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, for the support and encouragement that I have received from him and his officers who are present in the Gallery this evening—as follows :
  "As you are probably aware, Stone high street is part of the primary route, the A520. It is the county council policy to encourage heavy commercial vehicles to use the motorway, the trunk road and the primary road network wherever possible instead of the more unsuitable class 2, class 3, and unclassified roads."
  Of course, that includes the A34. He went on to say :
  "It is not practical to restrict heavy commercial vehicles from using the high street in Stone until such time——"
  I use my words carefully
  "as the bypass is constructed."
  Mr. Blundell, the chairman of the Stone chamber of trade, subsequently wrote earlier this year to Mr. Onions, stating :
  "At a recent meeting of the chamber of trade the question of heavy goods vehicles was again raised by our members, particularly in view of the extensive roadworks to be carried out over the next 16 weeks in the lower section of Stone high street. I enclose a list of 18 different companies who appear to be using Stone high street as a pre-test circuit, and on the grounds of safety and convenience to the shopping public we would request that these vehicles should at least be prevented from using Stone in this way whilst these roadworks are being constructed."
  Mr. Onions, the county surveyor, then replied to Mr. Blundell on 23 February :
  "As I previously pointed out, high street Stone is part of the primary road network and it is not practical to restrict the movement of heavy lorries until such time as a suitable bypass is available. It is certainly not the intention of the county council to impose a selective ban on training vehicles."
  I have raised on behalf of my constituents generally and on behalf of the traders and shoppers in Stone in particular the question of the urgency of the need for a bypass around the town. The Labour county councillor for Stone, Mr. R. D. Osbourne, wrote to Mrs. Elizabeth Ball, the secretary of the Stone chamber of trade, as recently as 7 April 1987 in the following terms :

  427
  "Thank you for your invitation to the Stone Chamber of Trade meeting. Unfortunately, I am working away at the present time so I will be unable to attend. Regarding the information about the Stone bypass road, things are not clear at this time. However, as soon as I have returned to Stone, I will be looking into the matter and I will report to the Stone Town Council."
  Mrs. Ball wrote to me on the same date as follows:
  "You will note that although we have raised the bypass issue in the press, at Town Council meetings and directly to the various local authorities by letter, we have had little active response."
  Probably the best two quotes are from County
  Councillor Osbourne,
  "things are not clear at this time,"
  and the county surveyor:
  "Relief from this long-awaited town-centre bypass is as far off as ever and no place can be found for it in the building programme for the foreseeable future."
  Mrs. Ball wrote:
  "As you know, a bypass has been talked of for these last 20 years at least, and the public inquiry with the new town council was held five years ago. It would appear"—
  here modesty must creep in—
  "that no one with the exception of yourself is willing to grasp this issue at any level and we, the Chamber of Trade, support you in what you are trying to do."
  It is for these reasons — uncertainty, indefiniteness and procrastination—that I raise the issue this evening. I accept that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will probably not be able to give me an assurance that he can impose upon the county council, as the highway authority, his powers of persuasion to encourage it to bring this much-needed and long-overdue bypass to the top of the Staffordshire county council's priority programme, but I hope that by raising the issue in the Mother of Parliaments, and from here through the media in Staffordshire generally, and in mid-Staffordshire particularly, some pressure will be put upon the county council to be sensitive towards and understanding of the needs and wishes of the electorate of Stone, the shoppers and the ratepayers, for a long-overdue and much-needed bypass.
  I say for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I imagine that on your journeys to your constituency you have been through Stone high street from time to time, though not in the direction I am talking about because it is a one-way street.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Mr. Deputy Speaker would be on the bypass.
  Mr. Heddle: I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would have been on the bypass, had it been constructed. As it has not been, that has not been possible. I hope that you will use the bypass in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to promise me that it will be constructed in the not-too-distant future.
  I shall describe the historic town of Stone. It is an intimate, close-knit town. Its architecture is typified by low-rise buildings of appearance typical of my part of Staffordshire, which gives it a pleasant human scale. The town centre is basically linear in form, with the high street — the main shopping street, a one-way street that is narrow in parts to the extent of 12 ft or 15 ft—forming the main spinal feature. There has been some consolidation of individual parcels of land due chiefly to
  428
  new development. The general pattern of land use to the rear of high street premises is one of long, narrow curtilages which, together with footpaths and access roads, give a pronounced grain that runs broadly at right angles to the high street.
  The high street, which forms the core of the existing conservation area — it is an area in which there is a predominance of buildings of architectural and historic interest, and certainly grades 2 and 3 listed buildings—is of particularly pleasant architectural composition. The street, with its more or less continuous facades of two or three-storey buildings, gently curves and widens uphill. The predominant materials are brick, stone, stucco, tile and slate. A number of the buildings have interesting detailing in some early shop fronts, which still remain, but with the continual thunder of heavy traffic they bear the appearance of being careworn and to an extent show signs of settlement.
  There are a number of buildings of individual significance within the town centre, several of which are listed as being of historic and architectural interest. The value of the architecture along the high street and in the adjoining streets lies particularly in the total effect of the group of buildings.
  In Stone town centre, the local plan modified by Stafford borough council following an extensive public inquiry and considerable public consultation, said:
  "The Staffordshire county council has made provision in its current highway works programme for works in Stone town centre commencing in 1989 or 1990, although any programming of works will ultimately he dependent upon adequate funds."
  I ask my hon. Friend to give two assurances if it is possible for him to do so tonight. First, can he assure me that those adequate funds, given the return of this Administration in the election that will intervene between now and 1988, will be available to the county council? Secondly, will he use his powers of persuasion to ensure that those funds are directed towards the provision of a bypass for the town centre of Stone?
  The report continues:
  "The borough council considers that improvement to the road network in the town centre is to be welcomed in principle. A number of highways converge on the town centre. Traffic currently has a considerable environmental impact on the High street and the adjoining streets, particularly during periods of peak flow when the amenity and the quietude of these streets is seriously affected. The problem is particularly acute to the south of Market place where High street tapers and the carriageway and footways become narrower."
  For those hon. Members who have not travelled from north to south along Stone high street I point out that it is narrow. Because it is narrow, heavy commercial vehicles delivering goods to the shops inevitably have to park on the pavements, thus causing inconvenience to young married mothers pushing prams and to the elderly, too, who find it impossible on occasions to move along the footpaths.
  Apart from the day-to-day bustle and commercial convenience for which the heavy goods vehicles use the high street, as I have just mentioned in reciting the correspondence to the House. Stone high street is used by a large number of companies to test their drivers in the use of heavy goods vehicles. The county council, whilst trying to encourage them to use the artery roads on the outside of the town, has failed to do so and Stone has become a veritable commercial race track, with the attendant risk to life and limb that that involves.

  429
  The report to which I referred earlier says:
  "It is considered that in order to maximise the benefits of the inner ring road"—
  to which my hon. Friend may allude in his reply—
  "as a bypass route, complete pedestrianisation of the High street should be pursued as an ultimate aim."
  What I am asking my hon. Friend to do in his reply is, first, to assure me, my constituents in general, and the shoppers, traders and chamber of trade in Stone in particular, that those adequate funds will be continually made available so that the bypass, in whatever form and wherever it should be planned, will remain available. Secondly, his Department should use its powers of persuasion and, dare I say, pressure, to try to ensure that Staffordshire county council carries out the wishes of the elected members and the electorate in my constituency so that Stone has its bypass as a matter of urgent priority. As soon as the decision is made and the priority struck, there should be a public consultation exercise to find out whether the electorate and shoppers require pedestrianisation and to ensure that when the bypass comes—soon cannot be soon enough—it is in a form, in a place and of a design and structure that meets the wishes of the majority of my constituents in Stone.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise the issue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being kind enough to reply.
  12.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): It is always a pleasure to share either the Chamber of the House of Commons or a Committee Room with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). We spent many arduous hours on the Housing and Building Control Bill of 1984 which extended rights to council tenants. My hon. Friend's well-known and well-deserved reputation in matters relating to housing is equalled by his work relating to transport.
  I remember my hon. Friend saying to me how much he supported the Government's aim to get through traffic on to through roads so that, as he said, local traffic could be returned to those who are shopping and, in residential areas, to those who are going to school, and to pensioners who want to be able to move around, with or without a car in safety, without being pursued by heavy goods vehicles using unsuitable roads. The work done by my hon. Friend during his time in the House has made it possible for road casualties to be reduced, economic prosperity to be supported and the environment to be improved. No one wants to cover the countryside, or the towns, unnecessarily with concrete and tarmacadam. The occasional building of bypasses, relief roads or link roads allows other thoroughfares to be restored to their proper purpose, which is to allow people to move around in safety. Those three considerations—economic prosperity, environmental relief and road casualty reduction — lie behind what my hon. Friend has described as the keen desire of the people in Stone to have a bypass.
  I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) for being here this evening. His is perhaps the unheard hand, guiding the Department of Transport. I am sure that his constituents would like to know that in our stewardship of the
  430
  Department of Transport since 1979 we have managed, with a reduced budget, to increase capital spending on roads, and to increase money for national roads unlike our predecessors who, from 1974 to 1979 halved the money available for new national roads. Unlike our predecessors, we have not had to put on the immediate braking effect of 1976 when the International Monetary Fund came in to run the country. We have been able to increase the money available through transport supplementary grant to local highway authorities—in the main, to the county councils — that want to promote schemes that are of more than local importance.
  As I hope to show in the next few minutes, it is quite clear that Stone's need for a bypass is of more than local interest because of the through traffic that Stone wants to avoid. I probably speak for those coming down the A520, who do not want to go through Stone unnecessarily. Of course, those who do will benefit as will the town centre which my hon. Friend has described as having a closely-knit character, and the low-rise architecture that is familiar to that part of Staffordshire. I think that he said that it was on a pleasant human scale. I should like him to know that I appreciate the one bypass that Stone has because I was born near the A41 in Newport and members of my family live in the western end of the county of Staffordshire,. near Newport. As one who used to go to the races at Uttoxeter, I can say that that line would take me through Stone. Of course, I should confess that I have not put a bet on a horse since the day before the Gold Cup at Cheltenham when I backed two out of three winners and had to buy cream cakes; but perhaps that is by-the-by.
  The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of a bypass, although I am sure that he will understand when I say, with a slight degree of puzzlement, that no Labour or alliance Members seem to be interested in this subject. My hon. Friend knows that the Government place great emphasis on providing bypasses on our national roads, especially to remove heavy lorries from places where people live, work and do their shopping. Our recent achievements in building bypasses and relief roads in the trunk road network, together with the proposals in the revised programme, will continue to help to resolve the conflict between the needs of residents and those of through traffic. In all, the current programme will provide relief for about 280 communities throughout the country. Even then there are some communities on the national network for which no bypass is planned.
  In the mid-1950s the construction of the A34 bypass at Stone brought about a much-needed improvement by taking most of the north-south traffic away from the town. My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the other route passing through Stone, which carries considerable volumes of traffic.
  For those less familiar with the locality, I should explain that Stone lies roughly midway between Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent. The county council, in its wisdom, may have decided to concentrate on some other areas rather than Stone and my hon. Friend, local councillors and the chamber of trade will argue the case for Stone. I would not direct the priorities of the county council. They are, rightly, determined locally. I hope that the county council will read the debate.
  I recognise the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to Mr. Onions, the county surveyor, and his staff. Their work in Staffordshire and on the representative bodies for the highway professionals is well respected and Mr. Onions

  431
  makes a contribution well beyond the county. I do not want any of my remarks this evening to be taken as a criticism of the council. Unlike Mary Goldring, who in her "Analysis" programme this evening thought that the Government had been trapped into doing the job that is rightly done by local highway authorities, we have a proper partnership on roads, where we look after the national roads, local councils look after the local roads and for local roads of more than local importance the transport supplementary grant arrangements appear to be working well.
  My hon. Friend forgot to tell us how the history of Stone is closely linked with the Trent and Mersey canal, which is located on the western edge of the town centre. Perhaps the canal does not provide the type of bypass for freight traffic, so perhaps I should bring the House more up to date. It is Stafford borough council's intention to extend the present conservation area to include the canal and its setting and to exploit this important amenity resource by encouraging canal orientated development or re-use of canal side sites and to improve public access by providing new footpath routes and cycleways between the town centre and the canal site.
  Although Stone no longer bears the brunt of A34 traffic, it lies at the junction of a number of highways, including two important local roads which generate a good deal of through traffic—some 9,000 vehicles a day, 10 per cent. of which are heavy vehicles. These are the A51 north-west/south-east route and the A520 north-east/ south-west route. Traffic currently has a considerable environmental impact on the high street and adjoining roads, particularly at peak times, when the amenity and peace of these streets is seriously affected. This is compounded by congestion caused by roadside loading and unloading. Bus stops along the high street can also add to the congestion. I am merely describing the traffic facts in Stone and not criticising the buses or those who use them.
  As my hon. Friend said, in May last year Stafford borough council adopted the Stone town centre local plan, which provides for an improved highway network agreed with the local highway authority, Staffordshire county council. A package of highway schemes has been proposed which has as its main element an inner link road to the north east of the high street, but with associated provision of rear access or service roads, re-siting of car parking facilities, re-routing of buses and so on, leading to the eventual pedestrianisation of the high street.
  The policies and proposals in the plan are aimed at enhancing the existing character of the town centre, while preserving its vitality and encouraging its efficient functioning as a shopping and commercial centre. My hon. Friend should be congratulated on working closely with the chamber of trade. Sometimes people argue that chambers of trade are interested only in themselves, but plainly they are interested in their customers, just as politicians are interested in their electorates. It is a natural way of representing the true community interests of a local area.
  All these are praiseworthy aims indeed. Design of the new road schemes will need to balance highway and environmental objectives by seeking, for example, to keep traffic flowing by restricting the number of turning movements to those needed to give adequate access to the town centre, while minimising the visual impact of any road system by avoiding the demolition of listed or other
  432
  interesting buildings. My hon. Friend reminded me that we are discussing local roads which are of course, the responsibility of the local highway authority. Staffordshire county council is able to establish where the needs are in its area. It must decide what the priorities are and how best to promote the necessary improvements.
  Local highway authorities submit a transport policies and programme each year to the Department. These documents set out what local road improvements the highway authority wants to do. They contain a programme of likely expenditure according to the priorities for particular schemes, the resources available for carrying them out and the extent of the planning and design work needed. I have not yet mentioned the various statutory processes through which all highway improvement schemes must go. My hon. Friend said that he knew that the schemes would not necessarily satisfy everybody, but that if funds could be made available and a consensus arrived at that would be generally welcomed in Stone.
  The TPP is the basis of an authority's bid for highway capital allocation and transport supplementary grant. Grant is paid towards firmly programmed schemes of more than local importance—that is, schemes on roads carrying long distance through traffic. Schemes are not normally approved for grant unless they are due to start in the following year.
  In last year's TPP, Staffordshire included the A520 town centre bypass in Stone in its longer term programme. Broadly speaking, that probably means a start in five to 10 years' time. It has presumably taken that decision in the light of competing pressures elsewhere within the county. This is a matter for it and is not an issue on which I would wish to intervene. It is not for me to say which schemes in Staffordshire are the most important. My hon. Friend may decide to take up the question of priority with councillors in Staffordshire. I can tell him that if Staffordshire decided to bring the scheme forward in its programme I would give it careful consideration in assessing whether TSG should be paid. It is certainly the sort of scheme for which TSG is intended. It is on a primary route and will clearly relieve the town centre of through traffic. However, the question whether grant could be paid would rest on the priority that Staffordshire was able to give the scheme, the total resources that were available and the comparative merits of other schemes all over the country that would be competing for funds. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give an advance commitment, but what I have said about it being a primary route and the relief of the town centre is the best indication that I can give.
  I understand the problems that counties have in putting schemes in order of priority. I intend to maintain assistance for counties in the way that we have in the past. No Government can commit themselves for future years, but if we can continue to have a response from a Government who are willing to take necessary decisions, the sort of infrastructure spending that is talked about by Opposition parties—what the Prime Minister and I call spending on roads, bypasses and relief roads — can continue to grow in the way in which it has done in the past few years.
  Some people may argue that there is not much politics in road safety, bypasses or environmental improvements. They are wrong. Everyone in the House recognises that if we could add capital spending and give the sort of relief for which people are asking we would get the kind of political response that would return a Government —

  433
  whenever the election comes within the next year or so — who could continue the sort of work that we have been doing, which is not to be mean or over-optimistic, but to provide the sort of increased programme of bypasses and relief roads for which my hon. Friend so eloquently
  434
  argued. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he opened the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate for his attendance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Patent Information
  Mr. Sims
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to review the dissemination of patent information.

  Mr. Luce
  An efficiency scrutiny is being undertaken jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Arts and Libraries and the British Library to review existing arrangements for the dissemination of patent information in the United Kingdom and for the exchange of British and overseas patent documentation.

  Libraries (Damage)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Minister for the Arts if the British Library has completed its assessment of the damage to its collections inflicted by Miss Norma Hague and discovered in 1984.

  Mr. Luce
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 March 1987, c. 291]The British Library has completed its assessment. I understand that all the property for which there was conclusive evidence of theft by Miss Hague was subsequently recovered.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will list the individual and total value of the damage inflicted by Miss Norma Hague on the collections of (a) the British Library, (b) the Birmingham public library and (c) the Liverpool public library, including in each case the token value mentioned as their share of the damage on the charge when Miss Hague pleaded guilty and was convicted in November 1984.

  Mr. Luce
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 March 1987, c. 291]Miss Norma Hague was convicted in 1984 of stealing property to an estimated value of £21,847 from these libraries. The individual values were £12,847 for Liverpool city libraries, £5,000 for the city of Birmingham public libraries, and £4,000 for the British Library. A considerable proportion of the stolen property was subsequently recovered. I understand that there is no conclusive evidence that further damage was inflicted by Miss Hague beyond the amounts with which she was charged.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Zircon
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the amount of the additional costs falling on the Crown Office to date of inquiries in relation to the Zircon affair.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  Almost all the additional costs falling on the Crown Office to date of the 220
  inquiries in question have been those caused by parliamentary interest in the matter. It is not, however, possible to quantify the costs involved.

  Scottish Law Commission
  Mr. Hirst
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Law Commission.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  In the period from 1980 to date the Scottish Law Commission has produced 27 reports on its law reform projects. Legislation has been passed or introduced to implement, wholly or partially, 21 of these reports. Two of these reports did not require legislation and the remaining reports are under consideration.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will give details of plans to increase the work load of procurators fiscal.

  The Solicitor-General for Scotland
  The work load of procurators fiscal is dictated by the number of reports received from the police and other agencies and will vary from office to office. Case tracking computers have been installed in the two biggest offices, Glasgow and Edinburgh, which will deal more efficiently and effectively with the work load of these offices.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been awarded in grants by the Science and Engineering Research Council to (a) education institutions and (b) others in Yorkshire and Humberside in each year since 1979; how much the council will disburse in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Walden
  The information requested is as follows:

  SERC research grants to education institutions and others

  Financial year

  Amount £ million (Cash)

  1979–80

  43·3

  1980–81

  56·2

  1981–82

  62·3

  1982–83

  67·6

  1983–84

  70·4

  1984–85

  78·8

  1985–86

  87·0

  1986–87

  198·4

  1987–88

  2103·7

  1 Provisional outturn

  2 Estimates

  The Science and Engineering Research Council's total grant-in-aid from the science budget in 1987–88 is £350 million. SERC's overall allocation is determined by my right hon. Friend in the light of advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. The SERC is primarily responsible for deciding priorities within its overall allocation.

  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much grant has been paid to

  221
  the Science and Engineering Research Council in cash and real terms in each year since 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Walden
  The information requested is as follows:

  Grant-in-aid to science and engineering research council

  £'000

  Cash terms

  Real terms (at 1986–87 prices)

  1975–76

  106,277

  294,610

  1976–77

  125,243

  306,735

  1977–78

  136,765

  294,088

  1978–79

  153,308

  297,871

  1979–80

  175,466

  291,731

  1980–81

  201,377

  282,229

  1981–82

  216,720

  276,463

  1982–83

  234,806

  279,337

  1983–84

  254,278

  289,505

  1984–85

  277,866

  303,383

  1985–86

  298,534

  307,490

  1986–87

  316,187

  316,187

  1987–88

  350,252

  335,169

  The amount of grant-in-aid allocated to the Science and Engineering Research Council is decided by my right hon. Friend on the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Further Education (Examinations)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of full-time students in non-advanced further education are pursuing GCSE or GCE-O, A-level courses.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In November 1985, 25 per cent. of full-time and sandwich students in non-advanced further education were enrolled on GCE O and A-level courses.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The financial managememt initiative covers a wide range of management reforms to improve management in central Government in support of the Government's commitment to improve value for money. In my Department it has given added impetus to work which had already begun and has also led to new initiatives.

  The introduction of the FMI has encouraged the further development of performance indicators and output measures for individual programmes and policies. It has also led to the creation of a financial information system covering the Department's running costs. These and other initiatives, such as a new coherent top management system

  Thousands

  Academic year beginning in

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Great Britain

  Home/full-time initial entrants

  University

  74·7

  76·4

  74·0

  71·6

  69·2

  70·5

  70·3

  All initial entrants

  142·0

  146·3

  155·9

  160·9

  160·7

  163·2

  164·6

  Home full-time students

  Higher education

  451·2

  465·5

  488·9

  504·9

  517·9

  524·9

  531·0

  610

  222
  and improved financial management training, have encouraged a greater awareness among managers at all levls of the need for good financial management, both in the Department's own spending and in the spending of those bodies for which it has responsibility within the Government.

  The effect can be seen over a range of the Department's work. Examples include the targets and performance indicators contained in the Department's chapter in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm.56), and the chapter on quality and efficiency in the recent White Paper on higher education (Cm.114). Control of the Department's own running costs has been delegated to four cost centre managers.

  School Building Projects
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total national financial provision for school building projects in the financial years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Government's expenditure plans have included the following provision for schools in England.

  £ million

  11986–87

  21987–88

  21988–89

  Central Government:

  Building grants to voluntary and special schools3

  46

  54

  50

  Local authority capital:

  Schools4

  217

  299

  290

  1 Cmnd. 9702.

  2 Cm. 56.

  3 Includes repairs-maintenance, purchase of sites and buildings and building work.

  4 Includes building work and purchase of sites, furniture and equipment. Provision is net of in-year receipts.

  Schools in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what has been the total number of home full-time and sandwich students in higher education in each year since 1979;

  (2) what has been the total full-time equivalent number of part-time students in higher education in each year since 1979;

  (3) what has been the total number of home full-time entrants to universities in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is shown in the following table :
  223

  Academic year beginning in

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  FTE1 of part-time students Higher Education

  93·8

  2100·9

  2104·0

  2105·9

  2109·1

  2109·1

  114·0

  1 Conversion factors vary in the different sectors and for different levels of course. An illustrative average factor of 35 per cent. has been used for all part-time students.

  2 Including about 1,000 non-advanced full-time equivalents in Scotland. The figures are to be revised.

  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, on the basis of the revised projections of future higher education student numbers announced in the White Paper, "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge", what he estimates average unit costs in 1986–87 prices will be in 1988–89 for the universities, for the polytechnics and local authority colleges and for the voluntary and grant-aided colleges.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Unit costs in 1988–89 will depend on various decisions still to be taken by the institutions in recruiting students, by the Government in the annual public expenditure survey, and by local authorities and others in providing additional income. However, it is worth noting that against the 2·1 per cent. increase in student numbers between 1986–87 and 1988–89 adopted as the planning target in the recent White Paper, current plans for centrally provided or determined recurrent funding allow for an increase, at 1986–87 prices, over the same period of 6 per cent. for universities, 7 per cent. for local authority polytechnics and colleges, and 2 per cent. for voluntary and other grant-aided colleges.

  School Meals Supervisory Assistants
  Mr. Freeson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what national agreements exist regarding the rates of pay to he paid to school meals supervisory assistants.

  Mr. Dunn
  I understand that the latest manual workers pay settlement was agreed by the National Joint Council of Local Authority Services (Manual Workers) in October 1986.

  Career Education and Guidance
  Mr. Lawler
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what improvements are being made in the provision of career education and guidance.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Following from the White Paper "Working Together", I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and Wales and myself today launched a new initiative designed to improve the effectiveness of the provision of career education and guidance. A copy of the booklet "Working Together for a Better Future" has been placed in the Library.

ENERGY

  Community Insulation Projects
  Mr. Maples
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements will be made to the fuel community insulation projects in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  At present the Department of Health and Social Security makes single payments to 224
  recipients of supplementary benefit for the cost of materials to draughtproof their homes. The work of draughtproofing is normally undertaken by community insulation projects, under the auspices of NEA, and carried out by long-term unemployed people on the Manpower Services Commission's community programme. There are now 384 of these projects, and over 300,000 homes have already been insulated under this programme, to which the Manpower Services Commission, DHSS, the DOE and my Department have all contributed.

  I have drawn hon. Members' attention to the success of this programme because in many of their constituencies it is helping the old to keep warm and providing the younger with worthwhile jobs, as well as improving the energy efficiency of the 300,000 homes.

  Present arrangements for single payments for draught-proofing will end in April 1988 as part of the social security reforms. The Government have, however, made clear their commitment to continue help with the cost of draughtproofing materials where it is needed. The Departments supporting this programme have therefore been considering how this can best be done.

  My right hon. Friends and I have now decided that in the long term the right solution will be to extend the home improvement grant scheme to include the cost of draughtproofing materials within a revised system. The new arrangements for the home improvement grant scheme will not, however, be in place before the social security changes.

  As an interim measure, therefore, the Government have decided that from April 1988 help with the cost of draughtproofing materials will be provided through the Manpower Services Commission. The commission will be well placed to undertake this task because of its responsibility for operating the community programme through which the actual work of draughtproofing is now done. It will operate a scheme in consultation with my Department and others with an interest.

  Eligibility for the scheme will be widened in April 1988 to include all households in receipt of income support, housing benefit or family credit. This means an increase in eligible households from under 3 million to about 7 million. A small contribution will be sought from householders benefiting from the scheme, but this will amount to no more than about 3 per cent. of the cost of the draughtproofing service provided.

  As a result of these decisions the future of the community insulation projects is now assured. We estimate that Government support for them in 1988–89 will be worth some £55 million to £60 million, of which £14·5 million will be for draughtproofing materials alone. This would represent an increase of 80 per cent. on 1986–87 and nearly 30 per cent. on 1987–88. Discussions will now be taking place with NEA and other organisations

  225
  involved in draughtproofing work in order to finalise the administrative arrangements which will come into force from April 1988.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions on Afghanistan during his recent visit to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend made clear to Mr. Shevardnadze, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Mr. Gorbachev, that we would support a neutral and non-aligned Afghanistan, but that this could emerge only by early Soviet withdrawal and the creation of conditions enabling the Afghan people freely to decide their own future.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Eggar
  The FCO response to the financial management initiative involves a wide range of management reforms which have built on work already being done by the FCO to improve management and value for money. The precise effects of the financial management initiative cannot therefore be defined.

  Both the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have introduced top management systems, which provide a structured framework for planning the strategic deployment of resources. All posts and departments in the diplomatic wing and all staff in the aid wing have an agreed set of objectives against which performance is regularly assessed.

  Computerised management information systems provide managers at all levels with information on the costs of their programmes. The aid wing has a long-established system of budgeting for programme expenditure. Further delegated budgeting has been introduced, notably overseas. Thirty per cent. of local expenditure is now controlled directly by posts and greater responsibility has been devolved to Overseas Development Administration's development divisions.

  These reforms have led to a clearer setting of priorities, more effective targeting of activities and greater awareness

  Experiments by primary purpose: Scotland

  Thousands

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Study of normal or abnormal body structure or function

  119·3

  115·6

  122·1

  To select, develop or study the use etc. of medical, dental and veterinary products

  54·4

  49·2

  42·0

  Development of transplant techniques

  0·4

  0·9

  1·3

  To select, develop or study the use, hazards or safety of:

  Plant pesticides (including fungicides)

  1·0

  0·5

  4·1

  Herbicides or substances modifying plant growth

  1—

  0–5

  1—

  Substances used in industry

  2·6

  1·3

  3·4

  Substances used in the household

  1—

  0·1

  0·1

  Cosmetics and toiletries

  0·9

  0·2

  0·9

  Food additives

  3·8

  0·4

  1·1

  Tobacco and its substitutes

  —

  —

  —

  Injurious plants or metazoan animals and their toxins

  1·8

  0·8

  0·5

  226
  of the financial implications of policy decisions. The results of these improvements are reflected in the specific output measures published in Cm. 56 and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's success in meeting many of the additional demands on its services through efficiency savings without recourse to extra resources from central funds.

  Foreign Compensation (USSR)
  Mr. Knowles
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 March, Official Report, column 212, to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) if he will make a further statement on the response to the advertisement about the Foreign Compensation (USSR) (Registration and Determination of Claims) Order 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  The closing date for claims in respect of bonds was 31 March 1987. As there was a last-minute rush to register claims for bonds by some major institutions which hold large numbers of them, it will be several weeks before accurate figures for the number of bonds received and their total face value is known. However, provisional estimates, and I would emphasise that these are only estimates, put the number of bonds received at half a million, with a face value of approximately £20 million. Up to the end of March some 3,300 requests for application forms in respect of other claims were received and dealt with by Foreign Compensation Commission. The closing date for these other claims is 30 June 1987.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the number of experiments on animals carried out in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom during the last three years which were of a non-medical nature.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, information on the primary purpose of experiments on living animals in Great Britain started in the years 1983 to 1985, the latest year for which information is currently available, is given in table 15 of "Statistics of Experiments on Living Animals Great Britain, 1985" (Cmnd. 9839). Corresponding information for Scotland is given in the following table; corresponding information for Northern Ireland is not available.
  227

  1983

  1984

  1985

  General environmental pollutants

  1·9

  5·6

  6·7

  To demonstrate known facts (Certificate C)

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  For other purposes

  73·3

  72·3

  72·2

  For more than one purpose

  2·3

  6·0

  15·1

  TOTAL

  262·1

  254·2

  269·7

  1 Less than 50.

  Passport Application Forms
  Mr. Hawksley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when post offices in The Wrekin constituency will be provided with passport application forms.

  Mr. Waddington
  This is part of a general problem. Shortages have arisen as a result of an exceptionally high level of demand for passports. Steps are being taken to increase the number of forms being printed and to restock any post offices in short supply as quickly as possible.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates are available to him as to the number of prisoners who are HIV positive.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 7 April the prison population of England and Wales included 44 inmates reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. There is no statistically reliable estimate of the number of unidentified cases.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increases in police and other manpower he has approved for the six metropolitan joint police authorities in 1987–88.

  Mr. Hurd
  The following increases are contained in the establishment schemes for the six authorities for 1987–88, which I have laid before Parliament today.

  Authority

  Additional Police Posts

  Additional Civilian Staff

  Merseyside

  —

  49 full-time

  Northumbria

  175

  5 full-time

  South

  33 full-time

  Yorkshire

  50

  2 part-time

  West Midlands

  —

  2427 full-time

  West Yorkshire

  50

  50 full-time

  Notes

  1 The increase of 75 police posts for Northumbria was announced on 18 December 1986. Thirty-five of the posts were with immediate effect and 40 with effect from 1 April 1987.

  2The increase in the number of civilians in the West Midlands police is expected to release 382 police officers to operational duties.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A women prisoners there in Her Majesty's prison, Durham; how many strip searches have been made on category A prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Durham in March, indicating (a) strip searches before and after consultation with legal advisers, (b) after visits and (c) after cell change, wing search and cell search.
  228
  Mr. Mellor
  Last month there were, until 25 March, four women category A prisoners in Durham prison. There have been three since that date. During the month strip searches were carried out on women prisoners in this category in the circumstances and the number of occasions shown:

  Number

  After legal visits

  Nil

  After other visits

  4

  At the time of cell changes and wing and cell searches

  11

  Total

  15

  Metropolitan Police (Raid)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many police officers attended at 34 Carson road, Canning Town, E16, on the morning of 28 March, as to the purpose of the raid, as to how many occupants were in the flat, as to whether a warrant was presented and as to who was arrested and on what charge.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that five police officers entered 34 Carson road, Canning Town, E16 on the morning of 28 March 1987. Four uniformed officers arrived in response to a call for assistance from an officer who had arrested a man for road traffic offences. The man had assaulted the officer and then run to 34 Carson road. The only other person on the premises at the time was a woman alleged to be the man's girlfriend. No warrant was presented, nor was one necessary in the circumstances.

  The man was arrested and charged with driving while unfit through alcohol, driving with excess alcohol and two charges of assaulting a police officer with intent to resist arrest.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the number of police engaged in wheel-clamping duties.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A maximum of 14 police constables supervise wheel clamping units from Mondays to Fridays, while six constables are deployed on such duties on Saturdays. In addition, the inspector, sergeant and six constables at the Hyde Park car pound spend a proportion of their time on duties arising from wheel clamping as does the chief inspector in charge.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changing the area analyses of the crime figures.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have no plans to change the area analyses of the recorded crime figures which are published annually by police force area in the Home Office "Statistical Bulletin" issued in March and later in the year in more detail in "Criminal Statistics". Separate figures for London boroughs will continue to be placed in the Library of the House each quarter. More detailed analyses of the figures may be prepared and published from time to time.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet had an opportunity to consider claims for compensation from applicants to the community radio experiment.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received 35 claims for compensation from the final total of 270 applicants to the scheme. We have also considered the case for making a modest ex gratia payment to each applicant, in view of the cancellation of the experiment. However, we have decided that such payments from public funds would not be justified, in particular since it was made clear that applicants should not incur the expense of elaborate applications.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the prevention of terrorism legislation before the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 expires in March 1989.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have asked Viscount Colville of Culross, QC, who carried out the 1986 annual scrutiny of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1984 and will perform the same function in 1987, to carry out a general review of the Act. I am pleased to announce that Lord Colville has accepted my invitation. The terms of reference of his inquiry will be based on those given to Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe when they reviewed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1974 and 1976, and will be as follows:"Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1984, with particular regard to the effectiveness of the legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report".
  Lord Colville's report will be published as a Command Paper.

  Any individual or organisation who wishes to submit written observations on matters relevant to Lord Colville's terms of reference should write to him, before 31 July at: Room 14, Hepburn House, Marsham Street, London SWIP 4HW.

PRIME MINISTER

  Press Releases
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 17 March, Official Report, column 457, if she will list all press releases prepared with the aid of the new computer system in her Press Office since it was installed.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 17 March at columns 457–58.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Self-adhesive Envelopes
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the suppliers of the House of Commons self-adhesive envelopes about the non-adhesiveness of those envelopes currently supplied to the Serjeant at Arms Department.

  Mr. Biffen
  A number of examples have been found in a batch of self seal envelopes code number 23(146)S where the adhesive on the top flap has been inadequate. HMSO was asked to pursue the matter with the manufacturer as soon as it came to light in February, and arrangements have recently been made for the remainder of the batch to be withdrawn from the Serjeant at Arms Stores. HMSO did check samples before delivery but has been asked to carry out a more extensive check in future.

  European Legislation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Lord Privy Seal when Her Majesty's Government expect to reply to the Second Special Report of Session 1985–86 from the Select Committee on European Legislation.

  Mr. Biffen
  The Government's response to the report is published today as a Command Paper (Cmnd. 123). Copies of the response have been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The financial management initiative covers a range of reforms aimed at obtaining the best possible return for public expenditure. The principles have been incorported into, and are increasingly indistinguishable from, my Department's drive towards more responsive management.

  Budgeting is being extended; increasingly officials are accountable for the resources under their control and this has led to an improved awareness of costs and value for money. Every six months divisions report to me on the cost of their operations and progress towards agreed objectives; they also set targets for the period ahead. This informs me in the discussions which I have in the public expenditure cycle and has led generally to the better use and direction of resources. Some of the improvements can be seen in the tables of indicators of output incorporated

  231
  into Cm. 56. Examples of others are savings of 15 per cent. achieved by adopting new methods of distributing mail and up to 13 per cent. in respect of telephone call charges.

  I am taking steps to improve the quality of the information provided and wherever it is sensible and practicable to do so to achieve a more consistent approach across my multi-functional Department. Approximately 80 per cent. of the public expenditure which falls within my responsibility is made available to local authorities, district health authorities and other public bodies. I expect them also to apply the principles of the initiative. An example of better management contributing to improved value for money is the closer attention to energy efficiency measures by the National Health Service in Wales which aims to realise savings of 20 per cent. in the five-year period to 1988–89.

  Milk Outgoers Scheme
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to change the present milk outgoers scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  The first phase of the Milk (Community Outgoers Scheme) closed on 15 February 1987. We shall shortly be announcing details of a new national outgoers scheme under which the rate of compensation will be 27·49p per litre payable over seven years.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary schoolchildren in each local education

  Percentage

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Clwyd

  5·7

  6·9

  6·1

  5·4

  5·6

  6·9

  7·8

  8·1

  8·3

  Dyfed

  8·8

  10·0

  11·4

  12·5

  12·3

  13·6

  14·2

  15·0

  17·4

  Gwent

  0·2

  0·4

  0·4

  0·7

  0·7

  0·9

  1·0

  1·1

  1·2

  Gwynedd

  17·4

  18·4

  19·8

  20·4

  22·1

  22·4

  26·6

  27·1

  31·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  3·9

  4·6

  5·4

  5·9

  6·3

  6·8

  7·3

  7·6

  8·2

  Powys

  6·3

  6·9

  4·4

  4·9

  7·1

  5·8

  7·1

  6·9

  6·5

  South Glamorgan

  1·0

  1·2

  1·3

  1·8

  3·0

  1·7

  1·5

  2·3

  2·6

  West Glamorgan

  2·8

  2·8

  3·2

  4·0

  4·9

  3·2

  3·4

  3·0

  3·2

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the secondary schools in each local education authority in Wales in which it is possible for pupils (a) to undertake most or all of their education through the medium of the Welsh language, and (b) to undertake part of their education through the medium of Welsh; and if he will indicate the schools in which no teaching, or very little teaching is done through the medium of Welsh.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information in the form requested is not readily available.

  The following provisional information for September 1986 indicates, however, those schools in which none of the teaching is undertaken through the medium of Welsh and those in which at least some of the teaching is undertaken through the medium of Welsh. For each school in the latter category the number of subjects offered through the medium of Welsh is given.

  SCHOOLS IN WHICH AT LEAST SOME OF THE TEACHING IS UNDERTAKEN THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH
  Clwyd

  Ysgol Uwchradd Maes Garmon3

  authority area in Wales (a) speak Welsh as their principal language/home language and (b) speak Welsh fluently as a second language.
  Mr. Roberts
  The information, which relates to pupils aged five and over in maintained primary schools, as at September 1985, is given in the following table:

  Number of pupils assessed as being fluent

  First language1

  Second language2

  Clwyd

  1,401

  2,367

  Dyfed

  4,783

  4,032

  Gwent

  17

  393

  Gwynedd

  6,638

  5,114

  Mid Glamorgan

  264

  3,307

  Powys

  454

  520

  South Glamorgan

  278

  700

  West Glamorgan

  685

  837

  1 Pupils whose home language is Welsh.

  2 Pupils whose home language is not Welsh.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of primary school children in each local education authority area in Wales speak Welsh fluently as a second language; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1977.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The percentages of pupils, aged 5 and over in maintained primary schools, who speak Welsh fluently as a second language are given in the following table. The figures, which relate to September of each year, exclude pupils whose principal language is Welsh.

  Ysgol Glan Clwyd4

  Brynhyfryd2

  Ysgol Morgan Llwyd4

  Dyfed

  Llandovery County High2

  Llandeilo County Secondary1

  Amman Valley Comprehensive1

  Ysgol y Preseli3

  Lampeter County Secondary Comprehensive2

  Aberaeron Comprehensive3

  Cardigan County Secondary1

  Ysgol Uwchradd Tregaron2

  Ysgol Gyfun Y Strade4

  Ysgol Gyfun Bro Myrddin3

  Ysgol Gyfun Ddwyieithog Teifi4

  Ysgol Gyfun Ddwyieithog2

  Fishguard Comprehensive1

  Gwynedd

  Ysgol Dyffryn Ogwen5

  Ysgol Botwnnog4

  Ysgol Brynrefail4

  Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle4

  Ysgol Eifionydd3

  233

  Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones3

  Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi1

  Ysgol Gyfun Llangefni3

  Ysgol David Hughes4

  Ysgol Uwchradd Bodedern5

  Ysgol y Gader3

  Ysgol y Moelwyn3

  Ysgol Uwchradd Tywyn1

  Ysgol Y Berwyn4

  Ysgol Ardudwy4

  Ysgol Dyffryn Conwy5

  Ysgol Friars2

  Ysgol Tryfan4

  Ysgol Y Creuddyn5

  Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen4

  Ysgol Glan y Mor4

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen5

  Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari5

  Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni5

  Powys

  Caereinion High2

  Llanfyllin High3

  Llanidloes High1

  Ysgol Bro Ddyfi4

  Llandrindod High1

  Builth Wells High1

  Maesydderwen Comprehensive1

  Brecon High1

  South Glamorgan

  Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf5

  West Glamorgan

  Ysgol Gyfun Ystalyfera4

  Ysgol Gyfun Gwyr4

  1 Schools in which one to four subjects are taught through the medium of Welsh.

  2 Schools in which five to nine subjects are taught through the medium of Welsh.

  3 Schools in which 10 to 14 subjects are taught through the medium of Welsh.

  4 Schools in which 15 to 19 subjects are taught through the medium of Welsh.

  5 Schools in which 20 subjects and over are taught through the medium of Welsh.

  SCHOOLS IN WHICH NO TEACHING IS UNDERTAKEN THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH
  Clwyd

  Hawarden High

  Rhyl High

  Mold Alun

  Elfed High

  Holywell High

  St. David's High

  Prestatyn High

  The Maelor

  Castell Alun High

  Deeside High

  Flint High

  Connah's Quay High

  Ysgol Bryn Elian

  Ysgol Emrys Ap Iwan

  Eirias High

  Denbigh High

  Ysgol Dinas Bran

  Ysgol-y-Grango

  Ysgol Bryn Alyn

  Darland

  St. David's

  Ysgol Bryn Offa

  Yate Sixth form College

  Ysgol Uwchradd Argoed

  Ysgol Rhiwabon

  The Groves High School

  St. Richard Gwyn High

  Blessed Edward Jones High

  234

  St. Joseph's RC High

  Dyfed

  Ysgol Gruffydd Jones

  Milford Haven CS

  Ysgol Dewi Sant

  Greenhill Comprehensive

  Milford Haven Grammar

  Pembroke Comprehensive

  Penglais Comprehensive

  Coedcae Comprehensive

  Graig Comprehensive

  Glan-y-Mor Comprehensive

  Bryngwyn Comprehensive

  Sir Thomas Picton Comprehensive

  Queen Elizabeth Mandunum Comprehensive

  Ysgol Gyfun Emlyn

  Gwendraeth Valley Comprehensive

  Whitland Grammar School

  Tasker Milward VC Comprehensive

  St. John Lloyd RC Comprehensive

  Queen Elizabeth Cambria Comprehensive

  Gwent

  Newport St. Julian's Comprehensive

  Newport Dyffryn Comprehensive

  Hartridge Comprehensive Newport

  Newport Bettws Comprehensive

  Liswerry Comprehensive Newport

  Newport Queens Comprehensive

  Brynmawr Comprehensive

  Bassaleg Comprehensive

  Newbridge Comprehensive

  Pontllanfraith Comprehensive

  Glynocoed Junior Comprehensive

  Blackwood Comprehensive

  Llantarnam Comprehensive

  Croesyceiliog Comprehensive

  Oakdale Comprehensive

  Glanyrafon Junior Comprehensive

  Cwmcarn Comprehensive

  Caerleon Comprehensive

  Monmouth Comprehensive

  Tredegar Comprehensive

  Fairwater Comprehensive

  King Henry VIII Comprehensive

  Chepstow Comprehensive

  Caldicot Comprehensive

  Ebbw Vale Senior Comprehensive

  Risca Comprehensive

  Abersychan Comprehensive

  Trevethin Comprehensive

  West Monmouth Comprehensive

  Nantyglo Comprehensive

  Abertillery Comprehensive

  St. Joseph's Comprehensive

  St. Alban's RC Comprehensive

  Gwynedd

  Ysgol John Bright

  Ysgol Aberconwy

  Loreto RC Middle School

  Mid Glamorgan

  Afon Taf High

  Pen-y-Dre High

  Cyfarthfa High

  Vaynor and Penderyn Comprehensive

  Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive

  Coedylan Comprehensive

  Hawthorn Comprehensive

  Mountain Ash County Comprehensive

  Blaengwawr Comprehensive

  Tonyrefail Comprehensive

  Cynffig Comprehensive

  St. Cenydd Comprehensive

  St. Ilan Comprehensive

  Bryntirion Comprehensive

  St. Martins Comprehensive

  Maesteg Comprehensive

  Heolddu Comprehensive

  235

  Ynysawdre Comprehensive

  Lewis Boys Comprehensive

  Pencoed Comprehensive

  Lewis Girls Comprehensive

  Brynteg Comprehensive

  Porthcawl Comprehensive

  Treorchy Comprehensive

  Ferndale Comprehensive

  Ogmore Comprehensive

  Porth County Comprehensive

  Rhymney Comprehensive

  Bedwas Comprehensive

  Tonypandy Comprehensive

  Y Pant Comprehensive

  Cymmer Comprehensive

  Aberdare Boys' Comprehensive

  Aberdare Girls' Comprehensive

  Bedwellty Comprehensive

  Bishop Hedley High

  Archbishop McGarth

  Cardinal Newman Catholic Comprehensive

  St. John Baptist Comprehensive

  Powys

  Newtown High

  Welshpool High

  John Beddoes County Secretary

  Gwernyfed High

  Crickhowell High

  South Glamorgan

  Rumney High

  Glyn Derw High

  Cardiff High

  Glan Ely High

  Willows High

  Fitzalan High

  Llanedeyrn High

  Cantonian High

  Whitchurch High

  Llanishen High

  Llanrumney High

  Hawardian High

  Cathays High

  Llanilltud Fawr Comprehensive

  Barry Boy's Comprehensive

  Bryn Hafren Comprehensive

  Stanwell Comprehensive

  St. Cyres Comprehensive

  Cowbridge Comprehensive

  Radyr Comprehensive

  St. Illtyds VA College

  Heathfield House High

  Archbishop Mostyn RC High

  The Bishop of Llandaff High

  St. Teilo's CIW High

  Bishop Hannon High

  Lady Mary RC High

  St. Cadoc's RC Comprehensive

  West Glamorgan

  Mynyddbach Comprehensive

  Penlan Boys Comprehensive

  Cefn Hengoed Comprehensive

  Olchfa Comprehensive

  Morriston Senior Comprehensive

  Llansamlet Junior Comprehensive

  Dynevor Comprehensive

  Pentrehafod Comprehensive

  Bishop Gore Comprehensive

  Cymer Afan Comprehensive

  Glan Afan

  Sandfields Comprehensive

  Dyffryn Comprehensive

  Penyrheol Comprehensive

  Gowerton Comprehensive

  Llangatwg Comprehensive

  Dwr y Felin Comprehensive

  Cwrt Sart Comprehensive

  Bishopston Comprehensive

  236

  Dillwyn Llewlyn Comprehensive

  Pontarddulais Comprehensive

  Bishop Vaughan Comprehensive

  St. Joseph's RC Comprehensive

  Cefn Saeson Comprehensive

  Cwmtawe Comprehensive

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of primary school children in each local authority area in Wales do not receive Welsh language lessons.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The percentages of pupils who are not taught Welsh in maintained primary schools, as at September 1985, are given in the table:

  Percentage

  Clwyd

  3·8

  Dyfed

  19·1

  Gwent

  98·7

  Gwynedd

  1·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  13·4

  Powys

  19·8

  South Glamorgan

  54·9

  West Glamorgan

  38·0

  Regional Services (North Wales)
  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce decisions on the recommendations of the review of regional services to north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  I am pleased to be able to announce the decisions which will take forward the review of regional services to north Wales. These have been set out in a Welsh health circular which has been issued today.

  The review constituted a thorough appraisal of the adequacy of regional services provided for patients in north Wales. It also covered those major regional services which are available elsewhere in Wales and those operated by authorities in England to which patients in north Wales have access.

  The recommendations of the review were the subject of wide consultation with health authorities and other interested bodies. The great majority of responses received supported the report's findings. As a consequence it is my right hon. Friend's intention to implement the report in the light of the comments received and in collaboration with the district and English regional health authorities concerned as quickly as possible. The following action is to be taken:
  burns and plastic surgery services are to be improved by additional out-patient sessions at Bangor and Wrexham funded by the Welsh Office;
  together with North Wales health authorities, the Welsh Office will examine options for providing additional facilities for cardiac services with Welsh Office funding;
  the medical oncology service in North Wales is to be designated as a regional service. Discussions with the relevant health authorities to that end will be initiated soon by the Department; in addition, to ensure that cancer treatment services are organised as effectively as possible I propose to fund a study of the provision of those services to include the feasibility of providing a satellite radiotherapy centre in North Wales;
  the Department is to initiate discussions with the relevant health authorities on the location in North Wales of a satellite artificial limb and appliance centre which will reduce significantly the need of disabled persons to make the journey to Merseyside;
  funds are to be made available to provide fast, comfortable ambulance transport for those patients who

  237
  have to travel the long distance from Gwynedd to the Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre and to the Radiotherapy Centre in Merseyside;
  the service to Wales of the Welsh Poisons Information Centre is to be improved and consideration is being given to its relocation in association with toxicological services;
  the Department will also be pursuing with the appropriate health authorities the implementation of a number of more detailed recommendations for improving district and regional services.

  These decisions should lay the foundation for a significant improvement in the coverage and quality of health care services available to people in north Wales.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Grist
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when copies of the report of the review of the Welsh Development Agency will be made available.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Copies of the report have now been placed in the Library of the House.

  Appeals (Ministerial Adjudication)
  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances he has the role of adjudicator in appeals against decisions made by local authorities and public bodies in Wales; and if he will list the powers under which he fulfils that role.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 March 1987, c. 516]: A list of the various appellate powers given to the Secretary of State for Wales against decisions made by local and public bodies in Wales are shown in the following tables :

  General Dental Services Regs 1973

  National Health Service

  Sch 1, Para 17

  Decision of Executive Council and Dental Estimates Board.

  NHS Regs 1974. SI 160

  Reg 12

  Refusal of Family Practitioner Committee to include doctor on Medical List etc.

  Reg 30(6)

  Decision of Rural Dispensng Committee that pharmaceutical services be provided.

  Reg 30G(1)

  Decision of Rural Dispensing Committee on pharmaceutical services application.

  Reg 3

  Refusal of Family Practitoner Committee of deputising services.

  Reg 3

  Refusal by F.P.C. on approval of consultation premises.

  Reg 3

  Conditions imposed by Medical Practices Committee.

  NHS Service Committees etc Regs 1974

  Reg 11

  Decision of F.P.C.

  Reg 21

  Decision of Dental Estimates Board.

  Reg 48

  Decision of tribunal constituted under s. 42 of NHS Act 1946.

  NHS Act 1977

  Section 33

  Refusal by Medical Practices Committee of application for inclusion in list to provide general medical services.

  Section 40

  Determination of a recognised committee re general ophthalmic services.

  Section 46

  Direction of a Tribunal that a practitioner's name be removed
  238
  from the list.

  Community Health Regulations 1985

  Reg 20

  Refusal of District Health Authority to disclose information.

  NHS General Ophthalmic Services Regs 1986

  Reg 5

  Decision of Ophthalmic Qualifications Committee that appellant is disqualified.

  Welsh Office Planning Procedure Paper 1975

  Proposals of District Health Authority re closure of Health Service buildings.

  Terms and Conditions of Service of Hospital Staff 1981 Para 190

  Termination of appointment.

  Agriculture and Land Drainage

  Agriculture Act 1967—

  Section 49

  Witholding of consent by a Rural Development Board to land transfer.

  Section 52

  Refusal of licence to plant trees.

  Land Drainage Act 1976—

  Section 68

  Refusal of Internal Drainage Board re exemption of rates.

  Section 84

  Resolution of water authority requiring contribution to expenses.

  Section 86

  Resolution specifying amounts in lieu of contribution.

  Environmental Protection

  Public Health Act 1936—

  Section 17

  Local authority declaration re adoption of sewers.

  Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937—

  Section 3

  Local authority decision as to discharge of trade effluent.

  Coast Protection Act 1949—

  Section 7

  Determination of a coast protection authority.

  National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949—

  Section 29

  Draft maps etc prepared by surveying authorities.

  Clean Air Act 1968—

  Section 4

  Local authority decision re arrestment plant.

  Section 6

  Local authority decision not to approve chimney height.

  Control of Pollution Act 1974—

  Section 10

  Decision on licence for waste disposal.

  Section 39

  Decision on inland water protection.

  Section 43

  Water authority notices controlling discharges of trade effluent.

  Sections 64, 65 & 67

  Decision of local authority on noise pollution protection.

  Section 87

  Local Authority notice requiring air pollution information.

  Special Waste Regulations 1980—

  Regulation 9

  Refusal to give directions concerning special waste.

  Highways etc.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Schedule 14

  Decision by Authority not to make Modification Order.

  Highways Act 1980

  Section 183

  Local highway authority refusal of licence to lay apparatus.

  Section 220

  Application of advance payments code.

  Section 233

  Application of private street works code.

  239

  Town and Country Planning

  Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Section 36

  Planning decision of local planning authority.

  Section 37

  Default of planning decision.

  Section 88

  Enforcement notice.

  Section 95(2)

  Established use certificate.

  Section 103

  Replacement of trees in a Tree Preservation Order.

  T.P.O. Regulations 1969, Paragraph 21, Article 25

  LPA's refusal to consent to cutting etc.

  Control of Advertisements Regulations 1984, Regulation 22 Refusal of consent for display of advertisement.

  Land Compensation Act 1961, Section 18

  Certificate of appropriate alternative development.

  Water

  Water Act 1945, Section 18

  Byelaws for preventing pollution of water of undertakers.

  Water Resources Act 1963

  Section 39

  Decision of water authority re licence.

  Section 40

  Failure of water authority to determine application for licence.

  Section 72

  Refusal of water authority's consent re control of discharges into underground strata.

  Section 78

  Conservation notice.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Pensioners
  Mr. Higgins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether all pensioners whose sole income is the full national insurance pension are entitled to some supplementary benefit; and how the figures for the national insurance pension for a single person and married couple compare with the minimum they would be entitled to have their incomes increased to by supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Major
  The amount of supplementary benefit payable, if any, is dependent upon the claimant's circumstances. Pensioners who have available capital in excess of £3,000 are not entitled to supplementary benefit. Unless they are entitled to special additions, pensioners in the following categories who are in receipt of standard rate basic retirement pension (in respect of couples, where their pensions are based on the contribution record of only one partner) would not be entitled to supplementary benefit:

  (a) Single person living as member of someone else's household.

  (b) Single resident in accommodation provided by a local authority under part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 (unless they have continuing housing requirements for example water rates).

  (c) Single person or both partners of a couple in hospital.

  (d) Exceptionally, a single woman householder aged under 65 or a married couple with very low net housing requirements (but they may be entitled to housing benefit supplement).

  The relevant rates of retirement pension and supplementary benefit are as follows.
  240

  Current rate £

  Rate from 6 April £

  Retirement pension

  On own insurance

  38·70

  39·50

  On spouse's insurance

  23·25

  23·75

  Supplementary pension

  Householder

  Single aged under 65

  137·90

  138·65

  Single aged 65 and over

  l 239·10

  1 239·85

  Couple3

  1 261·85

  1 263·05

  Non-householder

  Single

  434·25

  435·00

  Couple

  464·55

  465·90

  Boarder personal expenses5

  Single

  10·95

  11·15

  Couple

  21·90

  22·30

  Resident in Part III

  accommodation6

  Single

  38·70

  39·50

  Couple

  77·40

  79·00

  Hospital in-patient (personal expenses)7

  Single

  7·75

  7·90

  Couple (both in-patients)

  15·50

  15·80

  1 Housing requirements not covered by housing benefit (for example water rates) payable in addition.

  2 Figures include heating addition of £2·20 paid automatically to householders aged 65 and over, less £1 available scale margin.

  3 Where at least one of the couple is aged 65 or over.

  4 Figures include a housing addition of £3·90 (£4·05 from 6 April).

  5 Paid in addition to an amount for the board and lodging charge plus any meals not included in the charge (subject to certain limits).

  6 The rate for single persons coincides with the standard retirement pension rate. For married couples the figure is doubled.

  7 Continuing housing requirements paid in addition. Where only one of a couple are in hospital, the basic supplementary benefit is unchanged for eight weeks when it is reduced in line with the reduction in retirement pension.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he is taking to seek to protect children from abuse.

  Mr. Newton
  The second stage of our training initiative to tackle child abuse will consist initially of four projects and cost £200,000 in 1987–88.

  The first of the four will involve the Open University in a two-year project to produce an introductory course on the problems of recognition and referral in cases of child abuse for professionals and others.

  The second is for a video and training pack on child sexual abuse for medical practitioners under the auspices of the Royal Society of Medicine.

  The other two projects will cover inter-disciplinary working: Professor Stevenson of Nottingham university will be developing training materials on the inter-agency aspects of case conferences; and the NSPCC will be developing training for social workers and health visitors who need to provide expert advice to colleagues in their own agencies.

  This programme complements other work already announced which the Department has in hand, including a new guide on inter-agency co-operation ("Working Together") and on the handling of child abuse ("Inquiries"); the preparation of practice guidance for social workers and health visitors; conferences organised

  241
  by the Social Services Inspectorate on child sexual abuse; and the preparation of new legislation as envisaged in the White Paper "The Law on Child and Family Services".

  I believe that the four projects, together with the first stage of our training initiative which my right hon. Friend announced last October and the work which the Department has on hand, will make a useful contribution to improving practice in this area of child care, which is of concern to us all.

  Mid Staffordshire (Hospital)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in the construction of the new hospital planned to serve the Mid-Staffordshire parliamentary constituency and neighbouring constituencies.

  Mrs. Currie
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the West Midlands regional health authority is responsible for the management of individual building schemes contained in its operational capital programme. However, I understand that work on the new Lichfield/Tamworth district general hospital will commence in July 1989. The adjustment of the starting date arises from a review of the region's £870 million capital programme to ensure that the year-on-year expenditure remains within budget.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for severe weather payments have been made in Dundee since 1 January; and how many applications have been granted.

  Mr. Major
  Information concerning the number of applications made in Dundee for exceptionally cold weather payments is not available. However, for the period from 1 January 1987 to 10 March 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the two Dundee local offices made approximately 8,000 £5 weekly payments.

  National No-smoking Day
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much public money paid directly or indirectly has been used in the national no-smoking day campaign.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on 18 December 1986, at column 702.

  NHS (Building Projects)
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total national financial provision for building projects for (a) National Health Service hospitals and (b) other National Health Service facilities in the financial years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the provision for hospital and community health services capital and other National Health Service capital for 1986–87 and 1987–88 and planned provision for 1988–89. Allocations are not aligned to particular projects. Their deployment and the use of income generated locally from the sale of surplus land and buildings is a matter for individual spending authorities.
  242

  Capital Provision (£ million)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 (plans)

  Hospital and community health services capital:

  gross

  894

  922

  952

  receipts

  141

  136

  140

  net

  753

  786

  812

  Other National Health Service capital:

  gross

  43

  37

  37

  receipts

  1

  1

  0

  net

  42

  36

  37

  Total National Health Service capital:

  gross

  937

  959

  989

  receipts

  142

  137

  140

  net

  795

  822

  849

  Note

  Capital receipts for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are taken from the published Supply Estimate and for 1988–89 are provisional.

  Mediparks
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to encourage the development of mediparks making use of surplus land with a view to encouraging technological innovation.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for the regional and district health authorities concerned to consider in the light of local circumstances any specific proposals which are put to them for the use of surplus National Health Service land, including development of mediparks.

  Referral Patterns
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consult the Royal College of General Practitioners as to whether referral patterns can be changed to make maximum use of new hospital facilities provided in recent years.

  Mr. Newton
  General medical practitioners usually prefer to refer their patients to hospitals conveniently situated, but they may refer to any National Health Service hospital consultant able to accept them. Referral patterns and waiting lists are amongst the topics currently being discussed with the medical profession.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his proposals for reducing cross-boundary patient flows in the context of resource allocation policy.

  Mr. Newton
  Our policy is to distribute resources more fairly across the country so as to ensure equal opportunity of access to health care for people in equal need. We expect regions to follow the same principles in planning services and allocating resources across their districts.

  Patterns of patient flows across health authority boundaries will change and in many cases may reduce as this process continues, but the pace and extent of such changes will depend on local circumstances. District self-sufficiency is not an aim; patient flows will continue for specialist treatment, or where natural catchment areas of hospitals or other facilities do not exactly match health

  243
  authority boundaries. In addition, general medical practitioners remain free to refer patients to the hospital consultant of their choice.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of patients treated in hospitals in the London borough of Hillingdon referred by general medical practitioners in practice in the boroughs of Watford, Harrow and Ealing and in the counties of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire; and what additional financial resources are received by Hillingdon district health authority to take account of these cross-boundary flows.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about hospital referrals by general medical practitioners is not collated centrally.

  My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Hillingdon district health authority for any information about the location of practices of general medical practitioners referring patients to hospitals in the district, and the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority, which is responsible for resource allocation to individual districts. The general principle followed by regional health authorities is that district funding takes account of cross-boundary flows of patients.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will consult the North West Thames regional health authority about the extent to which general medical practitioners in the boroughs of Ealing, Watford and Harrow and in the counties of Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire are encouraged to refer patients to consultants in the hospitals that have been newly provided in their boroughs and counties in recent years;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that regional health authorities in the Thames regions consult their respective family practitioner committees with a view to achieving a change in referral patterns so that patients can take advantage of the facilities provided by the National Health Service in the boroughs and districts in which they are resident.

  Mr. Newton
  We encourage regional and district health authorities to consult family practitioner committees and local medical commitees with the aim of encouraging general medical practitioners to make the most appropriate referrals for their patients bearing in mind the needs of individual patients and the location and availability of appropriate services.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the extent of the interim relief money recently allocated to Hillingdon district health authority to take account of cross-boundary flows.

  Mr. Newton
  Hillingdon district health authority has been awarded £450,000 from the £2·6 million allocated to North West Thames regional health authority. This allocation was from a special fund of £30 million over two years designed to assist regions with less than average growth.

  Decisions on how the £2·6 million should be distributed to districts were a matter for North West Thames regional health authority.

  Hillingdon District Health Authority (Finance)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to seek to accelerate
  244
  the rate at which patients from Ealing, Watford, Harrow, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire are treated at hospitals in their respective areas and to ensure that the movement of financial resources from Hillingdon is deferred until this has been achieved.

  Mr. Newton
  Strategic planning for the region as a whole, and resource allocation to district health authorities, is primarily a matter for the North West Thames regional health authority. Where new facilities are being developed and resources redeployed within or between regions, which may have effects on referral patterns, the extent and pace of change is also primarily a matter for the authorities concerned.

  Pathology
  Mr. Kennedy
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans there are to encourage health authorities to put pathology services out to competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no present plans to encourage health authorities to put pathology services out to competitive tendering.

  Deaf-Blind People
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money his Department is making available for the purchase of Hasicom equipment for use by the deaf-blind.

  Mr. Major
  The Department has not provided funding, but the Department of Track and Industry helped to set up the Hasicom project by providing £85,000 towards equipment costs and £10,000 in consultancy fees. Local authorities, if they consider that there is a need for such equipment, have a duty to provide it under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. 'The Manpower Services Commission can also loan equipment if it is considered that this will help a disabled person overcome problems in the workplace and work efficiently.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the number of deaf-blind persons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Major
  The information available centrally relates to the numbers of persons registered with social services departments in England as being blind with an additional handicap. The information cannot be considered comprehensive because registration is voluntary, the registers may not reflect migration or deaths and additional handicaps may not be categorised. The latest information is given in the table. Figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Number of Persons Registered as Blind who are also Deaf or Hard of Hearing at 31 March 1986

  England

  Number

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Blind-Deaf without speech

  126

  153

  279

  Blind-Deaf with speech

  501

  868

  1,369

  Blind-Hard of hearing

  1,049

  1,952

  3,001

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Sims
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet made an appointment to the chairmanship of the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening.

  Mr. Newton
  We have appointed professor Martin Vessey, professor of social and community medicine in the university of Oxford, as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening. Other members will be appointed shortly.

  The role of the advisory committee will be to advise on the development of the breast cancer screening service, to monitor its effectiveness and its efficiency and to advise on research concerned with the provision of the service.

  Responsibility for ensuring that a call and recall service for breast cancer screening for all women in England in the 50 to 64 age group has been set up by the target date of 31 March 1990 will lie with the small team led by Sir Roy Griffiths, which, as my right hon. Friend announced on 1 April, will also be overseeing the implementation of the call and recall system for cervical cancer screening.

  AIDS
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance the chief medical officer at his Department has given on the professional position of doctors suffering from AIDS; what information he has as to the number of (a) general practitioners, (b) hospital doctors and (c) other doctors suffering from AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 74]: Like any other sick person, doctors with AIDS would receive advice from their own medical practitioners on whether they were fit to continue at work. The expert advisory group on AIDS, which is chaired by the chief medical officer, is currently preparing guidance on whether any restrictions are needed on the employment of HIV-infected doctors. The current advice from the United States, where there is far greater experience of HIV infection, is that it is not necessary to recommend restrictions on the activity of health care workers who are infected with HIV. The Department does not have information on the occupation of patients with AIDS and is unable to provide the information requested.

  Death Grant
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many death grant payments were made in the London borough of Southwark in each of the last three years and how many of those who received the payments will be eligible for the new means-tested death grant.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 110]: Information is not available in the precise form requested. The London borough of Southwark is covered by the Department's offices in Peckham, Southwark, Brixton, Kennington Park and Lewisham, although their boundaries are not conterminous with the borough. The number of claims for death grant received in each of the five local offices during the last three years (April to April) were as follows:
  246

  1984–85

  198–86

  1986–87

  Peckham

  1,245

  1,331

  1,126

  Southwark

  723

  728

  649

  Brixton

  800

  926

  739

  Kennington Park

  598

  610

  495

  Lewisham

  1,198

  1,531

  1,224

  1 To 10 March 1987.

  It is not possible to predict how many people in the borough of Southwark will qualify for funeral payments from the social fund from April 1987.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to what percentage of the residents of the London borough of Southwark will be eligible for the new means-tested death grant.

  Mr. Major
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 110]: Such a prediction depends, in part, on the number of people in the London borough of Southwark who receive supplementary benefit, or housing benefit, or family income supplement. Since all of this information is not available on the basis of local authority areas, no estimates of local levels of eligibility have been made.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Scott
  The Northern Ireland Office has implemented a programme of work to improve the value for money obtained from the Department's expenditure. Line managers have been given greater responsibility for, and better information on, expenditure in their areas of responsibility. This includes a management information system under which managers set objectives and targets and identify output and performance measures. The redesign and computerisation of the Department's accounting and financial information systems has accompanied the delegation of responsibility for the management of expenditure to line managers, including scope to redeploy resources across programme and running cost budgets.

  The Northern Ireland Civil Service, in parallel with developments in the Home Civil Service, has also engaged in a programme to improve financial management and efficiency by a variety of means. These include the use of top management systems to bring together information on objectives, resources, and performance, the development of computerised financial information and accounting systems to assist in budgeting and control of departmental expenditure and in the progressive application of the cost centre concept, and new initiatives on training and personnel management.

  The practical effects of the FMI within my area of responsibility can be seen in two particular respects. First, there are real long-term benefits emerging in the form of enhanced managerial awareness of the need to define clear objectives for the use of resources, to use these to set challenging targets and to measure performance against targets through the use of relevant management information. Secondly, this work has already led to greater efficiency in a number of areas where progress can more readily be quantified. Examples include a projected 5 per

  247
  cent. decrease in energy consumption in Northern Ireland prisons, a reduction of£7·3 million in Northern Ireland electricity generating costs, a 5 per cent. reduction in unit costs per student at agricultural colleges, a Province-wide reduction in water leakage levels from 21 to 26 litres per property per hour to 13·19 litres by 1988–89, and the redeployment of £28 million in the Northern Ireland Health Service over the next five years to higher priority areas through better use of resources.

  Motor Vehicles (Offences)
  Mr. Proctor
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report figures for Northern Ireland corresponding to those published for England and Wales in "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles England and Wales" issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and if he will make a statememt.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 67]: Figures corresponding to those published in "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles England and Wales" are not available for Northern Ireland. However, I have today placed in the Library, a copy of "A Commentary on Northern Ireland Crime Statistics 1985" published by the Northern Ireland Office, which give, amongst other data, information on motoring in Northern Ireland.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the allocation of funds to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital works to existing dwellings as at 1 April 1986;

  (2) what was the outturn figure for capital works carted out to existing dwellings owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as at 31 March 1987;

  (3) what was the funding allocation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital works to existing dwellings in the south region as at 1 April 1986;

  (4) what was the outturn figure for capital works to existing dwellings in the south region of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as at 31 March 1986;

  (5) what increased funding was requested by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital expenditure to existing dwellings at the last autumn review; and what increase was allocated;

  (6) what increased funding was requested by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the south region at the last autumn review; and what increase was allocated.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 118–19]:The Housing Executive's budget for capital works existing dwellings approved by the Department of the Environment (NI) for 1986–87 was £64 million. Additional capital receipts, savings elsewhere within the Executive's budgets and the transfer of a surplus of £1·5 million from the co-ownership scheme led the Executive to seek a number of revisions to its approved budgets in the autumn, including an increase to £68 million in the budget for work to existing dwellings. I understand from the Housing Executive that, on the basis of provisional figures, outturn for capital works to existing dwellings in 1986–87 is estimated to have been £67·9 million.
  248
  The distribution of resources to its regions within agreed objectives and priorities is a matter for the Housing Executive and I shall arrange for the chairman to write to the hon. Member about the position in the south region.

  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the period of the delay in a payment from the Masonic Housing Association to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for a housing development in Donaghadee, established by a local government audit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the normal accounting procedures of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive were implemented in relation to a payment from the Masonic Housing Association in respect of a housing development in Donaghadee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 118–19]:A payment of £322,000 was made to the Masonic Housing Association (NI) Ltd. by the Department of the Environment (NI) on 23 March 1984 to allow the association to meet part of the cost of 20 dwellings constructed for it at Donaghadee by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, within a total contract of 40 dwellings.

  I understand from the chairman of the Housing Executive that a recoverable charge was not formally raised against the association at the time in accordance with normal procedures. Payment was not, therefore, demanded by the executive and made by the association until February 1987. I also understand that the Housing Executive's procedures have now been revised to ensure that similar delays will not recur.

  Mr. Seamus Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the approved budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nursery at Dundonald between 1983 and 1985;

  (2) how great was the loss to public funds deriving from overspending of the approved budget during 1983 to 1985 at the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nursery at Dundonald;

  (3) by how much the approved budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nursery at Dundonald for 1983 to 1985 was exceeded.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 118–19]: This is a matter for The chairman of the Housing Executive, who has informed me that the Housing Executive's financial systems did not entail the setting of a specific budget for the nursery. Financial provision for planting and general landscaping services which have been provided partly by the executive's own nursery but also by private contractors is made by each region within approved capital and revenue budgets; it would not be possible without disproportionate cost to identify the costs of services provided by the nursery, which is to close at the end of May.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  RSPCA (Complaint)
  Mr. John
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet received notification of any decision taken by the EEC Commission indicating its response to a complaint lodged by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in February 1985; and if he will make a statement.
  249
  Mr. Donald Thomson
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 April 1987]: I received such a communication late yesterday.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways (Barriers)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken since June of 1986 to have inspections made to the footings of motorway barriers; what defects or deficiencies have been found; what steps he intends to take as a result; what proportion of total motorway mileage has been covered by such inspections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Detailed inspections are being made this year to a sample of concrete post-footings during major maintenance works to carriageways where lane closures are required that give access to safety fences. These inspections are designed to identify the likely extent of misshapen footings. Any such footings found are being replaced. These inspections are in addition to those being carried out under a new code of practice for routine maintenance introduced in 1985.

  Comprehensive information on mileages inspected, defects found and remedial action taken is not yet available. We estimate that detailed inspections this year will cover a sample of up to about 150 miles of motorway safety fences. Complete results of detailed inspections to footings will not be available until the end of this year.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 25 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and my subsequent letter to him of 27 March, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has initiated studies about the effect of light dues on the use of British ports.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The light dues regime has virtually no effect on the volume of trade at many ports, but my Department is studying the extent to which the regime leads to trans-shipment of liner container traffic, which is of special importance to some ports.

  Motorway Lane Closures
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates, times and places during which stretches of the M1 motorway between Derby (junction 25) and London have been reduced to single file traffic since January 1986.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not available. Where work involving single file running is planned, it is where possible carried out overnight or at other times when traffic volumes are at a minimum. We try to keep traffic disruption and delays to a minimum. Single lane running is only employed where there is no reasonable alternative.

  Motorways (Signs)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of construction and erection of the "Keep Your Distance" signs on the MI motorway at junction 6A.
  250
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The two signs on M1 at junction 6A now used to display the message "Keep Your Distance" cost £50,000 to install. They were first used for traffic management purposes during the final stages of completion of M25.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to erect further "Keep Your Distance" signs on motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Further use of "Keep Your Distance" signs will depend on the outcome of the experiment currently being conducted at the southern end of the M1. This experiment at present consists of nine permanent display motorway signs and a pair of variable message signs near junction 6A. There is also a pair of variable message signs on the M25 at junction 18 which are normally devoted to this purpose.

  The southern end of the M1 was chosen for this experiment because of the very heavy traffic density. The effectiveness of the signs is being monitored by the various police forces which patrol the sections of the motorway on which they have been erected.

  Marine Surveying (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Stott
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report on the reorganisation of the marine surveying department.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the departmental notice describing the reorganisation of the Surveyor General's Organisation, which came into force on 1 April.

  Wheelchairs (Station Access)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when there will be a fully wheelchair-accessible station-to-station service after the existing contract has expired.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Decisions on the future of the existing service beyond the present contract have not been taken. I understand that LRT intends to review the inter-station service in the light of experience once the wheelchair-accessible airbus service to Heathrow is in operation.

  London Underground
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the estimated yearly savings on staff costs to London Regional Transport from the introduction of the Underground ticketing system.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The current estimate from London Underground is that annual savings in staff costs of around £10 million will be achieved when the new Underground ticketing system is fully operational.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what applications he has received from London Regional Transport for the purchase of replacement rolling stock for the Central Line of the Underground.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. The requirements for replacement rolling stock have yet to be fully defined, following technical trials of prototype trains later this year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken in the past

  251
  two years by London Regional Transport or consultants appointed by them on the extension of existing Underground lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A number of enhancements to the Underground network are under consideration by the London passenger transport group. These include extensions to the Bakerloo, Jubilee East London, Metropolitan and Victoria lines.

  London Passenger Transport Group
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when was the last meeting of the London Passenger Transport Group; and what was discussed at that meeting.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The group met on 1 April, and discussed a range of matters concerning British Rail and London Regional Transport. These included joint ticketing, interchange improvements and rail planning issues.

  LRT (Strategy)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the next statement of strategy will be produce by London Regional Transport; and what public consultation there will be.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  London Regional Transport is required by the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to prepare and publish every three years a statement of strategy after consultation with the railways board, the local authorities concerned, the passengers' committee, and such other persons as it may think fit. The next such statement is to be published by June 1988. The nature of any public consultation on the statement and precise timing are matters for LRT.

  Bus Deregulation (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies into the effects of deregulation of bus services in Greater London are currently being carried out (a) by his Department and (b) by outside consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department has commissioned no studies by consultants into the effects of deregulation in Greater London. The Department has a programme of monitoring deregulation outside London: the first report was published in January of this year.

  British Rail Stations (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail stations there are in the Greater London area; how many are open only at peak times; how many are open only from Monday to Friday; how many are closed on Saturdays; and how many are closed on Sundays.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I shall write to the hon. Member when I have the information.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, how many British Transport police were
  252
  employed in each of the years 1977 to 1987 on (a) London Regional Transport and (b) Southern region of British Rail.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The British Transport police have provided the following figures:

  Year-end

  LRT

  BR Southern Region

  1977

  125

  n/a

  1978

  141

  n/a

  1979

  139

  n/a

  1980

  161

  n/a

  1981

  279

  n/a

  1982

  284

  193

  1983

  272

  191

  1984

  248

  196

  1985

  271

  205

  1986

  327

  206

  1987 (March)

  325

  214

  Note: Separate figures for BR Southern Region are not available for 1977 to 1981.

  Fishing Vessels (Loss Inquiries)
  Mr. Randall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for increasing the number of public inquiries held (a) when fishing vessels are lost or (b) when there are deaths at sea in connection with fishing vessles.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In deciding whether to order a formal investigation into a shipping casualty my right hon. Friend will take into account: the number of lives lost; the degree of public concern; the desirability for the cause to be more clearly established; the likelihood that there are lessons to be learnt; and the possible need for disciplinary action against the master or a member of the crew. The decision is made on the individual facts of each casualty and to project a trend would be inappropriate.

  Fishing Vessels (Accident Statistics)
  Mr. Randall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths there were on United Kingdom fishing vessels during the periods 1975 to 1980 and 1981 to 1985 arising from personal accidents.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The number of deaths on United Kingdom fishing vessels from personal accidents was 88 for the period 1975–80 and 50 for the period 1981–85. These figures include those recorded as "missing at sea" but exclude those resulting from casualties to vessels.

  Vessel Losses
  Mr. Randall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what change there has been in the number of vessels lost below 12 m in length during the periods 1975 to 1980 and 1981 to 1985.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The number of fishing vessels less than 12 m in length recorded in the Department's annual publication "Casualties to Vessels and Accidents to Men" as lost in the periods 1978–80 and 1981–85 are 40 and 102 respectively. (Until 1978 records list these casualties in terms of gross tonnage and not length and a ship of 20 gross tons has been taken to approximate to one of 12 m). During this period the number of ships at risk has increased by about 40 per cent.

  Car Imports (Type Approval)
  Mr. Gale asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has concluded his review of the terms of the personal import exemption from the national type approval requirements for cars; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government have decided to make no change in the present arrangements. This will enable consumers to continue to have the widest choice about where to buy their cars.

  I advise people intending to buy abroad to confirm with the manufacturer or his agent that the car meets our safety and environmental standards. That will be most readily evident if it has been type approved for use in this country.

  Navigational Aids
  Mr. McQuarrie
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken into future developments in navigational aids.

  Mr. Moore
  In April last year my right hon. Friend invited Dr. D. G. Kiely, a consultant electronics engineer, to undertake a study into developments in marine navigational aids in relation to users' long-term requirements. I have now received Dr. Kiely's report and I am arranging for its publication. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I am grateful to Dr. Kiely for undertaking this task and I am sure his conclusions and recommendations will command wide attention. I will be considering them most carefully and I would welcome views on them from all the interested parties.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which borough councils have been consulted in respect of the master building agreement between the London Docklands Development Corporation and the developers of Canary wharf.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 March at column 164.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have received ministerial visits from his Department in the last six months in connection with housing matters.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are 367 housing authorities in England. In the last six months, Ministers from the Department of the Environment have made visits to the following local authorities connected with housing matters.

  Bracknell

  Broxtowe

  Cambridge

  Daventry

  Havering

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kettering

  Lewisham

  Manchester

  Nottingham

  254

  Pendle

  Redditch

  Rushcliffe

  Solihull

  South Tyneside

  Stratford

  Thamesdown

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Wolverhampton

  British Waterways
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of Government funding to the British Waterways Board in each year since 1979; and what has been the percentage change in each year in constant prices.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table shows the British Waterways Board's external financing limit, which covers both grant and borrowing, for the years 1979–80–1987–88, together with its expression in 1986–87 prices and the annual and overall percentage changes on this constant price base.

  EFL (cash)

  EFL (1986–87 prices)

  Annual percentage change

  Overall percentage change

  £m

  £m

  1979–80

  25·7

  42·8

  —

  —

  1980–81

  30·0

  42·1

  -1·6

  —

  1981–82

  31·6

  40·4

  -4·0

  —

  1982–83

  39·3

  46·9

  + 16·1

  —

  1983–84

  40·8

  46·6

  -0·6

  —

  1984–85

  42·8

  46·8

  + 0·4

  —

  1985–86

  44·1

  45·4

  -3·0

  —

  1986–87

  45·0

  45·0

  -0·9

  —

  1987–88

  45·0

  43·1

  -4·2

  + 0·7

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the full list from which he selected Bradwell, Elstow, Fullbeck and Killingholme as sites for testing for suitability for receiving low-level nuclear waste.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 6 April at column 29.

  Sewerage and Water Supply Building Projects
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total national financial provision for sewerage and water supply building projects in the financial years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested was presented to Parliament in January 1987 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the White Paper. "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989·90" Cm. 56-II.

  Households (Power Supplies)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has to how many households live in local authority accommodation which has only an electricity supply and no gas supply.
  255
  Mr. Tracey
  Based on information from the "Family Expenditure Survey", an estimated 1·65 million local authority and new town tenants in Great Britain had electricty in their homes but not a gas supply in 1985.

  Satellite Television (Antenna)
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking an amendment to planning regulations to increase the permitted size of a satellite antenna to enable people in the north to install an antenna of sufficient size to receive satellite television without recourse to planning permission.

  Mr. Tracey
  From time to time we receive representations from different parts of the country seeking an increase in the size of satellite antennas which are permitted by the general development order. We consider that the present size limit of 90 cm for such antennas permitted by the GDO is appropriate given the possible environmental effect of an uncontrolled proliferation of larger dishes, but we shall continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Hampstead Heath
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to accept the proposal from the City of London to be given responsibility for Hampstead Heath; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Decisions on the future ownership and management of Hampstead Heath will be taken only after

  Net current expenditure per head 1978–79 to 1985–86

  Expenditure per head 1978–79 £

  Expenditure per head 1985–86 £

  Percentage change in current expenditure (cash terms)

  Percentage change in current expenditure (real terms)

  Greater London CL

  36

  93

  158·3

  36·8

  City of London

  2,760

  12,122

  339·2

  132·4

  Camden

  162

  483

  198·1

  57·8

  Greenwich

  109

  279

  1560

  35·4

  Hackney

  138

  385

  179·0

  47·5

  Hammersmith and Futham

  152

  322

  111·8

  12·2

  Islington

  163

  340

  108·6

  10·4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  129

  251

  94·6

  2·9

  Lambeth

  148

  355

  139·9

  26·8

  Lewisham

  123

  266

  116·3

  14·2

  Southwark

  171

  411

  140·4

  27·2

  Tower Hamlets

  187

  403

  115·5

  14·2

  Wandsworth

  129

  235

  82·2

  -3·7

  Westminster

  162

  370

  128·4

  20·9

  Barking and Dagenham

  213

  379

  77·9

  -6·0

  Barnet

  194

  344

  77·3

  -6·3

  Bexley

  206

  350

  69·9

  -10·0

  Brent

  254

  587

  131·1

  22·3

  Bromley

  188

  320

  70·2

  -9·9

  Croydon

  193

  351

  81·9

  -3·8

  Ealing

  221

  414

  87·3

  -1·0

  Enfield

  190

  332

  74·7

  -7·5

  Haringey

  262

  606

  131·3

  22·4

  Harrow

  195

  351

  80·0

  -4·9

  Havering

  200

  355

  77·5

  -6·1

  Hillingdon

  233

  369

  65·5

  -12·6

  Hounslow

  213

  417

  95·8

  3·5

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  190

  338

  77·9

  -5·8

  Merton

  210

  324

  54·3

  -18·4

  Newham

  236

  589

  149·6

  32·1

  Redbridge

  182

  340

  86·8

  -1·2

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  185

  329

  77·8

  -6·0

  256
  the London residuary body has put forward recommendations following its current consultation on the four options.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Knowles
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost to the taxpayer this year of increasing the proportion of local authority relevant expenditure in England met by Exchequer grant to 60 per cent.

  Mr. Chope
  If English local authorities were spending at the level consistent with that contained in the 1987–88 RSG Settlement approved by the House on 25 March, and 60 per cent. of this was met by Exchequer grant (the same level as in 1979), the cost to the taxpayer would be equivalent to the yield of about an additional 3·5p on the standard rate of income tax. It seems that actual relevant expenditure is likely to be somewhat higher, so the cost would probably be nearer 4p.

  If the taxpayer had been obliged to underwrite 60 per cent. of whatever local authorities had chosen to spend over the years since 1979, local authorities would probably have spent more, and the cost to the taxpayer in 1987–88 would be greater still.

  Sir George Young
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each individual London local authority net current expenditure per head of population in 1978–79 and in 1985–86, and the percentage increases in net current expenditure per head of population between 1978–79 and 1985–86 in cash and in real terms.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is as follows:
  257

  Expenditure per head 1978–79 £

  Expenditure per head 1985–86 £

  Percentage change in current expenditure (cash terms)

  Percentage change in current expenditure (real terms)

  Sutton

  177

  321

  81·4

  -4·2

  Waltham Forest

  220

  466

  111·8

  12·0

  ILEA

  173

  380

  119·7

  16·2

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Gould
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will now answer the question to which a holding reply was given on 21 January at column 590 concerning rate support grant.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 421]: The figures for 1987–88 requested at items (a) and (b) of the question have been placed in the Library. They include an adjustment for the costs of the teachers' pay settlement. The figures for 1978–79 have not been provided as grant was not paid on a comparable basis. The figures provided at (c) and (d) refer to 1981–82, the earliest year for which grant was paid on a comparable basis to 1987–88. The figures at (e) represent the percentage change in grant per head from 1981–82 to 1987–88 expressed as a percentage of the 1981–82 figures.

  Notes

  Rate Support Grant comprises Block Grant and Domestic Rate Relief Grant.
  258
  The figures for 1981–82 are final entitlements expressed in 1986 prices using the GDP deflator. In 1981–82 Metropolitan police and GLC entitlements were paid to the rating authorities in their areas.

  The figures for 1987–88 are based on estimates of authorities' entitlements to grant following the first supplementary report which is expected to be laid before the House after Easter. The estimates, which are provisional, are on the basis of the expenditure figures provided by local authorities on form BG14, adjusted where necessary to include estimates of the cost of the teachers' pay settlement. Figures for London boroughs include abolition-related LRES receipts.

  In addition to the adjustments requested, the 1987–88 figures for the London boroughs and the districts of Broxbourne, Elmbridge, Epping Forest, Epsom and Ewell, Hertsmere, Reigate and Banstead, Spelthorne and Welwyn Hatfield include a proportion of the Receiver for the Metropolitan police district's rate support grant. For Broxbourne, Elmbridge, Epping Forest, Hertsmere, Reigate and Banstead and Welwyn Hatfield this grant has been distributed on the basis of estimates of the population of the parts of each council's area which fall within the Metropolitan police area.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Investment Income (Disaggregation)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost in 1987–88 of taking the investment income of husbands and wives separately, including occupational pensions.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret the delay in answering this question. The revenue cost would depend on the detailed tax rules and on any consequential behavioural effects such as the transfer of assets between spouses. If the only changes to the tax rules were to allow the existing wife's earned income allowance against both the wife's investment income and category B state retirement pension and for the wife to have her own tax rate bands for these sources of income, the direct revenue cost (making no allowance for behavioural effects) would be about £500 million at 1987–88 levels of income. This figure is based on projections from information recorded on the survey of personal incomes, which does not have complete coverage of investment income taxed at source, and could therefore be an underestimate. An occupational pension arising from the wife's employment is treated as the wife's earned income under the current rules and qualifies for the wife's earned income allowance.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Bright
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the size of the companies in which the managers of personal equity plan funds are concentrating their investments.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It has been reported that, as I expected, most of the subscriptions to personal equity plans are invested in shares in the leading 100 British companies. It is, of course, for investors and plan managers to decide what shares are bought. The regulations for personal equity plans allow investment in shares of any United Kingdom company quoted on the stock exchange or dealt with on the unlisted securities market.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the price of a three-bedroom semidetached house in terms of the number of years' average earnings for an adult male in London and in the south-east in 1957, 1967, 1987 and 1986 together with the annual interest payable after tax on the purchase price, assuming a 90 per cent. mortgage and maximum relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Average prices of three-bedroom semi-detached houses are not available. The table gives average house prices for all properties bought with building socieity mortgages in 1977 and 1986: figures for the earlier years requested are not available. Because of the large number of commuters in the south-east, it is not possible to provide separate estimates for London and the rest of the south-east of house prices related to the earnings in each locality.
  260

  London and the South East

  Average house price1 £

  Ratio of house price to earnings2

  Annual net interest on 90 per cent. mortgage3£

  1977

  16,540

  3·85

  1,080

  1986

  50,375

  4·16

  4,213

  1Source: Department of Environment's survey of building society mortgages at completion stage.

  2 Average gross weekly pay of full time males on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence, in April each year; source: New Earnings Survey.

  3 Assuming 11 per cent, interest rate in 1977 with tax relief at 34 per cent. and 11·5 per cent, interest rate in 1986 with tax relief at 29 per cent, on the first £30,000.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the value of petrol purchased by businesses for (a) their own use and (b) that of their employees in 1986–87; what was the value of the benefit paid to the directors and to higher-paid employees; how much of this was subject to the scale charge; and what is his estimate of the amount of revenue from income tax and national insurance contributions in 1987–88 due from assessments under the same charge.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that the value of petrol purchased by sectors other than the personal sector was about £2·4 billion in 1985, the latest year for which information is available. This estimate includes purchases by companies and the public sector but excludes unincorporated businesses. I regret that information about the use of petrol purchased is not available.

  The taxable value of any free fuel provided for the private use of a director or higher paid employee is determined by reference to a set of scale charges and does not depend on the amount of fuel provided. It is estimated that, in 1987–88, the taxable value of free fuel provided for private use will be £450 million leading to an income tax yield of around £160 million. The provision of free fuel for private use does not affect national insurance contributions.

  Maturity Loans and Home Income Plan Mortgages
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking amendment of the law so that interest as well as capital on maturity loans and on home income plan mortgages can be rolled up during the lifetimes of the borrowers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received representations about tax relief on the interest on loans to purchase life annuities taken out by elderly home owners and secured on their homes. Repayment arrangements on such loans, including any provision for rolling up interest, are matters for agreement between the lender and the borrower.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the need to obtain a European Community derogation for the proposed scheme of value added tax cash accounting for small businesses will affect the timing of legislation and whether he will make a statement.
  261
  Mr. Brooke
  As my right hon. Friend announced in his Budget Statement on 17 March, he proposes to introduce the facility of cash accounting for businesses with an annual turnover not exceeding £250,000 on 1 October 1987, and the Government's request for a derogation from the sixth VAT directive to permit this was notified to the European Commission on Budget day. The Finance Bill, published today, contains in clause 10 powers for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make detailed regulations to implement the cash accounting scheme. In order to ensure compliance with European Community law these regulations will not be made until the EC derogation has been approved. Later this month I shall be placing in the Library a draft of the regulations in time to assist the House in its detailed consideration of the Finance Bill provisions.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Roe
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list (a) the number of married women whose investment income was assessed to tax as that of their husbands' during the tax years 1982–83, 1983–84, and 1984–85, (b) the total gross income so assessed in each year and (c) the tax received thereon.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 March 1987, c. 387]:The Surveys of Personal Income for the years specified indicate that about 1½ million married women

  Effect of Transferable Allowances1 at 1987–88 Income levels

  Paying less tax

  Paying more tax

  Total Income (lower limit) £ per week

  Numbers thousands

  Annual tax change £ million

  Numbers thousands

  Annual tax change £ million

  Annual tax change £ million

  Married Couples aged under 65—both earning

  Under 60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60–100

  30

  -5

  20

  —

  -5

  100–150

  90

  -15

  270

  + 70

  + 55

  150–200

  140

  -20

  530

  + 155

  + 135

  200–300

  250

  -35

  1,790

  + 580

  + 545

  300–400

  90

  -10

  1,460

  + 510

  + 500

  Over 400

  130

  -45

  1,070

  + 340

  + 295

  All

  730

  -130

  5,140

  + 1,655

  + 1,525

  Married Couples aged under 65—one earning

  Under 60

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  60–100

  210

  -35

  10

  + 5

  -30

  100–150

  620

  -170

  70

  + 15

  -155

  150–200

  910

  -255

  50

  + 10

  -245

  200–300

  1,550

  -440

  40

  + 10

  -430

  300–400

  500

  -145

  10

  —

  -145

  Over 400

  390

  -195

  10

  —

  -195

  All

  4,180

  -1,240

  200

  + 40

  -1,200

  Married Couples aged 65 and over

  Under 60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60–100

  140

  -10

  —

  —

  -10

  100–150

  440

  -120

  90

  + 20

  -100

  150–200

  200

  -60

  90

  + 20

  -40

  200–300

  140

  -50

  100

  + 10

  -40

  300–400

  50

  -20

  40

  + 5

  -15

  Over 400

  80

  -90

  50

  + 10

  -80

  All

  1,050

  -350

  370

  + 65

  -285

  All Groups

  5,960

  -1,720

  5,710

  + 1,760

  + 40

  1 At £2,425 for non-aged and with age allowances of £2,690 for aged 65–79 and £3,070 for aged 80 and over.

  262
  had investment income amounting to some £1¼ billion per annum on which the tax due would be about £500 million. This calculation treats the wife's investment income as the top slice of the couple's joint income. In practice, these figures underestimate the full amounts, because the surveys do not provide comprehensive coverage of investment income on which the liability to basic rate tax has been satisfied at source.

  Married Women (Taxation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing by personal category and range of income for elderly and for other taxpayers the gross and net cost to the Exchequer of separate taxation, without aggregation, of married women in the coming financial year on the assumption that each spouse has a transferable allowance equal to the single allowance and that the wife's earned income all6wance will be abolished; and how much of the loss would be in respect of higher rate tax on earned income and of standard rate and higher rate tax, respectively, on unearned income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 40]:The table shows the effects for married couples, at 1987–88 income levels, of transferable allowances at the levels for single persons proposed in the 1987 Budget. Further analyses could only be provided at disproportionate expense.

  Wife's Earned Income Allowance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the numbers and estimated cost of the wife's earned income allowance in the next financial year by range of the wife's income and of the joint incomes of husband and wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1987, c. 40]:The latest estimates are given in the tables. They are based on a projection from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. They exclude wives who have no Inland Revenue tax record because their earnings are below the PAYE reporting limit.

  Numbers and cost of the wife's earned income allowance, 1987–88 by range of wife's income1

  Wife's income1 lower limit (£ pa)

  Number of earning wives2 '000s)

  Cost of wife's earned income allowance3(£ million)

  1

  960

  105

  1,000

  1,010

  385

  2,000

  1,150

  700

  3,000

  830

  550

  4,000

  590

  390

  5,000

  560

  385

  6,000

  600

  415

  7,000

  380

  265

  8,000

  280

  200

  9,000

  170

  135

  10,000

  300

  265

  12,000

  170

  165

  15,000

  70

  75

  20,000

  20

  30

  30,000

  10

  15

  All ranges

  7,100

  4,080

  1 Wife's total earned income.

  2All married women with earned income benefit from the wife's earned income allowance. The figures exclude those with earnings below the PAYE reporting limit and self-employed wives making a net loss.

  3 Including personal allowance claimed by wives with separate earnings election.

  Distribution of total income11987–88

  Numbers

  Tax units aged under 65

  Tax units aged over 65

  Range of total income Lower limit (£ pa)

  Single people ('000s)

  Married couples without wife's earned income ('000s)

  Married couples with wife's earned income ('000s)

  Single people ('000s)

  Married couples without wife's earned income ('000s)

  Married couples with wife's earned income ('000s)

  1,0002

  1,120

  170

  30

  30

  20

  5

  2,0002

  1,150

  260

  60

  460

  30

  10

  3,000

  900

  160

  70

  360

  120

  30

  4,000

  900

  190

  100

  220

  210

  110

  5,000

  1,070

  240

  140

  140

  220

  90

  6,000

  910

  280

  140

  100

  110

  80

  7,000

  810

  310

  170

  90

  90

  70

  8,000

  690

  380

  210

  60

  80

  60

  9,000

  560

  370

  280

  50

  40

  50

  10,000

  800

  820

  700

  60

  60

  70

  12,000

  500

  860

  1,230

  60

  40

  70

  15,000

  320

  570

  1,650

  40

  40

  70

  20,000

  100

  190

  710

  20

  20

  50

  25,000

  50

  100

  340

  10

  10

  10

  30,000

  40

  110

  380

  10

  20

  20

  50,000

  20

  50

  70

  5

  10

  10

  1 Total income for income tax purposes.

  2 Excluding those who have no Inland Revenue tax record because their earnings are below the PAYE reporting limit.

  264

  Numbers and cost of the wife's earned income allowance, 1987–88 by range of joint total income of husband and wife1

  Joint total income1 lower limit (£ pa)

  Number of earning wives2 ('000s)

  Cost of wife's earned income allowance3 (£ million)

  1

  20

  0

  1,000

  30

  0

  2,000

  70

  0

  3,000

  110

  0

  4,000

  200

  15

  5,000

  220

  55

  6,000

  220

  50

  7,000

  240

  110

  8,000

  280

  125

  9,000

  330

  160

  10,000

  770

  390

  12,000

  1,300

  725

  15,000

  1,720

  1,035

  20,000

  1,120

  830

  30,000

  470

  545

  All ranges

  7,100

  4,080

  1 Total income for income tax purposes

  2 All married women with earned income benefit from the wife's earned income allowance. The figures exclude those with earnings below the PAYE reporting limit and self-employed wives making a net loss.

  3 Including personal allowance claimed by wives with separate earnings election.

  Gross Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the distribution of gross incomes in the coming financial year by range of income in steps of £1,000 to £20,000 and £5,000 to £50,000 divided between elderly and other taxpayers and between single persons and one-earner and two-earner households.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 216]:The latest available estimates are given in the table. They are based on a projection from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. In order to provide reliable estimates some of the requested income ranges have been combined.

  VAT Inputs Frauds
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Chancellor of the Excequer if he is able to give the latest information with regard to the precise or estimated amounts of value added tax inputs frauds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c.76]:Amounts of value added tax input frauds are not recorded separately from those for output tax, and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Central Office of Information (Survey Research)
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the sum expended on survey research by the Central Office of Information in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 76–7]: The amount spent by the Central Office of Information on all research in connection with the planning, execution and evaluation of Government publicity was:

  £

  1982–83

  408,000

  1983–84

  589,000

  1984–85

  591,000

  1985–86

  911,000

  1986–87

  1,924,000

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of investment, capital consumption and net investment each year in manufacturing industry since 1970.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 April 1987, c. 629]:Figures of gross domestic fixed capital formation, capital consumption and net domestic fixed capital

  Gains (£ per week), net of indexation, from the main income tax proposals1 in all Budgets from 1979 to 1987, at 1987–88 income levels

  Multiples of Average Earnings2

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Single Person (Non-aged)

  change in:—

  basic rate3

  4·03

  7·43

  10·84

  17·65

  20·65

  20·65

  20·65

  personal allowances

  2·35

  2·35

  2·35

  2·35

  3·56

  5·91

  5·91

  reduced rate band

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  higher rates and thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·62

  100·90

  362·30

  Total4

  3·91

  7·31

  10·73

  17·54

  25·21

  131·05

  392·45

  Married man (Non-aged)

  change in:—

  basic rate 3

  2·44

  5·85

  9·26

  16·08

  20·65

  20·65

  20·65

  personal allowances

  3·74

  3·74

  3·74

  3·74

  5·11

  9·42

  9·42

  reduced rate band

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  -2·46

  higher rates and thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·62

  100·90

  362·30

  Total 4

  3·72

  7·14

  10·54

  17·36

  25·92

  128·51

  389·90

  1 Excluding abolition of investment income surcharge.

  2 Full time adult males (all occupations) forecast earnings for 1987–88 £227·30 per week.

  3 Assuming changes to personal allowances, the reduced rate bands and the higher rate thresholds are made first.

  4 The sum of the component changes may vary by a penny from the total change given due to rounding.

  Gains (£ per week) from the main income tax proposals in the 1987 Budget

  Multiples of Average Earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Single Person (Non-aged)

  Current Prices: change in

  266
  formation for manufacturing industries are given in the table. These figures do not include capital goods leased to manufacturers from financial lessors. Figures of capital consumption and net domestic fixed capital formation in 1986 are not yet available.

  Acquisition and consumption of fixed assets by manufacturing industries

  £ million

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation

  Capital consumption

  Net domestic fixed capital formation

  1970

  2,089

  1,188

  901

  1971

  2,102

  1,375

  727

  1972

  1,968

  1,534

  434

  1973

  2,356

  1,759

  597

  1974

  3,062

  2,170

  892

  1975

  3,458

  2,771

  687

  1976

  3,910

  3,369

  541

  1977

  4,730

  3,996

  734

  1978

  5,624

  4,591

  1,033

  1979

  6,515

  5,272

  1,243

  1980

  6,478

  6,241

  237

  1981

  5,318

  6,854

  -1,536

  1982

  5,480

  7,302

  -1,822

  1983

  5,854

  7,664

  -1,810

  1984

  7,341

  8,016

  -675

  1985

  7,950

  8,601

  -651

  1986

  8,334

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a. = not available.

  Personal Incomes (Budget Effects)
  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide for 1987 the same information provided in his reply of 27 October 1986 to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), Official Report, columns 53–6.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 216]: The information is in the tables.
  267

  Multiples of Average Earnings3

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  basic rate 2

  1·34

  2·47

  3·61

  5·88

  6·88

  6·88

  6·88

  personal allowances

  0·50

  0·50

  0·50

  0·50

  0·78

  1·04

  1·04

  higher rate thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·67

  1·67

  1·67

  Total 3

  1·85

  2·98

  4·11

  6·38

  9·34

  9·59

  9·59

  Net of indexation: change in basic rate 2

  1·34

  2·47

  3·61

  5·88

  6·88

  6·88

  6·88

  personal allowances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  higher rate thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -0·67

  4·71

  4·71

  Total 3

  1·34

  2·47

  3·61

  5·88

  6·21

  2·17

  2·17

  Married Man (Non-aged)

  Current Prices: change in

  basic rate 2

  0·81

  1·95

  3·08

  5·36

  6·88

  6·88

  6·88

  personal allowances

  0·78

  0·78

  0·78

  0·78

  1·08

  1·61

  1·61

  higher rate thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·48

  1·67

  1·67

  Total 3

  1·59

  2·73

  3·86

  6·14

  9·44

  10·17

  10·17

  Net of indexation: change in

  basic rate 2

  0·81

  1·95

  3·08

  5·36

  6·88

  6·88

  6·88

  personal allowances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  higher rate thresholds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -4·71

  -4·71

  Total 3

  0·81

  1·95

  3·08

  5·36

  6·88

  2·17

  2·17

  1 Full time adult males (all occupations) forecast earnings for 1987–88 £227·30 per week.

  2 Assuming changes to personal allowances and higher rate thresholds are made first.

  3 The sum of the changes may vary by a penny from the total given due to rounding.

  Unearned Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those of working age the income distribution by tax category of those with an unearned income of more than £200 and £500 a year, respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1987, c. 214]:Information for 1986–87 is given in the tables. The estimates are based on a projection from the 1984–85 "Survey of Personal Incomes" and are therefore provisional. Since the survey does not provide comprehensive coverage of investment income on which the liability to basic rate tax has been satisfied at source, the estimates for the ranges other than the higher income ranges are likely to be incomplete.

  Distribution of total income1, 1986–87 for single people and married couples under 65 with an investment income of more than £200 per annum

  Number of incomes ('000s)

  Total income1 lower limit (£ p.a.)

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  2,000

  290

  40

  30

  5,000

  110

  70

  50

  7,000

  160

  120

  110

  10,000

  60

  60

  90

  12,000

  80

  80

  160

  15,000

  80

  80

  370

  20,000

  60

  100

  370

  30,000

  20

  70

  190

  50,000

  10

  30

  50

  1 Gross income for income tax purposes.

  268

  Distribution of total income1, 1986–87 for single people and married couples under 65 with investment income of more than £500 per annum

  Number of incomes ('000s)

  Total income1 lower limit (£ p.a.)

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  2,000

  230

  30

  20

  5,000

  80

  30

  40

  7,000

  100

  80

  70

  10,000

  40

  30

  70

  12,000

  60

  50

  110

  15,000

  70

  60

  250

  20,000

  50

  80

  280

  30,000

  20

  60

  160

  50,000

  10

  30

  40

  1 Gross income for income tax purposes.

  Company Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1957–58, 1967–68, 1977–78 and the latest financial year for which figures are available the total amount of tax paid by companies and the components, including the amounts deducted by way of tax on dividends, selective employment tax, national insurance contributions and national insurance surcharges, together with a forecast for the outturn in the current financial year and a forecast for the next financial year on the basis of profits earned to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1987, c. 396]: No estimates are available for total taxes paid by companies. Figures for taxes on company incomes were published in Economic Trends annual supplement (January 1987); Table 168 contains annual figures back to 1955 and Tables 169 to 172 have quarterly figures back to 1960. Advance corporation tax paid on dividends is shown separately in these tables. Figures for capital taxes paid by companies are published in "National Income" Blue Book table 9.6 for 1975 onwards on a calendar year basis.
  269
  Latest estimates for 1986–87 and forecasts for 1987–88 for receipts of corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax, which together account for virtually all of taxes on income and capital paid by companies, were given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", table 6B.3.

  Official statistics for taxes on expenditure and national insurance contributions do not separately identify those taxes paid by companies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each quarter since 1 January 1986 the percentage increase in (a) import unit values for finished manufactures, (b) output prices for United Kingdom manufactures and (c) the trade-weighted average reduction in the exchange rate.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Imports of finished manufactured goods1

  Unit value indices

  1980 = 1002

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  1985

  Q4 142

  —

  1986

  Ql 147

  +3·5

  Q2 147

  +0·0

  Q3 150

  +2·0

  Q4 158

  +5·3

  1 Finished manufactured goods consist of sections 7 and 8 of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2).

  2 OIS basis, not seasonally adjusted.

  (b) Output price indices1

  Home sales of manufactures1

  1980 = 100

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  1985

  Q4 141·4

  —

  1986

  Ql 143·4

  +1·4

  Q2 145·7

  +1·6

  Q3 146·3

  +0·4

  Q4 147·42

  +0·8

  1 Manufactures consist of divisions 2 to 4 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  2 Provisional.

  (c) Sterling effective exchange index

  1975 = 100

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  1985

  Q4 79·9

  —

  1986

  Ql 75·1

  -6·0

  Q2 76·1

  +1·3

  Q3 71·9

  -5·5

  Q4 68·2

  -5·1

  Frogs' Legs
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the amount and volume of imported frogs' legs for the latest convenient period; if he will give figures for each country of origin; and what conditions are imposed by United Kingdom authorities on the methods of slaughter.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information is not available. Frogs' legs are not separately identified in the United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics..

  Blowpipe Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to investigate the appearance of Blowpipe missiles in Afghanistan in contravention of end user certificates.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not the practice to comment on individual defence equipment export matters.

  Butane Gas
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to make the sale of butane gas canisters to minors illegal; what information he has as to the extent of butane gas sniffing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  If the Government banned the sale of butane gas cannisters to minors, they would simply turn to other products which are just as harmful. Sniffing gas cannisters tends to be confined to hardened sniffers, but, like most solvent sniffing, it appears to be on the increase. The answer I believe lies in educating young people as to the folly of sniffing and parents and teachers to watch for the tell-tale signs, and by prohibiting the sales of sniffable products if the purchasers appear to be buying them to sniff.

  Satellites
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 16 March, Official Report, column 362, if he will list those (a) United Kingdom or (b) United Kingdom collaborative communication satellites which remain live in a technical sense; and what was the purpose of each such satellite.

  Mr. Pattie
  The only United Kingdom communications satellite that is still technically "live" is MoD's SKYNET IIB. This suffered a partial failure some years ago, with the result that its orbital position can no longer be controlled. However, it is still technically capable of relaying military telecommunications traffic between stations that happen to be within its field of view.

  The United Kingdom also has an interest in communications satellites developed by the European Space Agency. These were developed under collaborative arrangements and manufactured by the United Kingdom and other member nations. They comprise the orbital test satellite, (OTS 2), the European communications satellite, (ECS 1 and 2), and the maritime ECS, (Marecs B2). The ECS and Marecs satellites are developments of the original OTS technology demonstrator satellite, and have now been leased to the Eutelsat and Inmarsat organisations for operational use. Although currently "retired", OTS is still capable of carrying telecommunications traffic.

  Post Office
  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response the Post Office has made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the Post Office's procurement activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pattie
  I have now received the initial response of the Post Office to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report published in October last year on the Post Office's procurement activities (Cmnd. 9912). I am placing copies of the Post Office's response in the Library of the House. The commission reached 52 conclusions and made 49 practical recommendations on various aspects of Post Office procurement, including purchasing in the Post Office's supply department and in its regions, stock management, procurement of particular produces and services and the financial arrangements and staffing of the Post Office's procurement function.

  The Post Office has accepted all but one of the commission's recommendations. Because many of these covered areas where the Post Office was making improvements or was planning to do so, it has been able to implement many of the commission's recommedations already. My Department has agreed a detailed timetable with the Post Office for implementation of the remaining recommendations and has also agreed that the Post Office will prepare progress reports in October 1987 and October 1988 on action taken and results achieved.

  One recommendation, which relates to arrangements for paying advertising agencies, was partially rejected by the Post Office. This matter is still under consideration in consultation with the commission.

  I am satisfied that the Post Offie is taking the commission's recommendations seriously and is making good progress on their implementation.

  I should like to take this opportunity to convey the Government's gratitude to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for its thorough and valuable investigation.

  Business and Technical Advisory Services
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of his Department's business and technical advisory services.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department's business and technical advisory services offer small and medium-size firms with up to 500 employees grants towards the costs of employing expert consultants to advise on projects to improve productivity, design, quality management and marketing.

  They were first introduced in 1977 to cover productivity projects. The Department built on the experience of this by introducing similar assistance for consultancy in design and quality management in 1983 and for marketing in September last year. These newer elements are aimed at improving the competitiveness of our products internationally. We are being urged by industry to do more to help improvements in these areas, particularly as regards marketing where response to the launch of the new BTAS element last year has been well over 1,000 applications so far in less than six months. We shall be increasing substantially the funds available for the marketing element in order to meet that demand.

  Our general policy on assistance schemes is to operate them only so long as is necessary for improvement and
  272
  momentum in a particular area to be generated and sustained by industry itself. After 10 years of running the productivity element of BTAS, we now feel that stage has been reached in respect of productivity.

  Consequently, the productivity element of BTAS will close at midnight tonight after which no new applications will be accepted. Commitments in relation to existing applications will however be honoured.

  In recent years BTAS productivity assistance has been working with the grain of other economic factors which have led to major productivity gains by United Kingdom industry. Since 1979 manufacturing productivity has increased by over 3½ per cent. a year, a considerable improvement on the average annual growth rate of ¾ per cent. between 1973 and 1979. And, whereas in the 1970s the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the international league table, since 1979 manufacturing productivity growth has been greater in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrial country.

  A full evaluation of the productivity element has been carried out by the Department's assessment unit. The main findings of the evaluation report, which will be published in due course, are that the productivity element of BTAS: had completed over 10,000 projects helping small and medium size firms up to September 1985 (the number to date is now nearer 17,000); has brought clear, quantifiable productivity benefits to a high proportion of the firms assisted; has encouraged more positive attitudes among small and medium size firms to using productivity consultants.

  The Department will therefore now concentrate BTAS assistance on helping small and medium-sized firms put more effort into design, quality management and marketing. These factors are particularly relevant to the United Kingdom's business and trade prospects at this time when world economic factors now see us favourably placed to exploit United Kingdom competitiveness in markets both at home and abroad.

  Assistance towards consultancy under other DTI schemes in the area of advanced manufacturing technology and the application of micro electronics will also continue to be available.

  Although this means there will no longer be BTAS grants towards the costs of consultancy projects on productivity, we are considering with PERA arrangements whereby advice on the selection and use of outside consultants for such projects can continue to be made available to small and medium-size firms who need it.

  We will also continue to promote awareness of the potential for productivity gains by publicising more widely some of the cases which have been so successful under BTAS.".

  Lloyd's (Committee of Inquiry)
  Mr. Bowen Wells
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the results of his discussions with Lloyd's on the consideration and implementation of the report of the committee of inquiry into regulatory matters at Lloyd's.

  Mr. Channon
  The Council of Lloyd's welcomed the report and accepted, on the day of publication, the changes recommended in the composition of the council; these have since been implemented. This new council will oversee the implementation of the remainder of the report, for which Lloyd's has since drawn up detailed plans. The chairman of the Council of Lloyd's. with whom I have had
  273
  discussions on these matters, has recently sent me me a memorandum setting out their approach to, and proposed timetable for, implementation. I have placed this memorandum in the Library.

  For their part, the Government accept the recommendation that Lloyd's should be exempted from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in a similar way to other institutions, to enable it to seek information about spent convictions and is discussing the details with Lloyd's. Lloyd's has so far shown determination to act promptly and have made some progress. I shall expect this progress to continue, so that the substance of the report will be implemented speedily, as planned, over the next two years. The Government believe that full and complete implementation of the report should provide Names with broadly comparable protection to that given to investors under the Financial Services Act. I shall continue to follow most carefully progress in this important matter and to keep the House informed.

SCOTLAND

  Small Businesses
  4. Mr. MacKenzie asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department is taking to assist small and medium-sized firms in Scotland.
  Mr. Lang
  The Government fully recognise the important role of small and medium sized firms, and have successfully brought about an economic environment favourable to enterprise. Small firms in Scotland benefit from a wide range of national and Scottish schemes of support. The Chancellor's recent Budget statement included further valuable measures to assist small firms.

  Clydesdale Works, Belleshill
  Mr. James Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the suggested merger between the Clydesdale works, Belleshill and a French company.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on 26 February. There are no plans for a further meeting in the immediate future but we shall continue to meet on a regular basis, to discuss matters affecting the steel industry in Scotland.

  Lochs and Rivers (Acidification)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary State for Scotland if he will the list those lochs and rivers in Scotland that are showing signs of acidification.

  Mr. Ancram
  A great deal of monitoring and measurement of the acid status of lochs and rivers in Scotland is currently being carried out. The results of this work will appear in due course in various publications, in particular the report of the United Kingdom acid waters review group, which is expected in about 18 months' time. There would be no purpose in attempting to produce a list of acidified areas in Scotland before the publication of this report.

  Jordanhill College of Education
  Mr. Donald Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to retain secondary teacher training in Gaelic at Jordanhill college of education.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Following consultations last year on the rationalisation of postgraduate secondary pre-service teacher training courses, I decided that for the academic sessions 1987–88 to 1989–90 Gaelic should be offered alternately by the Northern and Jordanhill colleges of education. Provision for that subject will accordingly require to be maintained by both colleges.

  Rents
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about increasing the powers of rent officers to intervene in order to prevent excessive rents being charged by private landlords.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations to this effect only from the hon. Member.

  Nurses
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the problems of recruitment, training, and wastage of nursing staff in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Since this Government came into office the whole-time equivalent number of qualified nurses has risen by 7,494. This represents an increase of nearly 28 per cent. over the 1979 total of 26,930, although part of the increase was necessitated by the reduction in working hours in 1980 from 40 to 37·5 per week.

  In this same period student nurse numbers have increased by 16 per cent. the increase being about 22 per cent. for general nursing and 30 per cent. for mental handicap. For mental health and maternity the number remained about the same.

  The number training to become enrolled nurses has fallen by about 62 per cent. between 1979 and 1985.

  Information on wastage is not readily available centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The Scottish Home and Health Department has commissioned a research study of career pathways for cohorts of nurses trained in Scotland over the past 30 years. This should be completed by the end of this year and will provide much useful information on career progression, wastage, return to work and future intentions.

  Woodilee Hospital
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the problems of (a) Woodilee hospital and (b) other psychiatric hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Scottish Home and Health Department officials have already met once with representatives of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the problems of the main block of Woodilee
  275
  hospital and the Department is represented on the special technical working group which has been set up by the hoard to assess the cost of bringing the main block back into use. Once that working group has reported, the Department expects to have further discussions with the board about the available options.

  The Greater Glasgow health board is also considering a review of its strategy for psychiatric services generally and the Department will also be discussing this with the hoard in due course.

  Forestry
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss broadleaf planting.

  Mr. John MacKay
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss this particular topic.

  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to alter existing practice in the determination of the suitability of land for afforestation.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The practices followed in determining whether land should be cleared for planting are kept under review. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement soon regarding the Government's conclusions arising from the Forestry Commission's review of the composition and procedures of its regional advisory committees, which have an important role in seeking to conciliate over disputed grant and felling applications, but has no other changes in mind at present.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards further afforestation in the flow country of Sutherland and Caithness.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Discussions are currently taking place between the Scottish Office, the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council about how a reasonable balance between forestry and nature conservation can he achieved in the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland. All applications for planting grants arising in the districts of Caithness and Sutherland, whether within sites of special scientific interest or not, are the subject of consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, as I announced in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) on 17 February 1987 at column 541.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to promote afforestation in lowland areas of England and to discourage planting in the flow areas of Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  In addition to the Forestry Commission's present grant schemes, the afforestation of lowland areas in England will be encouraged by the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9 February 1987 at columns 38–40. These include the proposed introduction of a farm woodland scheme and an increase in traditional forestry by the release of better quality land than hitherto.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is not taking steps to discourage planting in any part of Scotland, but the Commission grant aid planting only after consultations with other relevant land use interests.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Hugh Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing co-operatives are funded by the Housing Corporation and at what annual cost; and if he has any proposals to increase the number of such cooperatives.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Housing Corporation has registered 20 housing co-operatives in Scotland, all of which are thereby eligible for funding. In 1986–87, in addition to one single co-operative funded at a cost of £0·43 million, the three associations (including two registered co-operatives) in the community ownership programme received £4 million. In the current year, projected expenditure is £0·85 million by two co-operatives and £4·5 million by the associations in the community ownership programme.

  The promotion, registration and allocation of funds to individual housing associations are matters for the Housing Corporation. Scottish Office officials are, however, discussing with local authorities, the Housing Corporation and other interests the best means available of meeting local housing aspirations, including proposals to establish further community co-operatives.

  Glasgow College of Technology
  23. Mr. McTaggart asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reduction in funding for Glasgow college of technology for the year 1987–88.
  Mr. John MacKay
  The recurrent grant allocation for 1987–88 has been increased by some 6·5 per cent. against the initial allocation for 1986–87.

  Regional Parks
  24. Mrs. McCurley asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on regional parks in Scotland.
  Mr. Ancram
  The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 gives regional councils the power, by order, to designate land as regional parks. If there are unwithdrawn objections to an order the Secretary of State's confirmation is required.

  Two regional parks have so far been designated in Scotland. Designation orders have been made for two others at Loch Lomond and Clyde-Muirshiel, but objections have been submitted against both orders. In the former case it has been agreed to proceed by written submissions and a site inspection by an inquiry reporter, who will recommend to the Secretary of State whether or not the order should be confirmed. No decision on procedure has yet been reached in respect of the proposed Clyde-Muirshiel regional park.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total numbers and percentages of unemployed young males and young females in Scotland; what plans he has to reduce these figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  On 8 January 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) there were 90,236 unemployed male claimants and 52,203 unemployed female claimants
  277
  in Scotland under the age of 25. Because an accurate estimate of the total work force under the age of 25 is not available, unemployment rates by age groups cannot be given.

  Our primary objective is to create the conditions in which employment will flourish. The rate of inflation has been brought down, providing a more stable environment for business, and a wide range of measures to assist employment, training, improve incentives and increase flexibility has been introduced. Of the Government employment and training measures the new job training scheme, the extension of the YTS guarantee to all school leavers under 18, the expansion of places available under the enterprise allowance scheme and the introduction last year of the new workers scheme will all be of particular benefit to unemployed young people in Scotland.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the Inverclyde initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no further representations on the Inverclyde initiative since his meeting with representatives of Inverclyde district council on 23 January, at which the hon. Member was present, except for the hon. Member's letter of 9 March, to which I replied on 3 April.

  Salmon
  28. Mr. Colvin asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to seek to increase the level of salmon stocks in Scotland's rivers and waterways.
  Mr. John MacKay
  The enhancement of salmon stocks in Scotland is a matter for district salmon fishery boards. My Department's marine and freshwater fisheries laboratories are currently involved in research into the methods by which stocks may be enhanced and the results of this work are made available to district salmon fishery boards, on request.

  The recently established salmon advisory committee has also been asked to examine and advise Ministers on matters relating to the conservation and development of salmon fisheries.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the incidence of lung cancer in Glasgow among (a) men and (b) women is increasing or decreasing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The number of cases of lung cancer registered in Glasgow among men was 883 in 1975. The corresponding figure for 1984 (the latest year for which data are available) was 843, a slight decrease. However, equivalent figures for women were 268 in 1975 and 418 in 1984. The great majority of these cases—both in men and women — may be attributed to cigarette smoking and demonstrate how much harm results fom this habit.

  Rates
  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Convention of Scottish Local Authorities officials to discuss rates set for 1987–88.
  278
  Mr. Rifkind
  I discussed the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88 with representatives of the convention on 12 December last year. Local authorities have only recently set their rates for 1987–88. I will be meeting the convention again on 27 April.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Scottish manufacturing industry will benefit from the growth expected in its United Kingdom and world markets. I expect overall manufacturing activity to resume growth after the disappointing fall last year, with some of the newer high technology industries doing particularly well, the continued dearth of orders in the shipbuilding industry remains a major concern.

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Campbell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the most recent date for the commissioning of the first unit at Torness generating station.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advided by the South of Scotland electricity board that it currently expects that fuel loading of the first unit at Torness will begin in mid-1987 to be followed by power raising before the end of 1987.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline details of Government schemes designed to assist alternative crops and land use by farmers in Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 6 March. Further details of various schemes of assistance will be announced as soon as possible.

  Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980
  Mr. Pollock
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to amend the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Domestic Rates
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how the current product of domestic rates in Scotland and in each of the regions in Scotland might be raised through community charge or local income tax with and without resource equalisation in the cases of (a) a single person on 75 per cent. and 100 per cent. of an average manual workers wage, (b) a married man on 75 per cent. and 100 per cent. of an average manual worker's wage, whose wife's earnings are an average for women in full-time employment, (c) a married man with earnings as in case (a) whose wife's earnings are the average for women in part-time employment, (d) a married man with earnings as in case (a) whose wife has no income, (e) a married couple, as

  279
  in case (d) living with a son or daughter over 8 years of age, whose income is the average for the 18 to 25 year age group in Scotland and (f) a married couple as in case (d) living with an unemployed son or daughter between 18 and 25 years of age, indicating how these calculations were made.

  (a) A single person on 75 per cent, and 100 per cent, of average earnings for a full-time male adult manual worker in Scotland

  Area

  Community charges

  Equalised local income tax

  Unequalised local income tax

  (£)

  75 per cent. (£)

  100 per cent. (£)

  75 per cent. (£)

  100 per cent. (£)

  Borders

  158

  181

  272

  130

  196

  Central

  187

  214

  323

  269

  405

  Dumfries and Galloway

  155

  176

  266

  164

  247

  Fife

  210

  244

  367

  181

  272

  Grampian

  157

  181

  272

  130

  196

  Highland

  153

  176

  266

  134

  203

  Lothian

  225

  260

  393

  315

  475

  Strathclyde

  229

  265

  399

  277

  418

  Tayside

  194

  223

  336

  273

  412

  Scotland

  207

  239

  361

  235

  355

  (b) A married man with earnings as in case (a), whose wife's earnings are the Scottish average for adult women in full-time employment

  Area

  Community charges

  Equalised local income tax

  Unequalised local income tax

  (£)

  75 per cent. (£)

  100 per cent. (£)

  75 per cent. (£)

  100 per cent. (£)

  Borders

  316

  298

  390

  215

  281

  Central

  374

  354

  463

  444

  581

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  291

  381

  270

  354

  Fife

  420

  402

  526

  298

  390

  Grampian

  314

  298

  390

  215

  281

  Highland

  306

  291

  381

  222

  290

  Lothian

  450

  430

  562

  520

  680

  Strathclyde

  458

  437

  571

  458

  599

  Tayside

  388

  368

  481

  451

  590

  Scotland

  414

  395

  517

  388

  508

  (c) A married man with earnings as in case (a) whose wife's earnings are the average for adult women in part-time employment

  Area

  Community charges

  Equalised local income tax

  Unequalised local income tax

  (£)

  75 per cent. (£)

  100 per cent. (£)

  75 per cent. (£)

  100 per cent. (£)

  Borders

  316

  147

  238

  106

  172

  Central

  374

  174

  283

  218

  355

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  143

  233

  133

  216

  Fife

  420

  198

  322

  147

  238

  Grampian

  314

  147

  238

  106

  172

  Highland

  306

  143

  233

  109

  177

  Lothian

  150

  211

  344

  256

  416

  Strathclyde

  458

  215

  349

  225

  366

  Tayside

  388

  181

  294

  222

  360

  Scotland

  414

  194

  316

  191

  311

  (d) A married man with earnings as in case (a) whose wife has no income.

  Area

  Community charges

  Equalised local income tax

  Unequalised local income tax

  £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  Borders

  316

  127

  219

  91

  158

  Central

  374

  150

  259

  189

  325

  Dumfries and Galloway

  310

  124

  213

  115

  198

  Fife

  420

  171

  295

  127

  219

  Grampian

  314

  127

  219

  91

  158

  Highland

  306

  124

  213

  94

  163

  280
  Mr. Ancram
  The estimated average local tax bills under the community charge system and under a local income tax system and without resource equalisation needed to replace domestic rates in 1985–86, are given for the specific cases requested.
  281

  Area

  Community charges

  Equalised local income tax

  Unequalised local income tax

  £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  Lothian

  450

  183

  315

  221

  381

  Strathclyde

  458

  186

  320

  195

  335

  Tayside

  388

  156

  269

  192

  330

  Scotland

  414

  168

  290

  165

  285

  (e) A married couple as in (d) living with a son or daughter over 18 years of age whose income is the average for full-time workers in the 18 to 24 year age group

  Area

  Community charges

  Equalised local income tax

  Unequalised local income tax

  £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  Borders

  474

  292

  384

  211

  277

  Central

  561

  346

  455

  435

  571

  Dumfries and Galloway

  465

  285

  375

  265

  348

  Fife

  630

  394

  518

  292

  384

  Grampian

  471

  292

  384

  211

  277

  Highland

  459

  285

  375

  217

  286

  Lothian

  675

  421

  553

  509

  669

  Strathclyde

  687

  428

  562

  448

  589

  Tayside

  582

  360

  473

  441

  580

  Scotland

  621

  387

  509

  380

  500

  (f) A married couple as in case (d) living with an unemployed son or daughter between 18 and 24 years of age.

  Area

  Community charges (rebated)

  Equalised local income lax

  Unequalised local income tax

  £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  75 per cent. £

  100 per cent. £

  Borders

  429

  127

  219

  91

  158

  Central

  488

  150

  259

  189

  325

  Dumfries and Galloway

  422

  124

  213

  115

  198

  Fife

  543

  171

  295

  127

  219

  Grampian

  430

  127

  219

  91

  158

  Highland

  419

  124

  213

  94

  163

  Lothian

  574

  183

  315

  221

  381

  Strathclyde

  584

  186

  320

  195

  335

  Tayside

  507

  156

  269

  192

  330

  Scotland

  536

  168

  290

  165

  285

  Notes:

  (1) The average community charges for 1985–86 used in the tables were published in the Official Report on 20 February 1986.

  (2) The underlying local income tax rates (with resource equalisation) have been estimated on the assumption that some form of resource equalisation would make the yield of 1p in the pound the same per adult in all areas.

  (3) Published information on taxable resources in local authority areas is only available up to 1982–83. The sample size is small and the regional pattern shows considerable variation from year to year. Estimates of local income tax rates without resource equalisation are therefore subject to some uncertainty. Those in the table have been produced by applying the pattern of unequalised tax rates calculated for 1982–83 to 1985–86 average earnings.

  (4) Estimates of average gross earnings have been taken from the 1985 "New Earnings Survey". The average figures for Scotland have been used in each case with the exception of average earnings for the 18 to 24 year age group, where only Great Britain figures were readily available.

  (5) In applying local income tax rates to cases (a) to (f) it is assumed that earnings are the only sources of income and that only personal tax allowances apply.

  (6) In case (f) it has been assumed that the unemployed son or daughter will be in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  Police
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total annual cost of the police service in Scotland, with a breakdown for each police force in (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year; and how much of that cost was met by (i) Her Majesty's Government and (ii) local authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  The cost of the police service in Scotland in 1979–80 was £153,813,000 and in 1985–86 it was 282
  £288,725,000. Central Government's share of the cost in these years comprised 50 per cent. police grant (from 1986–87 51 per cent., and 50 per cent. of the expenditure on common police services. The remainder of the expenditure was met by local authorities from general revenue comprising rate support grant and rates. A breakdown of expenditure for each police force in 1979–80 and 1985–86 is given in the table:

  283

  £000

  1979–80

  1985–86

  Force

  Local Authorities 1

  Central Government

  Total

  Local Authorities 1

  Central Government

  Total

  Central

  2,890

  2,798

  5,688

  5,564

  5,343

  10,907

  Dumfries & Galloway

  1,708

  1,799

  3,507

  3,397

  3,533

  6,930

  Fife

  3,765

  3,660

  7,425

  6,995

  6,734

  13,729

  Grampian

  5,497

  5,342

  10,839

  11,197

  10,801

  21,998

  Lothian & Borders

  12,878

  12,449

  25,327

  25,916

  25,104

  51,020

  Northern

  3,845

  3,765

  7,610

  7,134

  6,926

  14,060

  Strathclyde

  40,247

  39,091

  79,338

  72,673

  70,147

  142,820

  Tayside

  5,957

  5,793

  11,750

  11,351

  10,973

  22,324

  Central Government's share of Common Police Services

  —

  2,329

  2,329

  —

  4,937

  4,937

  £76,787

  £77,026

  £153,813

  £144,227

  £144,498

  £288,725

  1 Includes local authorities' share of common police services and other non-police grant earning expenditure.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the number of police officers who were (a) charged with criminal offences and (b) convicted of criminal offences in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown for each police force.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available centrally in the precise form requested, but the table has been

  1979

  1986

  Force

  Reports dealt with

  Number of reports resulting in convictions

  Reports dealt with

  Number of reports resulting in convictions

  Central Scotland

  33

  2

  25

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  8

  2

  Fife

  22

  6

  30

  3

  Grampian

  10

  2

  19

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  42

  17

  39

  14

  Northern

  36

  9

  19

  3

  Strathclyde

  139

  36

  102

  37

  Tayside

  58

  13

  79

  5

  SCOTLAND

  340

  85

  321

  68

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the number of complaints of criminal conduct by the police and the number of resultant (a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown for each police force.

  Force

  Complaints, etc. referred to procurator fiscal

  Number of cases resulting in criminal proceedings

  Number of cases resulting in finding of guilt

  1979

  1986

  1979

  1986

  1979

  1986

  Central Scotland

  23

  27

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  11

  30

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Grampian

  12

  61

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  145

  159

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Northern

  14

  17

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  239

  422

  1

  15

  —

  6

  Tayside

  41

  66

  2

  3

  2

  1

  SCOTLAND

  493

  791

  7

  24

  4

  8

  284
  compiled from statistical returns by chief constables. It shows (a) the number of cases involving police officers dealt with by procurators fiscal in 1979 and 1986 following reports submitted by forces in respect of officers alleged to have committed offences either on or off duty, and (b) the number of these cases which resulted in convictions. The submission of a report to the procurator fiscal does not necessarily imply that the officer had been charged with a criminal offence.

  Mr. Lang
  In terms of the Police (Discipline) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, as amended, all reports or allegations from which it may reasonably be inferred that a police officer has committed a criminal offence must be referred to the procurator fiscal. The following table indicates the number of such cases dealt with in 1979 and 1986 which resulted in(a) criminal proceedings and (b) a finding of guilt.
  285
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the total local authority expenditure on police as a percentage of all local authority expenditure in (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown for each local authority.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table :

  Expenditure on the police by regional and island authorities expressed as a percentage of their total expenditure on local authority services

  1979–80

  1985–86

  Central

  6·2

  7·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7·8

  9·1

  Fife

  7·5

  8·0

  Grampian

  7·0

  8·5

  Strathclyde

  9·0

  10·0

  Tayside

  9·2

  10·1

  Lothian and Borders

  9·5

  10·9

  Highland, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland

  5·5

  6·5

  All Scotland

  8·4

  9·5

  Notes:

  (1) The figures given represent expenditure on the police as a percentage of expenditure by regional and island authorities on local authority services; expenditure by district authorities has not been taken into the calculation.

  (2) Expenditure on local authority services is taken as the sum of net current expenditure (excluding loan charges) and net capital

  Force

  1979 (Occasions)

  1986 (Operations)

  Issued

  Used

  Issued

  Used

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Central Scotland

  10

  —

  1

  3

  —

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15

  —

  12

  1

  —

  1

  Fife

  5

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  12

  1

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  65

  —

  18

  —

  —

  —

  Northern

  19

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  562

  1

  111

  4

  1

  4

  Tayside

  11

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  699

  2(c)

  174

  8

  1

  8

  (a) Refers to operations and use against persons known or believed to be armed.

  (b) Refers to operations and use for the destruction of animals.

  (c) On both occasions firearms were used for the destruction of animals.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the ratio of police officers per head of population in (a) 1979, (b) 1986 or the latest available year with a breakdown for each police force.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated population (as at 30 June) per police officer on authorised establishement as at 31 December in each year was as follows:

  Force

  1979

  1986

  Central Scotland

  539

  489

  Dumfries and Galloway

  469

  441

  Fife

  525

  470

  Grampian

  504

  504

  Lothian and Borders

  360

  353

  Northern

  437

  452

  Strathclyde

  350

  337

  Tayside

  419

  392

  Scotland

  390

  377

  286
  expenditure in accordance with public expenditure survey definitions.

  (3) Lothian and Borders regions are served by a joint police force; similarly Highland region and the three island authorities are served by a joint force.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the number of occasions and the number of officers involved when police officers were authorised to carry firearms and the number of occasions when firearms were used (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year with a breakdown for each police force.

  Mr. Lang
  The information available is set out in the table. It should be noted that the basis on which the information was recorded was changed in 1984. Formerly, the total number of occasions on which firearms were issued was shown. This, however, was found to lead to inconsistencies of interpretation since, during any particular operation, a firearm could be issued to an individual officer on more than one occasion. From 1984, therefore, the records show separately the number of operations in which firearms were issued against(a) persons known or believed to be armed and (b) for the destruction of animals.

  Information as to the number of police officers involved on each occasion or in each operation is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the ratio of police per reported crime in (a) 1979, and (b) 1986 or the latest available year with a breakdown for each police force.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of reported crimes per police officer on authorised establishement as at 31 December in each year was as follows:

  Force

  1979

  1986

  Central Scotland

  27·4

  36·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15·9

  22·0

  Fife

  21·8

  32·6

  Grampian

  24·8

  37·6

  Lothian and Borders

  26·5

  33·4

  Northern

  14·7

  20·7

  Strathclyde

  28·0

  35·5

  Tayside

  25·2

  35·6

  Scotland

  26·1

  34·2

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether if he will state, for Scotland, the number of police

  287
  officers residing in council housing accommodation and in owner occupied accommodation and in other accommodation in (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown of the figures for each police force.

  Force

  Police authority1 accommodation

  Owner occupied accommodation

  Other accommodation

  Total

  Central Scotland

  49

  432

  68

  549

  Dumfries and Galloway

  118

  167

  53

  338

  Fife

  195

  381

  149

  725

  Grampian

  307

  504

  184

  995

  Lothian and Borders

  200

  1,786

  456

  2,442

  Northern Constabulary

  305

  299

  6

  610

  Strathclyde

  1,044

  4,737

  988

  6,769

  Tayside

  182

  627

  191

  1,000

  Total

  2,400

  8,933

  2,095

  13,428

  1 Includes houses owned by police authority and those rented from local housing authority.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the number of police officers resident within the communities for which they have primary policing responsibility in (a) 1979, (b) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown of the figure for each police force in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for each police force in Scotland, the number and location of manned police stations or sub-stations in (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown of the figures for each police force in Scotland.

  1979 Establishment (Strength)1

  1986 Establishment (Strength)1

  Force

  Police

  Cadets

  2Civilians

  Police

  Cadets

  2Civilians

  Central Scotland

  505

  (509)

  34

  (23)

  148

  (135)

  556

  (549)

  34

  (9)

  153

  (142)

  Dumfries and Galloway

  305

  (311)

  18

  (15)

  95

  (84)

  333

  (338)

  18

  (7)

  111

  (101)

  Fife

  653

  (671)

  30

  (30)

  188

  (139)

  732

  (725)

  30

  (14)

  197

  (188)

  Grampian

  920

  (932)

  35

  (22)

  257

  (239)

  997

  (995)

  35

  (18)

  310

  (311)

  Lothian and Borders

  2,361

  (2,342)

  174

  (103)

  1,014

  (778)

  2,393

  (2,442)

  174

  (—)

  879

  (889)

  Northern

  591

  (603)

  28

  (22)

  240

  (264)

  609

  (610)

  28

  (1)

  310

  (292)

  Strathclyde

  6,977

  (6,905)

  459

  (339)

  2,235

  (1,809)

  6,954

  (6,769)

  459

  (—)

  1,936

  (1,699)

  Tayside

  962

  (941)

  39

  (33)

  271

  (250)

  1,001

  (1,000)

  39

  (—)

  304

  (300)

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  13,274

  (13,214)

  817

  (587)

  4,448

  (3,698)

  13,575

  (13,428)

  817

  (49)

  4,200

  (3,922)

  1 Figures in brackets show the actual numbers in post.

  2 Including part-time staff.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the annual average salary and the average actual earnings and the average amount of rent or housing allowance received by police officers in Scotland in (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested, in so far as available, is as follows:

  1979–80 £

  1985–86 £

  Average annual salary

  1

  10,967

  Average annual earnings2

  6,176

  12,038

  Average rent allowance3

  1,276

  2,525

  288
  Mr. Lang
  The information as at 31 December 1986 is set out in the table:

  Mr. Lang
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the authorised establishment and actual numbers of police officers and police cadets and civilian staff in (a) 1979 and (b) 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown for each police force.

  Mr. Lang
  The information, as at 31 December of each year, is as follows:

  1 Not available separately.

  2 Average annual earnings includes overtime payments.

  3 Average rent allowance is based on the number of officers in receipt of rent allowance as at 31 December 1979 and 1985; other officers occupied rent and rate free accommodation provided by police authorities.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state for each police force in Scotland the location of manned police stations or sub-stations (a) closed down and (b) opened since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the total number of

  289
  police officer-hours worked (i) in police stations or substations, (ii) in motor vehicles, (iii) on foot patrol and (iv) on other duties (a) in 1979 and (b) in 1986 or the latest available year; and whether he will give a breakdown for each Scottish police force area.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state, for Scotland, the total number of

  Police Force Area

  Crime/Offence Group

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Scotland

  1979: Recorded

  Non-sexual Crimes of Violence

  267

  70

  221

  484

  1,048

  234

  7,008

  693

  10,025

  Sexual Crimes of Violence

  49

  24

  69

  85

  218

  30

  727

  52

  1,254

  Other Crimes of Indecency

  122

  49

  186

  308

  531

  106

  1,892

  225

  3,419

  Crimes of Dishonesty

  10,326

  3,571

  11,011

  16,653

  52,636

  6,374

  151,073

  17,549

  269,193

  Fire-Raising, Vandalism etc

  2,845

  999

  2,417

  4,624

  7,635

  1,432

  31,261

  4,925

  56,138

  Other Crimes

  235

  122

  353

  667

  434

  535

  3,524

  781

  6,651

  Motor Vehicle Offences

  9,688

  11,306

  12,744

  16,203

  38,191

  12,299

  86,876

  16,649

  203,956

  1979: Cleared Up

  Non-sexual Crimes of Violence

  229

  62

  208

  396

  571

  227

  3,454

  558

  5,705

  Sexual Crimes of Violence

  26

  19

  42

  62

  67

  27

  266

  28

  537

  Other Crimes of Indecency

  81

  41

  108

  254

  255

  86

  1,129

  146

  2,100

  Crimes of Dishonesty

  3,952

  1,456

  4,651

  5,869

  15,402

  3,662

  36,862

  5,805

  77,659

  Fire-Raising, Vandalism etc

  694

  252

  826

  1,287

  1,560

  752

  4,841

  1,158

  11,370

  Other Crimes

  227

  122

  352

  662

  428

  535

  3,482

  777

  6,585

  Motor Vehicle Offences

  9,410

  11,306

  12,717

  16,203

  38,191

  12,184

  86,139

  16,644

  202,794

  1986: Recorded

  Non-sexual Crimes of Violence

  545

  258

  595

  910

  3,301

  295

  8,852

  949

  15,705

  Sexual Crimes of Violence

  75

  29

  79

  121

  236

  44

  628

  91

  1,303

  Other Crimes of Indecency

  200

  67

  215

  481

  657

  115

  2,020

  296

  4,051

  Crimes of Dishonesty

  14,728

  4,907

  16,967

  26,278

  60,627

  8,487

  185,150

  25,378

  342,522

  Fire-Raising, Vandalism etc

  4,180

  1,600

  4,586

  8,203

  10,581

  2,127

  40,832

  6,782

  78,891

  Other Crimes

  722

  460

  1,386

  1,473

  4,498

  1,553

  9,128

  2,145

  21,365

  Motor Vehicle Offences

  12,451

  10,857

  15,474

  27,068

  35,010

  15,688

  99,947

  21,592

  238,087

  1986 Cleared Up

  Non-sexual Crimes of Violence

  494

  229

  536

  710

  2,341

  284

  5,304

  806

  10,704

  Sexual Crimes of Violence

  67

  28

  57

  78

  139

  43

  316

  54

  782

  Other Crimes of Indecency

  145

  65

  139

  376

  480

  108

  1,311

  212

  2,836

  Crimes of Dishonesty

  6,847

  2,577

  6,473

  7,357

  20,483

  4,757

  46,944

  9,803

  105,241

  Fire-Raising, Vandalism etc

  1,458

  616

  1,305

  1,757

  2,583

  1,134

  7,211

  1,579

  17,643

  Other Crimes

  717

  459

  1,385

  1,452

  4,490

  1,553

  9,061

  2,143

  21,260

  Motor Vehicle Offences

  11,888

  10,598

  15,468

  24,417

  35,010

  15,623

  99,155

  21,590

  233,749

  Note: "Sexual Crimes of Violence" comprises rape, assault, assault with intent to rape and indecent assault. "Other Crimes of Indecency" includes the remaining crimes in Group 2 of the standard SHHD classification.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the effect on his Department of the financial management initiative.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The FMI builds on work that was already in hand in the Scottish Office to improve management in the Department, and in related bodies, in accordance with the Government's commitment to improving value for money. Key elements of the arrangements introduced for delegated budget setting and control of departmental running costs and for the management of programme 290
  of known crimes and solved crimes in each of the following categories in (a) 1979 and (b) in 1986 or the latest available year, with a breakdown for each police force area : (i) non-sexual crimes of violence against the person, (ii) sexual crimes of violence against the person, (iii) other crimes involving indecency, (iv) crimes involving dishonesty, (v) vandalism, (vi) other crimes and (vii) road traffic offences.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  expenditure are described in chapter 2 of "Public Expenditure to 1989–90: A Commentary on the Scotland Programme" which was published on 18 February. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Some of the effects of the FMI are reflected in the targets and output performance measures described in the commentary including, for example, the tightening of staff: student ratios in colleges of Education, and improved effectiveness in fisheries protection activity. Other examples of efforts to ensure better value for money include the development of management information systems in the Scottish prison service, objective appraisal

  291
  of trunk road bypass schemes, and an extensive programme of financial management surveys covering a wide range of NDPBs.

  Police Surgeons
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police surgeons there are in each of the Scottish police forces; and of these how many are male.

  Mr. Lang
  I understand that the numbers of police surgeons presently employed or retained by each police authority are as follows :

  Force

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Central Scotland

  5

  —

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  —

  1

  Fife

  6

  —

  6

  Grampian

  5

  —

  5

  Lothian and Borders

  9

  1

  10

  Northern1 2

  15

  2

  17

  Strathclyde2

  91

  6

  97

  Tayside

  24

  2

  26

  1 Other doctors are available on a payment for call-out basis.

  2 The breakdown by sex is approximate.

  As regards the position in Strathclyde police, I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 11 March at column 243.

  Zircon
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to the National Union of Journalists letter of 17 February on the police raid on the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My private secretary replied on my behalf on 12 March.

  Green Pound
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union of Scotland concerning the devaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I attended the union's annual general meeting dinner on 12 March with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Education, Agriculture and Fisheries who addressed the meeting on 13 March and responded to questions from the floor. On both occasions the union's views on the need for a green pound devaluation were made very clear.

  The Government are currently involved in this year's common agricultural policy price-fixing negotiations, which include the European Commission's proposals for green currency devaluations and a reform of the agrimonetary system. Our approach to these negotiations reflects our desire to see even-handed and fair treatment between member states of the Community and between individual producers, traders and consumers.

  Balmore Industrial Estate, Glasgow
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what follow-up discussions the Scottish Development Agency will he having with the estates department of Glasgow district council over the possibilities of conversion to, and construction of, small industrial units at the Balmore industrial estate, Glasgow.
  292
  Mr. Lang
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army units will go on annual exercises to the British Army of the Rhine in West Germany in 1987; how many went in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  During training year 1987–88 it is intended that 62 Territorial Army units will be deployed to the British Army of the Rhine in West Germany for annual exercises. The corresponding figure for training year 1986–87 was 53.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed reduction of man days for Territorial Army personnel and on the implications for Territorial Army training.

  Mr. Freeman
  Financial provision has been made for an average of 34 training days per man in the Territorial Army in 1987–88. In addition, provision has been made for 16 paid drill nights, that is, the financial equivalent of a further four training days per man. The minimum training requirement for TA volunteers wishing to qualify for their commanding officer's certificate of efficiency and for their bounty is 27 days for those in independent units and 19 days for specialist units.

  Publications
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department in each of the past five years on publications for (a) free distribution and (b) sale under £1.

  Mr. Stanley
  I shall answer shortly.

  Marconi, Portsmouth (Police Investigation)
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report front his Department's police on their investigation into Marconi at Portsmouth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Any such report would be made to the prosecuting authorities, if this were appropriate.

  Royal Engineers Diving Establishment (Trainees)
  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the results of the inquiry into the death in 1986 of a Royal Engineers diving establishment trainee on the mudflats at Horsea Island, Portsmouth.

  Mr. Freeman
  Whilst it is not the Department's policy to publish the findings of service boards of inquiry, I called for a full report on the incident to be prepared and submitted to me following the death of the young soldier last year. This report took into account the findings of the Army's own board of inquiry and the verdict of accidental death returned at the Portsmouth coroner's inquest. The report also detailed what follow-up action needed to be taken. I decided that certain changes should be made to the selection testing procedures for Army diver training.
  293
  Firstly, the "mud-run" element of the aptitude test—which I suspended immediately following the death of the soldier—would not be reintroduced. Secondly, the staff to student ratio is not to be more than one to five and all staff are to be briefed before each aptitude test of the dangers of dehydration. The staff are also to be briefed on the symptoms and treatment of heat illness. In addition, the local medical centre is to be informed when endurance training in dry suits is being carried out and a stand-by vehicle is to be available at the location where the tests take place. Finally, training in dry suits is now limited to 30 minutes with a minimum interval of two hours between normal physical training and training in dry suits. In deciding whether any changes should be made, I have taken into account the need for the tests to remain sufficiently demanding to ensure that only suitable candidates are selected for what is a hazardous profession while at the same time reducing as far as possible the risks to the individual. I believe these new rules, all of which are in force, will achieve this aim.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what medical supervision there is of training runs, in particular for Royal Engineers Diving Establishment trainees, whilst wearing diving suits.

  Mr. Freeman
  All Army diving supervisors at the Royal Engineers diving establishement are trained in first aid and diving-associated illness. At the HMS Vernon site there is a RN leading medical assistant who has specialist training in illness related to diving. In addition, the local medical centre at MHS Nelson provides 24-hour medical cover and is informed on each occasion when endurance training in dry suits is being undertaken by Royal Engineers diving establishment trainees. A standby vehicle is also available at the location on each occasion where endurance training is taking place. The facilities at the Royal Naval hospital Haslar, and in particular the Institute of Naval Medicine, are also available if required.

  Mr. Hancock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if runs on mudflats at (a) Horsea Island or (b) Whale Island in Portsmouth harbour are planned for the summer months for Royal Engineers diving establishment trainees.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are four Army diving training courses planned to take place at the Royal Engineers diving establishment between early May and late July. Some elements of the training may take place at either Horsea island or Whale island and my include training on mud. In addition, there are two diving aptitude tests planned to take place during this period. Such tests no longer include a run on mud. this element of testing was suspended and will not be introduced following the tragic death last year of a young soldier whilst undergoing aptitude testing.

  Marconi, Portsmouth (Mr. Sharif)
  Mr. Deakins
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence during what periods Mr. Sharif of London E17 worked at Marconi in Portsmouth while employed at Stanmore; if the cost of his transport to Portsmouth by car each week over a period of several months was paid for out of public funds; and if he will make a statement.
  294
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mr. Sharif worked at Marconi Defence Systems at Browns lane, Portsmouth, for three days each week between January and March 1986. The cost of his transport was paid by the company.

  Publications
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of producing publications on aspects of Her Majesty's Government's defence policies in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stanley
  I shall answer shortly.

  "Trident and the Alternatives"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost his Department to produce the document "Trident and the Alternatives"; how many copies have been printed; what were their production costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c. 87]: My Department has so far printed 6,000 copies of Defence open government document 87/1 "Trident and the Alternatives". The cost of production, which includes the staff costs of production but not for the preparation of the document, was approximately £1,100.

  "20 Questions on Defence"
  Dr. Owen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost his Department to produce the leaflet, "20 Questions on Defence"; how many copies have been printed; what were their production costs; and how many copies have been issued to the public.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1987, c.87]: My Department, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has so far had printed 16,000 copies of the leaflet "20 Questions on Defence". The cost of production, which includes the staff costs of production but not the preparation of the document, was approximately £3,260. Of the 9,830 copies so far distributed, some 260 have gone directly to members of the general public in response to requests for information. The balance have been distributed to Ministers, peers, MPs, United Kingdom MEPs, interested groups, regular recipients of FCO defence and disarmament information material, and NATO and overseas posts. It is assumed that most of these have been, or will be, passed to the public.

EMPLOYMENT

  YTS
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what percentage of 16-year-old school leavers in Kirklees metropolitan borough council area embark on YTS courses broken down into (a) girls, (b) boys and (c) all.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Manpower Services Commission estimates that 62 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers entered the YTS in Kirklees local education authority area in 1985–86. The equivalent figure for girls was 55 per cent. and boys 67 per cent.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what percentage of 16-year-old (a) girls, (b) boys and (c) all school leavers attend YTS broken down by region or AMB area in each of the last four years.
  295
  Mr. Trippier
  Information is not currently available in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member when the information has been collected and collated.

  Mr. Sheerman asked the Paymaster General what percentage of 16-year-old (a) girls, (b) boys and (c) all school leavers entered YTS in the last four years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table shows estimates by the Manpower Services Commission of the number of 16-year-old school leaver entrants to YTS in the years 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 expressed as a percentage of the number of 16-year-old school leavers. Figures for 1986–87 are not yet available.

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Boys

  51

  58

  58

  Girls

  43

  49

  49

  Total

  46

  53

  54

  Note: Not all school leavers enter the labour market directly. In 1985–86 it is estimated that around 20 per cent. of school leavers went on into further education. The figures therefore understate the proportion of 16-year-olds who leave full-time education and join YTS.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what measures have been taken since 1985 to reduce the under-occupancy of youth training scheme places.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since the introduction of YTS in 1983 the MSC has established a well structured and organised planning process which is continually refined in the light of experience to achieve an appropriate mix of places and provision for each particular year.

  Flexibility of provision, however, is an essential feature of a demand-led scheme and is always needed to meet the guarantee to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds, to provide a choice of places for young people and to cater for the needs of special groups.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what representations he has received regarding the cost of meals for YTS trainees.

  Survey descriptions

  April 1983—October 1983 10 per cent, of those leavers notified to MSC by October 1983

  April 1983—March 1984 10 per cent, of leavers in 9 selected area offices

  April 1984—July 1984 10 per cent, of leavers in 9 selected area offices

  June 1984—March 1985 15 per cent national follow-up of YTS leavers

  In full-time work with the same employer

  4

  12

  22

  24

  In full-lime work with a different employer

  34

  37

  34

  31

  Part-time work

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Full-time course

  6

  1

  2

  3

  On another YTS

  29

  12

  3

  6

  Doing something else

  3

  3

  5

  3

  Unemployed

  24

  35

  34

  32

  Percentage early leavers

  84

  89

  60

  52

  Percentage response

  53

  53

  69

  63

  1 This question was not asked.

  2 Although no question was asked about part-time work, 1 per cent, of respondents noted their questionnaires to indicate that they were in part-time work.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give, from the survey of youth training scheme providers last reported to the meeting of the Manpower Services Commission's youth training board the number and proportion of managing agents who deploy, per 100 trainees (a) fewer than three, (b) three to five, (c) six to eight, (d) nine to 11, (e) 12 to 14 and (f) more than 14
  296
  Mr. Trippier
  I have received two representations concerning meals for YTS trainees. The weekly training allowance payable to YTS trainees is intended to cover normal living expenses, including meals.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give, from the survey of the YTS providers last reported to the Manpower Services Commission's youth training board, the number and proportion of trainees who are (a) one-year trainees only, (b) apprentices or other long-term trainees, and (c) employees; and how these figures have changed since 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. The most recent information is from the YTS providers survey conducted in January-February 1986. This survey showed that 9 per cent. (23,800) of trainees were apprentices or long-term trainees and 14 per cent. (37,000) were employees. Some young people were apprentices with employee status.

  Figures for 1985 are not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will gave the proportion of youth training scheme leavers going to the following destinations for each available month of the 15 per cent. leavers sample and for each of the previous sample (a) full-time work with the same employer, (b) full-time work with a different employer, (c) part-time work, (d) full-time college or training course, (e) back to school, (f) on another youth training scheme, (g) claimant unemployed and (h) other; and if he will show for each survey: (i) the proportion of respondents who had left the scheme early and (ii) the usable percentage response rate.

  Mr. Trippier
  The figures are not available in the form requested.

  The available results from the surveys of leavers between April 1983 and March 1985 are as follows:

  full-time equivalent staff in managing, administering and providing off-the-job training for their scheme; and how these figures have changed over the last two years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The most recent survey of YTS providers conducted in January-February 1986
  297
  shows that 44 per cent. (2,400) of scheme managing agents and sponsors had up to 10, 13 per cent. (700) had between 10 and 15 and 43 per cent. (2,400) had in excess of 15 full-time equivalent staff per 100 trainees engaged in management and off-the-job training.

  Comparable figures for earlier periods are not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give, from the survey of youth training scheme providers last reported to the meeting of the Manpower Services Commission's youth training board, the number and proportion of managing agents and sponsors who require prospective trainees to have one or more O-levels; and how these figures have changed over the last two years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The most recent survey of YTS providers conducted in January-February 1986 showed that 18 per cent. (1,000) of schemes required trainees to have a minimum of one O-level pass.

  A similar survey conducted in June-August 1984 showed that 22 per cent. (1,300) of managing agents or sponsors required at least one O-level pass.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give, from the survey of youth training scheme leavers last reported to the meeting of the youth training board, the number and proportion of work experience placements provided in each of the industrial categories used in the survey, and in each of the occupational training facilities, together with the comparable figures for two years ago.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following table shows results from the most recent survey of TYS providers conducted in January-February 1986 and the previous survey conducted in June-August 1984.

  Trainees receiving placements in:

  1984

  1986

  per cent

  Number

  per cent

  Number

  Standard Industrial Classification

  0. Agriculture, forestry, fishing

  2

  5,300

  2

  5,300

  1. Energy and Water

  0

  —

  2

  5,300

  2. Extraction, metals, minerals, chemicals

  4

  10,600

  1

  2,600

  3. Metal goods, engineering, vehicles

  12

  31,900

  7

  18,500

  4. Other manufacture

  6

  15,900

  7

  18,500

  5. Construction

  5

  13,300

  3

  7,900

  6. Distribution, hotel & catering, repairs

  40

  106,300

  23

  60,700

  7. Transport and Communication

  1

  2,600

  2

  5,300

  8. Banking, finance etc

  5

  13,200

  5

  13,300

  9. Other services

  22

  58,500

  48

  126,700

  Not stated

  3

  8,000

  0

  —

  Comparable data on occupational training families are not available from the two surveys. The table gives the proportion of workplaces covered by the 1986 providers survey with trainees in occupations classified by the training and occupations (YTS) classification. The figures sum to more than 100 per cent. as workplaces often have trainees in more than one occupation.

  Percentage

  Administration and clerical

  44

  Creative, education recreation

  13

  Health and community

  8

  298

  Percentage

  Personal service

  18

  Selling and storage

  28

  Construction

  7

  Electrical engineering

  8

  Mechanical engineering

  12

  Mining

  1—

  Motor vehicle repair

  12

  Non-metal processing

  4

  Catering and food

  13

  Agriculture, horticultre and forestry

  6

  Fishing

  1—

  Transport

  3

  Scientific

  1

  Printing

  3

  Clothing and textiles

  2

  Security services

  1—

  Other

  1—

  DK/NS

  1—

  1Less than 1 per cent.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General to what factors he attributes the current under-occupancy of youth training scheme places.

  Mr. Trippier
  Flexibility in the provision and take-up of YTS places will always be required if the scheme is to meet the needs of all those who are involved. The current level of occupancy is in line with the normal annual pattern of contracting and filling of places. There were over 320,000 young people in training on YTS at the end of February 1987.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will take steps to ensure that monitoring of youth training schemes is adequate to prevent managing agents getting into arrears with trainees' allowances.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Manpower Services Commission already has staff in its area offices whose purpose is to ensure good and correct practice in the spending of public money on YTS including the trainees' allowances.

  These staff carry out financial monitoring visits to managing agents to ensure that they operate sound financial systems and controls. In the course of these visits, managing agents' records are examined to ensure that allowances are being paid correctly and on time. Additionally, a selection of trainees are interviewed to verify that their allowances are being paid properly.

  The depth and frequency of monitoring is determined by the managing agents' past and present performance in fulfilling the terms of their contracts with the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give, from the survey of youth training scheme leavers last reported to the meeting of the youth training board, the number and proportion of managing agents and sponsors who sub-contract (i) no, (ii) some and (iii) all work experience placements to other employers and providers together with the comparable figures for two years ago.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is available from the survey of YTS providers conducted in January-February 1986 and June-August 1984. The table gives the proportion and number of YTS schemes in which none, some and all of the work experience placements are subcontracted.
  299

  1984

  1986

  No sub-contracting per cent.

  28

  35

  Number

  1,600

  1,900

  Some sub-contracting per cent.

  28

  35

  Number

  1,600

  1,900

  All work experience sub-contracted per cent.

  43

  30

  Number

  2,500

  1,700

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give, from the survey of youth training scheme providers last reported to the meeting of the Manpower Services Commission's youth training board, the number and proportion of schemes that accept(a) all applicants, (b) more than three quarters of all applicants, (c) more than half of all applicants and (d) more than a quarter of all applicants, respectively, together with the comparable figures for two years ago.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table gives the proportion and number of schemes accepting trainees. This information is drawn from surveys of YTS providers conducted in January-February 1986 and June-August 1984.

  1984

  1986

  Schemes accepting

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  All applicants

  34

  2,000

  34

  1,900

  More than 50 per cent, of applicants

  66

  3,800

  73

  4,000

  More than 20 per cent, of applicants

  83

  4,800

  90

  5,000

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General how many young people in training on the youth training scheme are estimated to be employees on current year schemes; how

  1 Accidents

  Annual Incidence Rate per 100.000 trainees

  Period

  Average number in training

  Fatalities

  Major Injuries

  Fatalities

  Major Injuries

  Table (a)

  1 January 1984 to 31 December 1984

  262,877

  24

  190

  1·5

  72·3

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1985

  265,596

  34

  201

  1·5

  75·7

  Table (b)

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986

  304,103

  47

  305

  2·3

  100·3

  1 Manpower Services Commission accident figures for YTS are compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, Commission figures will include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 This figure includes two road traffic accidents.

  3 This figure includes one road traffic accident.

  4 This figure includes two road traffic accidents.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish, for each area office of the Manpower Services Commission, current accident figures for the youth training scheme in the following form (a) for the area for each of the last three available months, together with the figures for the previous year, (b) by travel-to-work area for the last available month, together with the figures for the previous year, (c) by parliamentary constituency for the last available month, together with the figures for the previous year and (d) by local authority for the last available month, together with the figures for the previous year.
  300
  these figures compare with the previous year and the year before that; and what the figures are for the two year scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table shows the number of young people recorded by the Manpower Services Commission as employees starting on YTS in each of the years 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86. No information is yet available on the number of employees starting on the two-year scheme.

  Number of young people starting as employees on YTS

  No.

  1983–84

  16,500

  1984–85

  22,500

  1985–86

  23,000

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish the 1986 incidence of major and fatal accidents to trainees on the youth training schemes, together with the figures for the two previous years and the figures thus far for 1987.

  Mr. Tippier
  The following tables set out the annual incidence rates per 100,000 trainees on YTS for fatal and major accidents. Table(a) gives figures for 1984 and 1985. Table (b) gives figures for 1986. It should be noted that the two tables cannot be directly compared in respect of major injuries. Up to 31 March 1986 major injuries 'were classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. From 1 April 1986 major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. This has had the effect of reclassifying some accidents from the minor category into the major category. Accident figures for the first quarter of 1987 are not yet available.

  Mr. Trippier
  Youth training scheme accident statistics are collected quarterly and relate to areas covered by Manpower Services Commission offices. Figures for October 1985 to December 1986 are given in the following tables. Comprehensive information is not available for travel-to-work areas, parliamentary constituencies or local authority districts and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  301

  Table 1

  YTS accidents 1 October to 31 December 19861

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  1

  8

  Central and Fife

  —

  3

  8

  Glasgow City

  —

  2

  7

  Grampian and Tayside

  1

  2

  10

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  2

  2

  Lanarkshire

  —

  2

  10

  Lothian/Borders

  —

  5

  9

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  —

  1

  3

  Northern

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  Durham County

  —

  3

  38

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  26

  South Tyne

  —

  5

  25

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  —

  5

  19

  Humberside

  —

  3

  17

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  —

  —

  6

  Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster

  31

  5

  15

  North West

  Cheshire

  —

  9

  15

  Cumbria

  —

  1

  2

  Greater Manchester Central

  —

  3

  2

  Greater Manchester East

  —

  1

  —

  Greater Manchester North

  —

  —

  16

  Lancashire

  —

  3

  36

  Merseyside Inner

  —

  3

  15

  Merseyside Outer

  —

  1

  23

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  7

  16

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  Dudley/Sandwell

  —

  2

  10

  Staffordshire

  —

  1

  7

  Telford/Shropshire

  —

  —

  8

  Hereford and Worcester

  Wolverhampton

  —

  1

  16

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  2

  6

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  6

  Bedfordshire/Cambridge

  —

  1

  2

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  Cardiff

  —

  2

  32

  Gwent

  —

  1

  12

  Swansea

  —

  1

  2

  Wrexham

  1

  2

  12

  South West

  Avon

  —

  3

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  1

  4

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  1

  1

  15

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  —

  3

  6

  South East

  Chatham Kent

  —

  —

  6

  Chelmsford

  —

  5

  9

  Fareham

  —

  —

  3

  High Wycombe

  —

  —

  1

  Horsham

  —

  2

  6

  Reading

  —

  2

  3

  London

  London North

  —

  —

  —

  London North East

  —

  1

  5

  London South East

  —

  —

  2

  302

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  London South and West

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  4

  100

  509

  Table2

  YTS accidents 1 July to 30 September 19861

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  6

  Central and Fife

  —

  1

  6

  Glasgow City

  —

  4

  6

  Grampian and Tayside

  —

  —

  3

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  1

  2

  Lothian/Borders

  —

  1

  4

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  —

  1

  —

  Northern

  Cleveland

  —

  2

  5

  Durham County

  —

  7

  18

  Newcastle

  —

  5

  16

  South Tyne

  —

  1

  14

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  —

  2

  12

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  —

  2

  3

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  —

  1

  6

  Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster

  —

  3

  4

  North West

  Cheshire

  —

  3

  12

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester Central

  —

  2

  3

  Greater Manchester East

  —

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester North

  —

  7

  14

  Lancashire

  —

  3

  9

  Merseyside Inner

  —

  2

  6

  Merseyside Outer

  —

  2

  14

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  13

  Coventry

  —

  —

  2

  Dudley/Sandwell

  —

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  1

  4

  Telford/Shropshire

  —

  —

  5

  Hereford/Worcester

  Wolverhampton

  —

  1

  2

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  —

  1

  5

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  2

  7

  Bedfordshire/Cambridge

  —

  —

  3

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  —

  3

  1

  Wales

  Cardiff

  —

  3

  15

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  Swansea

  —

  4

  5

  Wrexham

  —

  —

  3

  South West

  Avon

  —

  1

  2

  Devon and Corwall

  —

  3

  4

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  —

  —

  2

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  —

  1

  8

  South East

  Chatham Kent

  —

  —

  2

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  4

  303

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Fareham

  —

  —

  —

  High Wycombe

  —

  —

  4

  Horsham

  —

  —

  —

  Reading

  —

  1

  3

  London

  London North

  —

  —

  —

  London North East

  —

  3

  5

  London South East

  —

  1

  1

  London South and West

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  —

  77

  266

  Table 3

  YTS accidents 1 April to 30 June 19861

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  10

  Central and Fife

  —

  3

  11

  Glasgow City

  —

  1

  5

  Grampian and Tayside

  —

  —

  7

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  1

  2

  Lanarkshire

  —

  5

  12

  Lothian/Borders

  —

  2

  5

  Renfrew. Dunbarton and Argyll

  —

  —

  7

  Northern

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  10

  Durham County

  —

  1

  19

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  15

  South Tyne

  —

  1

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  —

  1

  11

  Humberside

  —

  —

  6

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  —

  3

  6

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  —

  1

  9

  Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster

  —

  —

  15

  North West

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  8

  Cumbria

  —

  2

  4

  Greater Manchester Central

  —

  1

  2

  Greater Manchester East

  —

  2

  5

  Greater Manchester North

  —

  2

  12

  Lancashire

  —

  3

  10

  Merseyside Inner

  —

  1

  11

  Merscyside Outer

  —

  1

  13

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  5

  4

  Coventry

  —

  1

  1

  Derby

  —

  4

  5

  Dudley/Sandwell

  —

  —

  5

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  3

  Lincoln

  —

  1

  1

  Nottingham

  —

  2

  3

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  5

  Telford/Shropshire

  —

  —

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  7

  Wales

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  12

  Gwent

  —

  —

  8

  Swansea

  —

  4

  10

  Wrexham

  1

  2

  19

  South- West

  Avon

  1

  2

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  —

  1

  8

  304

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  —

  —

  3

  South East

  Chatham Kent

  13

  1

  2

  Chelmsford

  —

  1

  3

  Fareham

  1

  5

  High Wycombe

  —

  —

  7

  Horsham

  —

  2

  4

  Ipswich

  —

  3

  7

  Luton

  —

  1

  5

  Reading

  —

  1

  3

  London

  London North

  —

  —

  1

  London North East

  —

  1

  —

  London South East

  —

  1

  1

  London South and West

  —

  —

  2

  Totals

  3

  68

  375

  Table 4

  YTS accidents 1 January to 31 March 19861

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  11

  Central and Fife

  —

  2

  18

  Glasgow City

  —

  —

  7

  Grampian and Tayside

  —

  1

  5

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  3

  17

  Lothian/Borders

  —

  2

  3

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  —

  —

  7

  Northern

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  9

  Durham County

  —

  2

  21

  Newcastle

  —

  1

  19

  South Tyne

  —

  2

  11

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  —

  —

  10

  Humberside

  —

  —

  7

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  —

  3

  14

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  —

  —

  14

  Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster

  —

  1

  16

  North West

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  2

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  9

  Greater Manchester Central

  —

  2

  8

  Greater Manchester East

  —

  1

  12

  Greater Manchester North

  —

  2

  14

  Lancashire

  —

  5

  15

  Merseyside Inner

  —

  1

  7

  Merseyside Outer

  —

  —

  16

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  3

  11

  Coventry

  —

  1

  17

  Derby

  —

  2

  10

  Dudley/Sandwell

  —

  3

  2

  Leicestershire

  —

  1

  8

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  9

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  12

  Staffordshire

  —

  2

  7

  Telford/Shropshire/

  —

  3

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  Wolverhampton/Walsall

  —

  —

  7

  Wales

  Cardiff

  —

  2

  16

  Gwent

  —

  —

  4

  Swansea

  —

  2

  12

  305

  Region and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Wrexham

  —

  2

  11

  South West

  Avon

  —

  2

  9

  Devon and Corwall

  —

  —

  4

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  —

  2

  7

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  —

  1

  8

  South East

  Chatham Kent

  —

  —

  4

  Chelmsford

  —

  1

  8

  Fareham

  —

  —

  6

  High Wycombe

  —

  1

  3

  Horsham

  —

  —

  4

  Ipswich

  —

  1

  4

  Luton

  —

  —

  3

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  London

  London North

  —

  —

  2

  London North East

  —

  1

  —

  London South East

  —

  —

  4

  London South and West

  —

  1

  1

  Totals

  —

  60

  474

  Table 1

  YTS accidents 1 October to 31 December 19851

  Regions and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  1

  7

  Central and Fife

  —

  1

  20

  Glasgow City

  —

  1

  15

  Grampian and Tayside

  —

  1

  9

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  1

  2

  Lanarkshire

  —

  4

  9

  Lothian/Borders

  —

  2

  8

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  —

  —

  10

  Northern

  Cleveland

  —

  2

  21

  Durham County

  —

  3

  31

  Newcastle

  —

  1

  22

  South Tyne

  —

  1

  16

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  —

  2

  14

  Humberside

  —

  4

  4

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  23

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  —

  1

  8

  Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster

  —

  5

  12

  North West

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  15

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  2

  Greater Manchester Central

  —

  1

  6

  Greater Manchester East

  —

  4

  12

  Greater Manchester North

  —

  2

  12

  306

  Regions and area

  Fatalities

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Lancashire

  —

  2

  30

  Merseyside Inner

  —

  3

  12

  Merseyside Outer

  —

  —

  16

  Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  22

  Coventry

  —

  1

  11

  Derby

  —

  —

  15

  Dudley/Sandwell

  —

  —

  4

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  14

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  8

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  12

  Staffordshire

  —

  4

  15

  Telford/Shropshire

  —

  —

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  Wolverhampton/

  —

  —

  4

  Wales

  Cardiff

  —

  3

  19

  Gwent

  —

  1

  5

  Swansea

  —

  —

  8

  Wrexham

  —

  —

  9

  South West

  Avon

  —

  2

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  1

  7

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  —

  —

  13

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  —

  1

  6

  South East

  Chatham Kent

  —

  1

  5

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  12

  Fareham

  —

  2

  4

  High Wycombe

  —

  2

  2

  Horsham

  —

  —

  10

  Ipswich

  —

  1

  5

  Luton

  —

  —

  2

  Reading

  —

  1

  3

  London

  London North

  —

  1

  1

  London North East

  —

  2

  2

  London South East

  —

  —

  5

  London South and West

  —

  1

  2

  Totals

  —

  67

  577

  1 Manpower Services Commission (MSC) accident figures for YTS are compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on employed persons. However, MSC figures will include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the HSE had the individuals been employed.

  2 Up to 31 March 1986 major injuries were classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. From 1 April 1986 major injuries were classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  3 These figures are road traffic accidents.

  YTS
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish, for each Manpower Services Commision area office and for (a) 16-year-olds. (b) 17-year-olds and (c) 18-year-olds, the latest careers service estimates of the number and proportion expected to leave school and further education college, and the number and proportion

  Table 1: Results of the careers service exercise by MSC area office: December 1985

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time iob outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  South East

  Chatham, Kent

  Age 16

  21,663

  10,832

  50·0

  4,874

  45·0

  22·5

  Age 17

  6,615

  2,051

  31·0

  1,231

  60·0

  18·6

  Age 18

  4,092

  1,269

  31·0

  1,142

  90·0

  27·9

  Chelmsford

  Age 16

  21,721

  12,918

  59·5

  6,692

  51·8

  30·8

  Age 17

  6,885

  2,650

  38·5

  1,969

  74·3

  28·6

  Age 18

  4,279

  1,840

  43·0

  1,767

  96·0

  41·3

  Fareham

  Age 16

  22,179

  12,050

  54·3

  5,151

  42·7

  23·2

  Age 17

  5,508

  1,859

  33·8

  1,147

  61·7

  20·8

  Age 18

  3,653

  1,552

  42·5

  1,386

  89·3

  37·9

  High Wycombe

  Age 16

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 17

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 18

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Horsham

  Age 16

  27,797

  12,545

  45·1

  7,277

  58·0

  26·2

  Age 17

  11,620

  3,459

  29·8

  1,911

  55·2

  16·4

  Age 18

  7,290

  1,875

  25·7

  1,806

  96·3

  24·8

  Reading

  Age 16

  17,406

  8,996

  51·7

  4,810

  53·5

  27·6

  Age 17

  5,550

  1,543

  27·8

  906

  58·7

  16·3

  Age 18

  3,571

  862

  24·1

  804

  93·3

  22·5

  London

  London North

  Age 16

  17,239

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 17

  8,366

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 18

  4,905

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  London North East

  Age 16

  20,595

  11,627

  56·5

  5,484

  47·2

  26·6

  Age 17

  6,483

  2,562

  39·5

  1,308

  51·1

  20·2

  Age 18

  3,159

  1,338

  42·4

  897

  67·0

  28·4

  London South East

  Age 16

  22,282

  11,656

  52·3

  5,887

  50·5

  26·4

  Age 17

  7,623

  2,925

  38·4

  1,580

  54·0

  20·7

  Age 18

  3,904

  1,507

  38·6

  1,030

  68·3

  26·4

  London South and West

  Age 16

  21,411

  8,397

  39·2

  5,196

  61·9

  24·3

  Age 17

  8,056

  2,273

  28·2

  1,597

  70·3

  19·8

  Age 18

  4,624

  1,457

  31·5

  1,261

  86·5

  27·3

  South West

  Avon

  Age 16

  12,589

  7,379

  58·6

  2,642

  35·8

  21·0

  Age 17

  3,853

  1,079

  28·0

  647

  60·0

  16·8

  Age 18

  2,546

  738

  29·0

  610

  82·7

  24·0

  308
  expected to find work outside the youth training scheme by 31 December; and how these figures have changed from those available at the end of 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  The figures supplied in the tables refer to the numbers of young people leaving school. Results are missing from a few Manpower Service Commission areas due to incomplete returns from some local education authorities. Information on the number of leavers from colleges of further education is not readily available.
  309

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Devon and Cornwall

  Age 16

  19,673

  10,457

  53·2

  3,019

  28·9

  15·3

  Age 17

  4,372

  778

  17·8

  444

  57·1

  10·2

  Age 18

  3,095

  548

  17·7

  413

  75·4

  13·3

  Gloucester/Wiltshire

  Age 16

  15,106

  8,845

  58·6

  3,772

  42·6

  25·0

  Age 17

  3,377

  784

  23·2

  474

  60·5

  14·0

  Age 18

  2,685

  1,022

  38·1

  822

  80·4

  30·6

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  Age 16

  14,264

  8,613

  60·4

  3,326

  38·6

  23·3

  Age 17

  3,577

  1,233

  34·5

  843

  68·4

  23·6

  Age 18

  2,595

  669

  25·8

  561

  83·9

  21·6

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Age 16

  19,543

  10,480

  53·6

  2,346

  22·4

  12·0

  Age 17

  5,022

  851

  16·9

  366

  43·0

  7·3

  Age 18

  3,128

  584

  18·7

  472

  80·8

  15·1

  Coventry/Warwick

  Age 16

  12,562

  6,874

  54·7

  1,834

  26·7

  14·6

  Age 17

  2,845

  834

  29·3

  283

  33·9

  9·9

  Age 18

  2,255

  616

  27·3

  400

  64·9

  17·7

  Dudley/Sandwell

  Age 16

  9,883

  6,378

  64·5

  1,053

  16·5

  10·7

  Age 17

  1,728

  558

  32·3

  147

  26·3

  8·5

  Age 18

  1,244

  453

  36·4

  176

  38·9

  14·1

  The Marches

  Age 16

  15,383

  8,300

  54·0

  2,361

  28·4

  15·3

  Age 17

  3,821

  958

  25·1

  328

  34·2

  8·6

  Age 18

  2,584

  545

  21·1

  357

  65·5

  13·8

  Staffordshire

  Age 16

  16,160

  10,471

  64·8

  1,471

  14·0

  9·1

  Age 17

  3,697

  782

  21·2

  278

  35·6

  7·5

  Age 18

  2,612

  1,216

  46·6

  727

  59·8

  27·8

  Wolverhampton

  Age 16

  9,040

  4,860

  53·8

  961

  19·8

  10·6

  Age 17

  2,134

  646

  30·3

  234

  36·2

  11·0

  Age 18

  1,436

  379

  26·4

  241

  63·6

  16·8

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Derby

  Age 16

  14,140

  8,004

  56·6

  1,946

  24·3

  13·8

  Age 17

  2,675

  320

  12·0

  160

  50·0

  6·0

  Age 18

  2,207

  530

  24·0

  441

  83·2

  20·0

  Leicestershire

  Age 16

  21,455

  12,074

  56·3

  5,653

  46·8

  76·3

  Age 17

  6,720

  2,076

  30·9

  1,400

  67·4

  20·8

  Age 18

  3,860

  1,211

  31·4

  1,034

  85·4

  26·8

  Lincoln

  Age 16

  8,198

  4,724

  57·6

  1,224

  25·9

  14·9

  Age 17

  1,900

  275

  14·5

  130

  47·3

  6·8

  Age 18

  1,320

  315

  23·9

  245

  77·8

  18·6

  Nottingham

  Age 16

  16,077

  9,325

  58·0

  2,733

  29·3

  17·0

  Age 17

  3,296

  824

  25·0

  396

  48·1

  12·0

  Age 18

  2,561

  691

  27·0

  512

  74·1

  20·0

  Luton

  Age 16

  15,149

  7,553

  49·9

  3,584

  47·5

  23·7

  Age 17

  4,783

  1,113

  23·3

  795

  71·4

  16·6

  310 311

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Age 18

  2,835

  804

  28·4

  720

  89·6

  25·4

  Ipswich

  Age 16

  18,502

  11,064

  59·8

  4,142

  37·4

  22·4

  Age 17

  4,547

  1,121

  24·7

  620

  55·3

  13·6

  Age 18

  2,981

  1,384

  46·4

  767

  55·4

  25·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  Age 16

  16,676

  10,217

  61·5

  3,179

  31·1

  19·1

  Age 17

  4,670

  1,353

  29·0

  714

  52·8

  15·3

  Age 18

  2,893

  1,123

  38·8

  617

  54·9

  21·3

  Humberside

  Age 16

  14,006

  9,020

  64·4

  2,275

  25·2

  16·2

  Age 17

  3,546

  1,109

  31·3

  479

  43·2

  13·5

  Age 18

  2,500

  625

  25·0

  425

  68·0

  17·0

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  Age 16

  20,190

  10,744

  53·2

  4,172

  38·8

  20·7

  Age 17

  6,140

  1,703

  27·7

  903

  53·0

  14·7

  Age 18

  3,984

  1,038

  26·1

  690

  66·5

  17·3

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  Age 16

  12,851

  8,019

  62·4

  1,103

  13·8

  8·6

  Age 17

  3,390

  797

  23·5

  201

  25·2

  5·9

  Age 18

  2,302

  628

  27·3

  388

  61·8

  16·9

  Wakefield/Barnsley, Doncaster

  Age 16

  13,709

  9,136

  66·7

  1,742

  19·1

  12·7

  Age 17

  2,682

  790

  29·5

  292

  37·0

  10·9

  Age 18

  1,602

  509

  31·8

  283

  55·6

  17·7

  North West

  Cheshire

  Age 16

  14,619

  8,038

  55·0

  1,770

  22·0

  12·1

  Age 17

  4,362

  918

  21·0

  337

  36·7

  7·7

  Age 18

  3,077

  563

  18·3

  362

  64·3

  11·8

  Cumbria

  Age 16

  7,582

  5,046

  66·6

  2,096

  41·5

  27·6

  Age 17

  1,831

  428

  23·4

  244

  57·0

  13·3

  Age 18

  1,298

  333

  25·6

  227

  68·2

  17·5

  Greater Manchester Central

  Age 16

  13,072

  7·524

  57·6

  1,862

  24·7

  14·2

  Age 17

  3,671

  653

  17·8

  281

  43·0

  7·7

  Age 18

  2,906

  841

  28·9

  520

  61·8

  17·9

  Greater Manchester East

  Age 16

  11,479

  6,575

  57·3

  1,799

  27·4

  15·7

  Age 17

  3,455

  734

  21·1

  455

  62·0

  13·2

  Age 18

  2,028

  705

  34·8

  607

  86·1

  30·0

  Greater Manchester North

  Age 16

  15,400

  9,337

  60·6

  1,955

  20·9

  12·7

  Age 17

  3,463

  823

  23·8

  318

  38·6

  9·2

  Age 18

  2,636

  605

  23·0

  256

  42·3

  9·7

  Lancashire

  Age 16

  21,034

  11,574

  55·0

  3,714

  32·1

  17·7

  Age 17

  2,983

  478

  16·0

  160

  33·5

  5·4

  Age 18

  2,420

  680

  28·1

  400

  58·9

  16·5

  Merseyside Inner

  Age 16

  12,274

  7,492

  61·0

  812

  10·8

  6·6

  Age 17

  3,218

  920

  28·6

  I88

  20·4

  5·8

  Age 18

  2,295

  954

  41·6

  285

  29·9

  12·4

  Merseyside Outer

  Age 16

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a

  312 313

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Age 17

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 18

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Age 16

  9,562

  6,111

  63·9

  933

  15·3

  9·8

  Age 17

  2,667

  705

  26·4

  251

  35·6

  9·4

  Age 18

  2,211

  761

  34·3

  423

  55·6

  19·1

  Durham>

  Age 16

  9,329

  6,295

  67·5

  1,005

  16·0

  10·8

  Age 17

  1,981

  526

  26·6

  150

  28·5

  7·6

  Age 18

  1,418

  183

  12·9

  103

  56·3

  7·3

  North Tyne

  Age 16

  10,709

  6,642

  62·0

  1,499

  22·6

  14·0

  Age 17

  3,131

  999

  31·9

  405

  40·5

  12·9

  Age 18

  2,056

  730

  35·5

  509

  69·7

  24·8

  South Tyne

  Age 16

  10,243

  7,207

  70·4

  956

  13·3

  9·3

  Age 17

  2,089

  623

  29·8

  232

  37·2

  11·1

  Age 18

  1,364

  434

  31·8

  192

  44·2

  14·1

  Wales

  Cardiff

  Age 16

  14,463

  7,539

  52·1

  1,668

  22·1

  11·5

  Age 17

  4,882

  1,396

  28·6

  633

  45·3

  13·0

  Age 18

  3,228

  867

  26·9

  416

  48·0

  12·9

  Gwent

  Age 16

  6,989

  3,744

  53·6

  719

  19·2

  10·3

  Age 17

  1,944

  464

  23·9

  174

  37·5

  9·0

  Age 18

  1,140

  219

  19·2

  134

  61·2

  11·8

  Swansea

  Age 16

  10,563

  5,178

  49·0

  1,073

  20·7

  10·2

  Age 17

  3,487

  659

  18·9

  179

  27·2

  5·1

  Age 18

  2,300

  313

  13·6

  210

  67·1

  9·1

  Wrexham

  Age 16

  11,724

  5,997

  51·2

  1,488

  24·8

  12·7

  Age 17

  4,205

  1,310

  31·2

  633

  48·3

  15·1

  Age 18

  2,444

  536

  21·9

  410

  76·5

  16·8

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  Age 16

  10,595

  4,974

  46·5

  1,313

  26·4

  12·3

  Age 17

  2,644

  1,126

  42·6

  543

  48·2

  20·5

  Age 18

  933

  346

  37·1

  252

  72·8

  27·0

  Central and Fife

  Age 16

  13,265

  6,289

  47·4

  1,397

  22·2

  10·5

  Age 17

  2,694

  1,282

  47·6

  538

  42·0

  20·0

  Age 18

  1,074

  492

  45·8

  280

  56·9

  26·1

  Glasgow City

  Age 16

  13,158

  7,429

  56·5

  2,047

  27·6

  15·6

  Age 17

  2,192

  1,150

  52·5

  535

  46·5

  24·4

  Age 18

  824

  377

  45·8

  262

  69·5

  31·8

  Grampian and Tayside

  Age 16

  17,385

  6,257

  36·0

  2,476

  39·6

  14·2

  Age 17

  3,378

  924

  27·4

  472

  51·0

  14·0

  Age 18

  1,264

  243

  19·2

  151

  62·1

  11·9

  Highlands and Islands

  Age 16

  5,367

  2,349

  43·8

  897

  38·2

  16·7

  Age 17

  1,407

  559

  39·7

  301

  53·8

  21·4

  Age 18

  547

  218

  39·9

  139

  63·8

  25·4

  314 315

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Lanarkshire

  Age 16

  11,826

  5,107

  43·2

  867

  17·0

  7·3

  Age 17

  2,340

  956

  40·9

  296

  31·0

  12·6

  Age 18

  893

  315

  35·3

  142

  45·1

  15·9

  Lothian/Borders

  Age 16

  15,442

  6,836

  44·3

  2,683

  39·2

  17·4

  Age 17

  3,072

  1,236

  40·2

  743

  60·1

  24·2

  Age 18

  1,136

  439

  38·6

  330

  75·2

  29·0

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  Age 16

  15,068

  5,763

  38·2

  1,173

  20·4

  7·8

  Age 17

  4,032

  1,643

  40·7

  694

  42·2

  17·2

  Age 18

  1,573

  588

  38·9

  368

  62·6

  24·3

  Notes:

  n/a = Results are not available or are incomplete.

  The figures are subject to error and should be treated as approximate.

  Table 2

  Results of the careers service exercise by MSC area office: December 1986

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  South East

  Chatham, Kent

  Age 16

  21,133

  10,814

  51·2

  4,330

  40·0

  20·5

  Age 17

  7,049

  2,185

  31·0

  1,311

  60·0

  18·6

  Age 18

  4,036

  1,399

  34·7

  1,259

  90·0

  31·2

  Chelmsford

  Age 16

  21,643

  13,215

  61·1

  6,339

  48·0

  29·3

  Age 17

  6,684

  1,845

  27·6

  1,225

  66·4

  18·3

  Age 18

  3,970

  1,386

  34·9

  1,333

  96·2

  33·6

  Fareham

  Age 16

  21,512

  11,024

  51·2

  4,816

  43·7

  22·4

  Age 17

  5,263

  1,505

  28·6

  1,002

  66·6

  19·0

  Age 18

  3,792

  1,070

  28·6

  888

  83·0

  23·7

  High Wycombe

  Age 16

  22,014

  10,694

  48·6

  6,445

  60·3

  29·3

  Age 17

  8,041

  1,846

  23·0

  1,293

  70·0

  16·1

  Age 18

  5,416

  1,316

  24·3

  1,197

  91·0

  22·1

  Horsham

  Age 16

  27,010

  12,531

  46·4

  7,425

  59·3

  27·5

  Age 17

  11,513

  3,362

  29·2

  1,999

  59·5

  17·4

  Age 18

  7,109

  1,700

  23·9

  1,628

  95·8

  22·9

  Reading

  Age 16

  17,087

  9,076

  53·1

  5,217

  57·5

  30·5

  Age 17

  5,961

  1,724

  28·9

  1,371

  77·2

  22·3

  Age 18

  3,799

  1,090

  28·7

  1,037

  95·1

  27·3

  South West

  Avon

  Age 16

  12,312

  7,404

  60·1

  2,554

  34·5

  20·7

  Age 17

  3,766

  1,214

  32·2

  829

  68·3

  22·0

  Age 18

  2,330

  739

  31·7

  665

  90·0

  28·5

  Devon and Cornwall

  Age 16

  18,726

  10,668

  57·0

  2,977

  27·9

  15·9

  Age 17

  4,436

  1,144

  25·8

  457

  39·9

  10·3

  Age 18

  2,761

  710

  25·7

  543

  76·5

  19·7

  316 317

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  Age 16

  14,444

  7,883

  54·6

  3,728

  47·3

  25·8

  Age 17

  3,538

  845

  23·9

  613

  72·5

  17·3

  Age 18

  2,281

  693

  30·4

  640

  92·3

  28·1

  Taunton, Somerset and Dorset

  Age 16

  13,541

  8.061

  59·5

  2,643

  32·8

  19·5

  Age 17

  3,144

  933

  29·7

  616

  66·0

  19·6

  Age 18

  2,470

  698

  28·3

  539

  77·2

  21·8

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Coventry/Warwick

  Age 16

  11,641

  6,870

  59·0

  1,838

  26·8

  15·8

  Age 17

  2,836

  863

  30·4

  304

  35·2

  10·7

  Age 18

  2,229

  641

  28·8

  321

  50·1

  14·4

  Dudley/Sandwcll

  Age 16

  9,724

  6,479

  66·6

  1,139

  17·6

  11·7

  Age 17

  1,640

  438

  26·7

  88

  20·1

  5·4

  Age 18

  1,190

  484

  40·7

  236

  48·8

  19·8

  The Marches

  Age 16

  14,901

  8,081

  54·2

  2,284

  28·3

  15·3

  Age 17

  4,267

  1,160

  27·2

  452

  39·0

  10·6

  Age 18

  2,514

  666

  26·5

  479

  71·9

  19·1

  Staffordshire

  Age 16

  15,856

  10,594

  66·8

  1,495

  14·1

  9·4

  Age 17

  3,600

  720

  20·0

  221

  30·7

  6·1

  Age 18

  2,454

  780

  31·8

  534

  68·5

  21·8

  Wolverhampton

  Age 16

  8,981

  5,957

  66·3

  1,192

  20·0

  13·3

  Age 17

  2,150

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  1,316

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Derby

  Age 16

  13,529

  7,493

  55·4

  1,928

  25·7

  14·3

  Age 17

  3,045

  453

  14·9

  257

  56·7

  8·4

  Age 18

  1,995

  5·28

  26·5

  402

  76·1

  20·2

  Leicestershire

  Age 16

  20,819

  11,079

  53·2

  4,940

  44·6

  23·7

  Age 17

  6,862

  1,872

  27·3

  1,059

  56·6

  15·4

  Age 18

  4,226

  1,149

  27·2

  953

  82·9

  22·6

  Lincoln

  Age 16

  8,006

  4,671

  58·3

  975

  20·9

  12·2

  Age 17

  1,852

  180

  10·3

  100

  55·6

  5·7

  Age 18

  1,400

  345

  24·6

  280

  81·2

  20·0

  Nottingham

  Age 16

  14,727

  8,831

  60·0

  2,239

  25·4

  15·2

  Age 17

  3,347

  1,793

  53·6

  933

  52·0

  27·9

  Age 18

  2,212

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Luton

  Age 16

  15,037

  8,025

  53·4

  4,163

  51·9

  27·7

  Age 17

  4,543

  1.257

  27·7

  657

  52·3

  14·5

  Age 18

  2,729

  923

  33·8

  806

  87·3

  29·5

  Ipswich

  Age 16

  18,287

  11,026

  60·3

  4,027

  36·5

  22·0

  318 319

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Age 17

  4.609

  1,289

  28·0

  730

  56·6

  15·8

  Age 18

  2,796

  902

  32·3

  764

  84·7

  27·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford. Calderdale and Kirklees

  Age 16

  16,764

  9,954

  59·4

  3,027

  30·4

  18·1

  Age 17

  4,974

  1,255

  25·2

  495

  39·4

  10·0

  Age 18

  3,294

  1,411

  42·8

  793

  56·2

  24·1

  Humberside

  Age 16

  13,645

  8,922

  65·4

  2,121

  23·8

  15·6

  Age 17

  3,637

  1,065

  29·3

  391

  36·7

  10·8

  Age 18

  2,500

  625

  25·0

  425

  68·0

  17·0

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  Age 16

  19,464

  10,773

  55·3

  4,410

  40·9

  22·7

  Age 17

  6,023

  1,789

  29·7

  974

  54·4

  16·2

  Age 18

  3,668

  867

  23·6

  701

  80·9

  19·1

  Sheffield/Rotherham

  Age 16

  12,530

  8,455

  67·5

  1,163

  13·8

  9·3

  Age 17

  3,421

  900

  26·3

  144

  16·0

  4·2

  Age 18

  2,271

  796

  35·1

  401

  50·4

  17·7

  Wakefield/Barnsley/Doncaster

  Age 16

  13,684

  9,366

  68·4

  1,770

  18·9

  12·9

  Age 17

  2,582

  758

  29·4

  253

  33·4

  9·8

  Age 18

  1,685

  622

  36·9

  249

  40·0

  14·8

  North West

  Cheshire

  Age 16

  14,580

  8,098

  55·5

  1,676

  20·7

  11·5

  Age 17

  4,338

  1,014

  23·4

  374

  36·9

  56·3

  Age 18

  2,976

  564

  19·0

  400

  70·9

  13·4

  Cumbria

  Age 16

  7,264

  4,747

  65·3

  1,953

  41·1

  26·9

  Age 17

  1,706

  383

  22·5

  264

  68·9

  15·5

  Age 18

  1,406

  308

  21·9

  241

  78·2

  17·1

  Greater Manchester Central

  Age 16

  13,508

  7,768

  57·6

  1,941

  25·0

  14·3

  Age 17

  3,428

  592

  17·3

  201

  34·0

  5·9

  Age 18

  2,620

  704

  26·9

  448

  63·6

  7·7

  Greater Manchester East

  Age 16

  11,387

  6,999

  61·5

  1,732

  24·7

  15·2

  Age 17

  2,693

  777

  28·8

  451

  58·0

  16·7

  Age 18

  1,924

  262

  13·6

  194

  74·0

  10·1

  Greater Manchester North

  Age 16

  15,124

  9,144

  60·5

  2,183

  23·9

  14·4

  Age 17

  3,738

  786

  21·0

  304

  38·7

  8·1

  Age 18

  2,694

  637

  23·6

  377

  59·2

  14·0

  Lancashire

  Age 16

  20,346

  11,373

  55·9

  3,280

  28·9

  16·1

  Age 17

  2,922

  650

  22·2

  300

  46·2

  10·3

  Age 18

  2,634

  680

  25·8

  380

  55·9

  14·4

  Merseyside Inner

  Age 16

  12,158

  7,109

  58·5

  907

  12·8

  7·5

  Age 17

  3,652

  930

  25·5

  292

  31·4

  8·0

  Age 18

  2,321

  660

  28·4

  468

  70·9

  20·2

  Merseyside Outer

  Age 16

  10,965

  6,111

  55·7

  909

  14·9

  8·3

  Age 17

  2,713

  714

  26·3

  218

  30·5

  8·0

  Age 18

  1,749

  402

  23·0

  267

  66·4

  15·3

  320 321

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Age 16

  8,920

  5,992

  67·2

  941

  15·7

  10·5

  Age 17

  2,768

  574

  20·7

  234

  40·8

  8·5

  Age 18

  2,092

  566

  27·1

  321

  56·7

  15·3

  Durham

  Age 16

  8,764

  5,646

  64·4

  890

  15·8

  10·2

  Age 17

  1,936

  522

  27·0

  135

  25·9

  7·0

  Age 18

  1,375

  165

  12·0

  96

  58·2

  7·0

  North Tyne

  Age 16

  10,429

  6,621

  63·5

  1,399

  21·1

  13·4

  Age 17

  3,212

  998

  31·1

  374

  37·5

  11·6

  Age 18

  2,070

  721

  34·9

  433

  60·1

  20·9

  South Tyne

  Age 16

  10,181

  7,380

  72·5

  1,119

  15·7

  11·0

  Age 17

  2,683

  794

  29·6

  282

  35·6

  10·5

  Age 18

  1,582

  596

  37·7

  262

  44·0

  16·6

  Wales

  Cardiff

  Age 16

  13,765

  7,035

  51·1

  1,413

  20·0

  10·3

  Age 17

  5,195

  1,397

  26·9

  583

  41·7

  11·2

  Age 18

  3,232

  713

  22·1

  526

  73·7

  16·3

  Gwent

  Age 16

  6,509

  3,514

  54·0

  682

  18·6

  10·5

  Age 17

  2,026

  615

  30·4

  163

  26·5

  8·1

  Age 18

  1,168

  239

  20·5

  158

  66·1

  13·5

  Swansea

  Age 16

  10,154

  5,021

  49·4

  864

  17·2

  85·1

  Age 17

  2,964

  770

  26·0

  296

  38·4

  10·0

  Age 18

  2,049

  393

  19·2

  262

  66·7

  12·8

  Wrexham

  Age 16

  11,241

  6,064

  53·9

  1,552

  25·6

  13·8

  Age 17

  3,609

  1,067

  29·6

  393

  36·8

  10·9

  Age 18

  2,140

  490

  22·9

  322

  65·7

  15·0

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  Age 16

  9,701

  4,657

  48·0

  851

  18·3

  8·8

  Age 17

  2,662

  1,170

  44·0

  437

  37·4

  16·4

  Age 18

  967

  356

  36·8

  217

  61·0

  36·8

  Central and Fife

  Age 16

  12,567

  6,119

  41·5

  1,213

  19·8

  9·7

  Age 17

  2,588

  1,177

  45·5

  493

  41·9

  19·0

  Age 18

  1,039

  431

  41·5

  258

  60·0

  24·8

  Glasgow

  Age 16

  12,375

  7,092

  57·3

  1,841

  26·0

  14·9

  Age 17

  2,090

  1,243

  59·5

  569

  45·8

  27·2

  Age 18

  805

  461

  57·3

  305

  66·2

  37·9

  Grampian and Tayside

  Age 16

  17,476

  5,902

  39·5

  2,072

  30·0

  11·9

  Age 17

  3,380

  931

  27·5

  445

  47·8

  13·2

  Age 18

  1,261

  256

  20·3

  188

  73·3

  15·0

  Highlands and Islands

  Age 16

  5,345

  2,294

  42·9

  729

  31·8

  13·6

  Age 17

  1,416

  547

  38·6

  269

  49·2

  19·0

  Age 18

  532

  198

  37·2

  123

  62·1

  23·1

  Lanarkshire

  Age 16

  12,064

  5,468

  45·3

  854

  15·6

  7·1

  Age 17

  2,274

  1,048

  46·1

  327

  31·2

  14·4

  322 323

  Area

  Total eligible to leave school

  Number of school leavers

  School leavers as a proportion of numbers eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  School leavers in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of all school leavers Per cent.

  Number in a full time job outside YTS as a proportion of those eligible to leave school Per cent.

  Age 18

  854

  368

  43·1

  166

  45·1

  19·1

  Lothian and Borders

  Age 16

  14,539

  6,584

  45·3

  2,527

  38·4

  17·4

  Age 17

  2,936

  1,254

  42·7

  781

  62·3

  26·6

  Age 18

  1,104

  453

  41·0

  367

  81·0

  33·2

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  Age 16

  14,046

  5,442

  38·7

  1,085

  19·9

  7·7

  Age 17

  3,819

  1,519

  39·8

  602

  11·1

  15·8

  Age 18

  1,445

  545

  37·7

  324

  59·4

  22·4

  Notes:

  n/a = Results are not available or are incomplete.

  There are currently no estimates for the London offices due to delays in obtaining returns.

  The figures are subject to error and should be treated as approximated.

  Table 3

  Results of the Careers Service Exercise by MSC Area Office: Change December 1985–86

  Change in the number eligible to leave school

  Change in the number of school leavers

  Change in the number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  South East

  Chatham, Kent

  Age 16

  -530

  -18

  -544

  Age 17

  413

  134

  80

  Age 18

  -56

  130

  117

  Chelmsford

  Age 16

  -78

  297

  -353

  Age 17

  -201

  -805

  -744

  Age 18

  -309

  -454

  -434

  Fareham

  Age 16

  -667

  -1,026

  -335

  Age 17

  -245

  -354

  -145

  Age 18

  89

  -482

  -498

  High Wycombe

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Horsham

  Age 16

  -787

  -14

  148

  Age 17

  -107

  -97

  88

  Age 18

  -181

  -175

  -178

  Reading

  Age 16

  -319

  80

  407

  Age 17

  411

  181

  425

  Age 18

  228

  228

  233

  London

  London North

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  London North East

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  324

  Change in the number eligible to leave school

  Change in the number of school leavers

  Change in the number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  London South East

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  London South and West

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South West

  Avon

  Age 16

  -277

  25

  -88

  Age 17

  -87

  135

  182

  Age 18

  -216

  1

  55

  Devon and Cornwall

  Age 16

  -947

  211

  -42

  Age 17

  64

  366

  13

  Age 18

  -334

  162

  130

  Gloucester/Wiltshire

  Age 16

  -662

  -962

  -44

  Age 17

  161

  61

  139

  Age 18

  -404

  -329

  -182

  Taunton/Somerset/Dorset

  Age 16

  -723

  -552

  -683

  Age 17

  -433

  -300

  -227

  Age 18

  -125

  29

  -22

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Age 16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Coventry/Warwick

  Age 16

  -921

  -4

  4

  Age 17

  -9

  29

  21

  Age 18

  -26

  25

  -79

  Dudley/Sandwell

  Age 16

  -159

  101

  86

  Age 17

  -88

  -120

  -59

  325

  Change in the number eligible to leave school

  Change in the number of school leavers

  Change in the number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  Age 18

  -54

  31

  60

  The Marches

  Age 16

  -482

  -219

  -77

  Age 17

  446

  202

  124

  Age 18

  -70

  121

  122

  Staffordshire

  Age 16

  -304

  483

  24

  Age 17

  -97

  -62

  -57

  Age 18

  -158

  -436

  -193

  Wolverhampton

  Age 16

  -59

  1,097

  231

  Age 17

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  Age 18

  -120

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Derby

  Age 16

  -611

  -511

  -18

  Age 17

  370

  133

  97

  Age 18

  -212

  -2

  -39

  Leicestershire

  Age 16

  -636

  -995

  -713

  Age 17

  142

  -204

  -341

  Age 18

  366

  -67

  -81

  Lincoln

  Age 16

  -192

  -53

  -249

  Age 17

  -148

  -95

  -30

  Age 18

  80

  30

  35

  Nottingham

  Age 16

  -1,350

  -494

  -494

  Age 17

  51

  969

  537

  Age 18

  -349

  n/a

  n/a

  Luton

  Age 16

  -112

  472

  579

  Age 17

  -240

  144

  -138

  Age 18

  -106

  119

  86

  Ipswich

  Age 16

  -215

  -38

  -115

  Age 17

  62

  168

  110

  Age 18

  -185

  -482

  -3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees

  Age 16

  138

  -263

  -152

  Age 17

  304

  -98

  -219

  Age 18

  401

  288

  176

  Humberside

  Age 16

  -361

  -98

  -154

  Age 17

  91

  -44

  -88

  Age 18

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  Age 16

  -726

  29

  -1,145

  Age 17

  -117

  86

  71

  Age 18

  -346

  -171

  11

  Sheffleld/Rotherham

  Age 16

  -321

  436

  60

  Age 17

  31

  100

  -57

  Age 18

  -31

  168

  13

  Wakefield/Barnsley/Doncaster

  Age 16

  -25

  230

  28

  Age 17

  -100

  -32

  -39

  326

  Change in the number eligible to leave school

  Change in the number of school leavers

  Change in the number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  Age 18

  83

  113

  -34

  North West

  Cheshire

  Age 16

  -39

  60

  -94

  Age 17

  -24

  96

  37

  Age 18

  -101

  1

  38

  Cumbria

  Age 16

  -318

  -299

  -143

  Age 17

  -125

  -45

  20

  Age 18

  108

  -25

  14

  Greater Manchester Central

  Age 16

  436

  244

  79

  Age 17

  -243

  -61

  -80

  Age 18

  -286

  -137

  -72

  Greater Manchester East

  Age 16

  -92

  424

  -67

  Age 17

  -762

  43

  -4

  Age 18

  -104

  -443

  -413

  Greater Manchester North

  Age 16

  -276

  -193

  228

  Age 17

  275

  -37

  -14

  Age 18

  58

  32

  121

  Lancashire

  Age 16

  -688

  -201

  -434

  Age 17

  -61

  172

  140

  Age 18

  214

  0

  -20

  Merseyside Inner

  Age 16

  -116

  -383

  95

  Age 17

  434

  10

  104

  Age 18

  26

  -294

  83

  Merseyside Outer

  Age 16

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 17

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Age 18

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Age 16

  -642

  -119

  8

  Age 17

  101

  -131

  -17

  Age 18

  1,881

  -195

  -102

  Durham

  Age 16

  -565

  -649

  -115

  Age 17

  -45

  -4

  -15

  Age 18

  -43

  -18

  -7

  North Tyne

  Age 16

  -280

  -21

  -100

  Age 17

  81

  -1

  -31

  Age 18

  14

  -9

  -76

  South Tyne

  Age 16

  -62

  173

  163

  Age 17

  594

  -49

  50

  Age 18

  728

  132

  129

  Wales

  Cardiff

  Age 16

  -698

  -504

  -255

  Age 17

  313

  -50

  -50

  Age 18

  4

  -154

  110

  Gwent

  Age 16

  -480

  -230

  -37

  327

  Change in the number eligible to leave school

  Change in the number of school leavers

  Change in the number of school leavers in a full time job outside YTS

  Age 17

  82

  151

  -11

  Age 18

  28

  20

  24

  Swansea

  Age 16

  -409

  -157

  -209

  Age 17

  -523

  111

  117

  Age 18

  -251

  80

  52

  Wrexham

  Age 16

  -483

  67

  64

  Age 17

  -596

  -243

  -240

  Age 18

  -304

  -46

  -88

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  Age 16

  -994

  -317

  -462

  Age 17

  18

  44

  -106

  Age 18

  34

  10

  -35

  Central and Fife

  Age 16

  -698

  -170

  -184

  Age 17

  -106

  -105

  -45

  Age 18

  -35

  -61

  -22

  Glasgow City

  Age 16

  -783

  -337

  -206

  Age 17

  -102

  93

  34

  Age 18

  -19

  84

  43

  Grampian and Tyneside

  Age 16

  91

  645

  -404

  Age 17

  2

  7

  -27

  Age 18

  -3

  13

  37

  Highlands and Islands

  Age 16

  -22

  -55

  -168

  Age 17

  9

  -12

  -32

  Age 18

  -15

  -20

  -16

  Lanarkshire

  Age 16

  188

  361

  -13

  Age 17

  -66

  92

  31

  Age 18

  -39

  53

  24

  Lothian/Borders

  Age 16

  -903

  -252

  -156

  Age 17

  -136

  18

  38

  Age 18

  -32

  14

  37

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  Age 16

  -1,022

  -321

  -88

  Age 17

  -213

  -124

  -92

  Age 18

  -68

  -43

  -44

  Notes:

  n/a = results are not available or are incomplete.

  The figures are subject to error and should he treated as
  approximate.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give from the most recent survey of youth training scheme providers, the number and proportion of trainees who will spend (a) fewer than 13 weeks and (b) more than 13 weeks on off-the-job training; and hw these figures with those available at the end of 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  The survey of YTS providers conducted in January-February 1986 shows that 2 per cent. (5,300) of trainees received off-the-job training of less than 13 weeks; 98 per cent. (259,000) received off-the-job training for 13 weeks or longer.
  328
  Figures for 1985 are not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what are the current numbers of vacant places on the youth training schemes; and how this figure compares with that for the end of 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  Manpower Services Commission records currently show some 327,900 YTS trainees in training at the end of February 1987 and 455,500 YTS contracted places. There are no exactly equivalent figures for earlier years. In December 1985 there were some 293,370 trainees in training and 384,700 places approved by area manpower boards; but not all approved places were subsequently contracted.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will give for 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, and the latest estimates on figures for 1986–87. the total sum expended on the youth training scheme and the total sum expended on grants made to managing agents broken down into the administration fee, the training allowance the trainee allowance and capital grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  £ million

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Forecast

  Management Fee

  33·8

  33·1

  35·9

  52·0

  Other Grants1

  334·8

  713·5

  765·6

  770·2

  Capital Grants2

  1·2

  4·6

  3·3

  2·1

  Other Expenditure3

  10·7

  12·2

  13·4

  15·0

  Total YTS4 Expenditure

  380·5

  763·4

  818·2

  839·3

  1 Separate information is not available for the contribution towards the cost of training and the trainee allowance. "Other Grants" also includes expenditure on excess travel and lodging allowances and vacated places.

  2 Capital grants funding ceased in August 1986.

  3 "Other Expenditure" includes research and development, accredited centres and miscellaneous minor items.

  4 Excludes MSC administration costs.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list the total expenditure in 1986–87 prices of the Manpower Services Commission in each year since 1974, together with the percentage change in real terms over each previous year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following table gives estimates of total expenditure by the Manpower Services Commission in each year since 1974 at 1986–87 prices.

  Financial year

  Total Manpower Services Commission expenditure at 1986–87 prices £ million

  Percentage change over previous year

  1974–75

  392

  1975–76

  768

  95·9

  1976–77

  1,063

  38·4

  1977–78

  1,175

  10·5

  1978–79

  1,247

  6·1

  1979–80

  1,209

  -3·0

  1980–81

  1,222

  1·1

  1981–82

  1,421

  16·3

  1982–83

  1,573

  10·7

  1983–84

  2,023

  28·6

  1984–85

  2,250

  11·2

  1985–86

  2.444

  8·6

  1986–87 (forecast)

  3,059

  25·2

  329
  Notes:

  (1) Includes Manpower Services Commission expenditure on behalf of the Department of Employment.

  (2) Cash figures adjusted to 1986–87 price levels have been calculated by taking account of each year's general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices. It has been assumed that the average level of the GDP deflator in 1986–87 will be equal to the mid-1986–87 value.

  Construction Industry (Sikh Workers)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Paymaster General if representatives of the Sikh community were consulted on the proposed new guidance note on managing health and safety in construction.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. However, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has published a consultative document on proposed regulations making the wearing of head protection compulsory in construction work. This has attracted a number of representations from the Sikh community whose views will be considered carefully by the HSC and Ministers.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Paymaster General what has been the incidence of head injuries to construction workers wearing turbans in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Health and Safety Executive has no records of any fatal injuries of this kind, but information on the wearing of turbans is not systematically included in its accident records.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Paymaster General what was the number and percentage rate of unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds (a) nationally (b) by ethnic origin, (c) by region and (d) by sex at the latest available date and for September, January and June in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 April 1987, c. 151–52]: Following is the available information. The tables show numbers of unemployed aged under 18 years in the regions, together with the appropriate numbers and rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom analysed by sex. Figures are given for January, July and October of each year since 1982 (not available for June or September). The rates of unemployment for 1982 relate to unemployed registrants expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed. Rates for later years are expressed as a percentage of the working population. The working population excludes young people receiving YTS training without a contract of employment. Rates of unemployment by age are not calculated below national level.

  Statistics of unemployment by ethnic origin are collected in the "Labour Force Survey", but the figures requested are not available except at disproportionate cost. The last available information based on the monthly unemployment count relates to unemployed registrants in Great Britain as at February 1982, and this is available in the Library.
  330

  United Kingdom

  Unemployed claimants aged under 18 years

  Male

  Female

  Number

  Percentage of working population

  Number

  Percentage of working population

  January 1987

  92,436

  21·4

  69,805

  16·5

  October 1986

  106,409

  24·6

  80,111

  18·9

  July 1986

  97,414

  22·5

  73,420

  17·3

  January 1986

  107,609

  24·9

  79,147

  18·7

  October 1985

  121,972

  28·2

  89,223

  21·1

  July 1985

  102,574

  23·7

  75,036

  17·7

  January 1985

  113,852

  26·3

  83,826

  19·8

  October 1984

  134,033

  30·5

  99,930

  24·0

  July 1984

  94,726

  21·5

  69,420

  16·7

  January 1984

  115,861

  26·3

  88,432

  21·2

  October 1983

  142,676

  31·5

  108,494

  26·4

  July 1983

  118,519

  26·1

  79,612

  19·4

  January 1983

  123,769

  27·3

  97,976

  23·8

  Number

  Percentage of employees and unemployed

  Number

  Percentage of employees and unemployed

  October 1982

  141,863

  29·1

  111,031

  24·9

  Unemployed registrants aged under 18 years

  October 1982

  152,275

  30·6

  121,738

  26·7

  July 1982

  203,916

  36·4

  166,587

  32·7

  January 1982

  128,487

  25·1

  101,583

  21·9

  Unemployed registrants aged under 18 years

  January '82

  July '82

  October '82

  South East

  51,285

  81,890

  69,588

  Greater London

  23,451

  31,092

  33,180

  East Anglia

  5,994

  10,095

  6,780

  South West

  12,457

  23,879

  14,258

  West Midlands

  24,263

  39,143

  29,643

  East Midlands

  12,454

  26,990

  15,965

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22,755

  40,088

  28,915

  North West

  29,735

  48,540

  34,719

  Northern

  16,319

  28,118

  18,904

  Wales

  12,145

  17,257

  13,596

  Scotland

  33,138

  42,300

  30,608

  Northern Ireland

  9,525

  12,203

  11,037

  Unemployed claimants aged under 18 years

  October 1982

  January 1983

  July 1983

  October 1983

  South East

  58,601

  49,113

  41,126

  55,554

  Greater London

  26,591

  22,276

  19,225

  26,035

  East Anglia

  6,655

  5,822

  4,833

  6,658

  South West

  13,787

  12,230

  9,790

  14,059

  West Midlands

  28,277

  23,341

  20,247

  27,122

  East Midlands

  14,306

  12,590

  10,846

  13,895

  Yorks and Humberside

  27,675

  22,660

  19,358

  26,169

  North West

  31,783

  27,879

  26,203

  33,951

  Northern

  18,549

  15,649

  13,999

  19,235

  Wales

  13,815

  11,859

  10,198

  14,376

  Scotland

  30,446

  34,334

  26,262

  32,309

  Northern Ireland

  9,000

  6,268

  5,407

  7,841

  Unemployed claimants aged under 18 years

  January 1984

  July 1984

  October 1984

  January 1985

  South East

  44,292

  35,406

  49,607

  41,253

  Greater London

  20,716

  16,782

  22,807

  18,968

  East Anglia

  5,318

  4,037

  5,646

  4,984

  South West

  11,488

  8,609

  13,419

  11,228

  331

  January 1984

  July 1984

  October 1984

  January 1985

  West Midlands

  20,491

  17,129

  24,995

  19,975

  East Midlands

  11,570

  9,929

  14,152

  12,044

  Yorks and Humberside

  19,558

  17,042

  25,876

  20,259

  North West

  26,791

  22,816

  31,783

  26,170

  Northern

  14,259

  12,012

  17,976

  13,939

  Wales

  10,725

  8,441

  13,665

  10,788

  Scotland

  33,693

  23,544

  30,228

  31,992

  Northern Ireland

  6,102

  5,180

  6,614

  5,045

  Unemployed claimants aged under 18 years

  July 1985

  October 1985

  January 1986

  July 1986

  South East

  34,450

  41,491

  36,682

  31,046

  Greater London

  16,001

  19,279

  16,647

  14,151

  East Anglia

  4,376

  5,254

  5,100

  4,244

  South West

  9,061

  11,720

  10,647

  8,885

  West Midlands

  18,619

  22,744

  19,144

  17,924

  East Midlands

  11,818

  12,771

  11,250

  11,603

  Yorks and Humberside

  20,141

  24,305

  19,997

  21,681

  North West

  26,195

  29,698

  24,872

  24,460

  Northern

  15,785

  16,530

  13,242

  13,401

  Wales

  8,932

  12,879

  10,456

  8,197

  Scotland

  23,961

  27,908

  30,425

  24,903

  Northern Ireland

  4,269

  5,895

  4,941

  4,490

  Unemployed claimants aged under 18 years

  October 1986

  January 1987

  South East

  34,329

  29,557

  Greater London

  15,697

  13,374

  East Anglia

  4,498

  4,200

  South West

  9,954

  8,919

  West Midlands

  20,406

  16,684

  East Midlands

  11,511

  10,143

  Yorks and Humberside

  22,573

  18,312

  North West

  25,900

  21,627

  Northern

  13,374

  10,642

  332

  October 1986

  January 1987

  Wales

  10,667

  8,593

  Scotland

  27,368

  28,868

  Northern Ireland

  5,940

  4,696

  Notes:

  (1) Unemployment figures from January 1982 to October 1982 relate to unemployed registrants at jobcentres; from October 1982 onwards they relate to claimants at benefit offices. Figures for October 1982 are given on both bases.

  (2) Figures are not directly comparable due to changes in the method of the compilation of the count.

  (3) The working population estimates used to calculate Unemployed rates by age exclude many YTS participants who have no contract of employment. Percentage rates for those aged under 18 which include all those on YTS in the United kingdom working population are:

  Per cent.

  1983

  January

  25·0

  July

  21·2

  October

  28·3

  1984

  January

  19·8

  July

  15·9

  October

  22·6

  1985

  January

  19·1

  July

  17·2

  October

  20·4

  1986

  January

  18·1

  July

  16·5

  October

  18·0

  1987

  January

  15·7

  (4) Greater London is included in the south east region.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Goold
Sir James Duncan Goold, Knight, having been created Baron Goold, of Waterfoot in the District of Eastwood, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Home of the Hirsel and the Lord Sanderson of Bowden.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.41 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the Lord President of the Supreme Court of Malaysia to attend the fourth international conference of appellate judges and the third conference of Commonwealth chief justices which are to take place in Kuala Lumpur consecutively between 20th April and 25th April this year. Accordingly, I trust the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Monday, 27th April.

Fylingdales Early Warning Radar Station
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hunt: 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 progress has been made in modernising Fylingdales early warning radar station in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we announced on 22nd May last our decision to proceed with a programme of modernisation of the ballistic missile early warning system at RAF Fylingdales in co-operation with the United States Government. Since then, a notice of proposed development has been submitted to the North Yorkshire Moors National Parks Committee, and a memorandum of understanding has been concluded with the Government of the United States.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. While totally accepting that NATO defence must have absolute priority, I should like to ask whether he would agree that the present design and location of the station at Fylingdales is totally at variance with the character and purposes of a national park. Does the new technology embodied in the modernised design of the station not permit of some latitude, some flexibility, as regards its location? Has
1022
the noble Lord's department looked into the possibility of moving that station to some other place outside the national park, taking that fact into account as well as our treaty obligations?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, we have looked very carefully at the point which the noble Lord raises, but I am afraid we have had to conclude that topographical and geographical factors, which constrain the selection of a site very considerably, are such that there is no prospect of moving it elsewhere.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that forewarned is forearmed and that our early warning system is a crucial part of the air defence of the kingdom, including the most beautiful parts of it? Will he therefore ensure that Fylingdales is given the highest priority of equipment, of manning and indeed of location?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly share my noble friend's view about the importance of this facility. He may be assured that we shall fully follow the concepts that he suggested in his supplementary question. But we must, too, do our very best to ensure that environmental considerations are fully taken into account in the design and construction of this facility.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if we get into a nuclear war there will not be any beautiful parts?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, but then the whole essence of our policy and of our equipment, including Fylingdales, is to ensure that no such conflict should ever happen.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does Fylingdales have a strategic defence capability? If not, could it be given one?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Fylingdales is not part of the strategic defence initiative.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we are agreed on the importance of maintaining an early warning system? But can he say whether it is true that alternatives are available which would be just as good as Fylingdales and which would not cost a great deal to bring into use? Can he say how much weight was given to the fact that this was in a national park and how much effort was made to get the site out of the national park? In other words, how many other sites were seriously considered before this new proposition went ahead?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are in the process of modernising the facility at Fylingdales. It is not a new facility, as I am sure the noble Baroness will understand. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a moment ago, there are very stringent topographical, geographical and indeed operational criteria which have to be met with regard to this facility, or modernised facility as it will become. That meant, I am afraid, that it was not possible to find another site to meet the purpose. Having said that, I have accepted and do accept the need to ensure that

1023
the facility imposes the minimum possible impact upon the environment.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the work undertaken by the United States Government at Fylingdales is in strict conformity with the narrow interpretation of the ABM Treaty of 1972?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is talking about the work now going on to modernise the station. If that is what he has in mind, I can tell him that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the modernisation of the system fully conforms with US obligations under the ABM Treaty.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, has the noble Lord been up to see Fylingdales, as I have many times? If he has, does he agree with me that it possibly provides an interesting feature in a very large area of plain moorland and that the environmental aspect, except to enthusiasts, does not arise?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a point of view, but I have accepted at least twice this afternoon already that we need to ensure that the facility represents the minimum possible conflict with environmental considerations. Having said that, a large antenna of this kind will create some sort of an impact wherever we put it, I am afraid.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, will the modern equipment be taller and bigger than the equipment there now?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the details of the modernisation were submitted to the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Committee last year. It will be a new pyramid-shaped structure to replace the so-called golf ball structures that are there at present.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as a former member of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Committee, may I ask the Minister whether the existing signal station at Menwith Hill near Harrogate has been considered as an alternative site?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that we looked at all possible solutions to the problem, but the conclusion we reached was that the right way to proceed was with the modernisation of the facility.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in the light of the questions will the noble Lord assure the House that there has been and will continue to be full discussion and consultation among his department, the Department of the Environment, the Countryside Commission, the North Yorkshire County Council and the voluntary bodies concerned?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we shall continue with the detailed consultation procedures that we have always followed in the past in connection with this matter. As he may be aware, the national park committee has decided not to raise any objection to the proposed development, although I understand it is regretted by the committee,
1024
and naturally I too understand the position on that. However, its decision not to raise any objection was subject to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment being satisfied that there is no possible alternative site. I understand that he will be giving his decision on that shortly.

Scottish Skiing Facilities
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: 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 approve applications for additional skiing facilities in Scotland, in particular on Aonach Mhor, Fort William, and at Lurcher's Crag, Cairngorms.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is unable to reach a decision on Aonach Mhor until the uncertainties surrounding the project have been clarified. The Government are not aware of any current application relating to Lurcher's Crag.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Scotland is a country of kilts and whisky rather than salopettes and glühwein? I am glad that there are no current plans for Lurcher's Crag in particular. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that should there be skiing development in that area, the most magnificent valley walk in the British Isles would be ruined; I am referring to the walk called the Lairig Ghru. Also there would be grave danger of ruining an ancient Caledonian pine forest called Rothiemurchus.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in reply to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, no doubt he is aware that Lurcher's Crag has already been designated as an SSSI by the NCC. That fact will be taken into account by the Highland Regional Council if an application should be submitted. As regards the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, although I agree with him that Scotland is indeed a country of kilt and whisky, I see no reason why it should not also come to be, if it is not already, very much a country of glühwein.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister consider that Aonach Mhor could provide quite a good case for development as Fort William needs more economic development? However, so far as Lurcher's Crag is concerned I support the words of the noble Viscount.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I agree with her that Aonach Mhor has a great deal of potential. However, as she may be aware, there are uncertainties and potential difficulties attached to the proposed development.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the people of Scotland would

1025
very much resent the suggestion that they are not a country of glühwein? They are extremely keen skiers and at most skiing resorts glühwein is available and is much enjoyed. Does he agree that what is required is a degree of balance and not panic about the effect on the ecology and on Rothiemurchus, which is a large tract of land, much of which is not forest? It is important that there should be balance there and at all the skiing resorts which want to expand. It is the job of the Government and of the local authorities to see that that balance is maintained.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that there is never any cause for panic in these matters and that the problem should be considered after taking into account all the factors which need to be balanced.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is not the difficulty with the Aonach Mhor scheme that it is very much in the Western Highlands and subject to the warm we weather of the Gulf Stream? Is it not a fact that the problem there could well be just lack of snow?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I do not think I can comment on that but, as many of your Lordships may be aware, in the Scottish Highlands there is certainly no lack of rain. When the weather is cold we would perhaps be safe in saying that there is also no lack of sleet and snow.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the noble Earl recognise that in deciding where to station skiing facilities the need for balance is extremely important? Also does he appreciate that no facilities are likely to be sucessful in a resort called Lurcher's Crag?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, there is undeniably a great deal in what the noble Lord says. On the question of balance, I always recommend my friends if they are in doubt to use the snow plough position when going downhill.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, since "mhor" means "big" and "beag" means "little", why is it that Aonach Beag is in fact 49 feet higher than Aonach Mhor? May I ask what plans my noble firend has for rectifying this matter?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about "beag" and "mhor". I am afraid I am not in a position to comment, but if I knew more about the matter and if perchance she should be wrong, I suppose I would have to say to her that I could not beg to differ more.

Jarratt Report
2.55 p.m.
Lord Annan: 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 response universities have made to the Jarratt Report and
1026
how many are taking steps to implement its main recommendations concerning the executive powers of council and vice-chancellor.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all universities have responded to the University Grants Committee's request for detailed information about the steps they are taking to implement the recommendations of the Jarratt Report. The UGC will submit a report and commentary to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by July this year.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, but does she agree that, if the White Paper recommendations are to be implemented and vice-chancellors are to be required to negotiate with the University Grants Committee for funding and sign a contract, it would be singularly unfortunate if after the contract has been negotiated it could be overturned by the recommendations of senate or of council as advised by senate? Is there not a case for the Privy Council to look into the necessity for some changes of statutes in universities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, almost all universities say that they are implementing the recommendations of the Jarratt Report and profess themselves to be in favour in principle. But we recognise that there are different structures in different universities and sometimes procedures do not quite fit. However, as I said, the University Grants Committee is still analysing the universities' responses in order to determine what practical action has been taken. We shall take note of the noble Lord's remarks in that context.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several universities have already made application to the Privy Council for changes in their statutes to bring them into line with modern thinking?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords; but in this case I think we must await the final analysis in July before further action is taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness's difficulty in anticipating the decisions of the University Grants Committee so far as the Jarratt recommendations affect it, but those recommendations also affect the Government. May I ask her what action the Government are going to take to implement the recommendations so as to restore a longer-term horizon for the universities in view of the disincentives to strategic planning and so that they should fund the realistic cost of future staffing reductions agreed between the universities and the UGC?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with regard to the longer funding horizon proposed by the Jarratt Report, the White Paper on higher education rejects the idea of government funding for the new funding council being fixed for a series of three-year periods. The Government believe that the rolling triennium effectively offered by the public expenditure survey is a better means of indicating future funding levels. As for the funding arrangements between the proposed

1027
UFC and the Universities, the Government will encourage the council to provide medium and long-term planning parameters on a regular basis. The additional £95 million for the universities announced last December was intended to help them to improve their quality and efficiency and to promote change.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the Government or the department concerned allow some tolerance in this matter, given the fact that universities have been literally bombarded with reports, White Papers, exhortations and letters from the UGC over the last 12 months or so? Is the noble Baroness aware that universities and their administrative departments are really stretched to the utmost? If I may declare an interest as pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales, the registry of the University of Wales with seven colleges has been stretched to the utmost. Will she bear that in mind and convey it to her right honourable friend?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise that this is a period of change. Nevertheless, it is important that such changes as have been agreed should be seen to be implemented as rapidly as possible.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I fully agree and support that. But what I want the noble Baroness to take aboard and convey to her right honourable friend is the large volume of additional administrative work which has been imposed on the universities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I will most certainly pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Annan: My Lords, while recognising that no system of management is foolproof and that good management depends on the individuals who are at the top of an institution, would the noble Baroness agree that workers' control is a form of management which does not have the support of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Social Democratic Party or the Communist Party and is supported only by the Workers Revolutionary Party? Does she agree that there is therefore a case for looking into the governance of those universities in which the management is entirely composed of those who are working in the universities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise that one of the messages of the Jarratt Report is that leadership within universities may have swung too far in favour of senates and away from councils, and the procedures which have been followed through are helping to counteract that.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two Short Debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. On the principle that the mover is allowed approxi-
1028
mately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. In that of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit, but I know that noble Lords will confine their speeches within limits compatible with the spirit of these Short Debates.

Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [H.L.]
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to introduce a Bill to require the payment to the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland of the surplus funds of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, and to make provision for the winding up and dissolution of the trust. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. [H.L. 103]—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The report was as follows:
1. LIBRARY
Viscount Davidson was appointed to the Library Sub-Committee in the place of the Earl of Swinton.
2. STAFF OF THE HOUSE
A report from the Sub-Committee was received.
The Committee authorised revised scales of pay for Hansard Editorial staff and the Accountant and payment of a special efficiency bonus to industrial employees in the Refreshment Department.
The Committee also sanctioned the appointment of a temporary post of Assistant Editor.
3. COMPUTER DEVELOPMENTS
A report from the Sub-Committee on Computers was received.
The Committee agreed that the Clerk of the Parliaments for the time being be authorised to enter into contracts on behalf of the House of Lords for the acquisition and maintenance of computers and related matters.
4. INSURANCE FOR LORDS
The Committee approved an increase in the personal accident insurance cover for Lords whilst on Parliamentary duty.
5. TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS 1988
The Committee approved provision in the House of Lords' Vote to meet a share of the expenses.
6. COMMONWEALTH SPEAKERS' CONFERENCE 1988
The Committee approved provision in the House of Lords' Vote to meet a share of the expenses.
7. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Committee approved, in principle, the payment of revised subsistence allowances.
8. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee were informed of the promotions of Mr. R. H. Walters, to Chief Clerk and Mr. M. L. Hickes to Assistant Editor and authorised an extension of service for the temporary part-time archivist in the Record Office.
9. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee confirmed the application of Civil Service memorandum CM/775 to applicable clerical staff.
10. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised payment of revised late night attendance allowances and fees to permanent staff, revised attendance fees to temporary reporters and transcribers and a revision of charges for agency typists.
11. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee authorised a revised scale of fees for the Shorthand Writer.
12. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were informed of new early retirement arrangements that are being introduced for civil servants and agreed a proposal to apply the improved benefits to eligible staff of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1987.
The Committee were also notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords' Staff Pension Scheme:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mr. R. E. Peters, Senior Reporter, who retired on 1st January, 1987.

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. D. J. Huxley, Principal Doorkeeper, who retired on 17th January, 1986.

(c) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. A. A. Barber, Second Principal Doorkeeper, who retired on 11th April, 1986.

(d) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. T. Taylor, Doorkeeper, who retired on 1st September, 1985.

(e) Pension and lump sum to Mr. K. A. Hayes, Senior Doorkeeper, who retired on 16th December, 1986.

(f) Pension and lump sum to Mr. C. W. Hunt, Clerical Officer, who retired on 21st January, 1987.

(g) Pension and lump sum to Mr. C. T. Grover, Clerical Officer, who retired, on ill health grounds, on 1st January, 1987.

(h) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. F. Sawicka, Waitress, who retired on 1st January, 1987.

(i) Short service payment to Mr. J. D. J. Dixon, Assistant Librarian, who resigns on 27th March, 1987.

(j) Short service payment to Miss P. M. C. Carpenter, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 31st December, 1986.

(k) Short service payment to Miss C. L. Rodriguez, Cleaner, who resigned on 31st October, 1986.

(l) Short service payment to Mrs. G. Robertson, Cleaner, who resigned on 2nd January, 1987.

(m) Notional Transfer Value in respect of Mr. R. H. Walters, Senior Clerk, who was seconded to the Treasury, on 1st April, 1986.

(n) Notional Transfer Value in respect of Mr. J. I. Stoodley, Legal Officer, who was transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry, on 4th August, 1986.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sound Archives: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the Select Committee on Sound Archives be agreed to. Perhaps I may say a brief word of explanation about this report. When the
1030
House agreed to the sound broadcasting of its proceedings in 1977, it was decided that only a selection of the resulting sound tapes should be preserved for the archives and it was proposed to institute a process of selection every six months after the end of a parliamentary Session. That has not taken place and all the tapes have in fact been kept, as has been the case with the tapes made in another place.
Recently both Houses have received an offer from the National Sound Archive to house these tapes, and the Broadcasting Committee recommends acceptance of this offer. Accordingly, this report seeks your Lordships' agreement to amend the original resolution of 28th July 1977 and to accept the memorandum of agreement with the National Sound Archive. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee on Sound Archives be agreed to. [1st Report, H.L. 95]—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, as one who has been concerned with the reporting of Parliament over the years, may I ask whether the storing of these archives will commence from July 1977 or later?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it will indeed start from the very beginning of the sound broadcasting.
The report was as follows:
Sound Archives
When the House agreed to the sound broadcasting of its proceedings, it passed a Resolution on 28th July 1977 to govern the conditions under which sound broadcasting might be undertaken. Among the terms of the Resolution was the following requirement: "Archive tapes of all signals supplied by the broadcasting authorities shall be made, together with a selection for permanent preservation, under the direction of the Committee". Thus it became a duty of the Sound Broadcasting Committee, the predecessor of this Committee, to oversee the making of a selection from among the archive tapes for permanent preservation. The Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting (whose report was the basis on which the sound broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses was undertaken) had recommended that the selection process should begin about six months after the end of each Parliamentary session. It is now over nine years since the sound broadcasting of proceedings of the House of Lords began but no selection of archive tapes has yet been undertaken.
At a meeting in November 1985, the Sound Broadcasting Committee considered the question of selection. They were told that the Clerk of the Records had concluded that no system of selection was worth considering unless it led to the preservation of only 10 per cent. of all the tapes. They were also told that the informal joint committee on Library and Record Office Storage Accommodation under the chairmanship of Lord Trend had recommended that decisions on the question of selection should be reached urgently because of the demands on space as the archive grew each year.
The Committee learned that the House of Commons' Sound Broadcasting Committee had already decided against any proposals for selection. This decision weighed particularly heavily with the Committee since it would be clearly undesirable for the House of Lords to destroy the majority of its sound tapes while the House of Commons preserved its archive tapes in their entirety.
Following the November 1985 meeting, an approach was made to the National Sound Archive to see if there was a way in which the sound archives of both Houses could be preserved in their entirety, without creating imposible demands on storage within the Parliamentary precinct. The result of these discussions is now contained in the memorandum of agreement which is attached as an annex to this report. This lays down the basis on which the sound archives could be transferred on a regular basis from the Sound Archive Unit to the National Sound Archive.
The Committee have considered the memorandum of agreement and recommended it to the House as a suitable arrangement under

1031
which the National Sound Archive should store the bulk of the Lords sound archive. They understand that the House of Commons Sound Broadcasting Committee have also endorsed the memorandum of agreement.
In the new circumstances, in which the storage of the earlier tapes can be transferred to the National Sound Archive (if the House agrees) and with the likelihood that technology will make possible the storage of sound on much smaller units than at present, the Committee recommend to the House that a policy of selection should now be abandoned. It would indeed be a formidable task for any committee to decide which tapes should be retained and which should be destroyed.
If the House agrees that no selection of archive tapes should be made, both the House and the Committee would be in breach of the Resolution of 28th July 1977 which requires a selection to be made. The Committee therefore recommend that the Resolution of 28th July 1977 should be amended by the deletion in paragraph 4 of the words "together with a selection for permanent preservation".
ANNEX
HOUSE OF LORDS AND NATIONAL SOUND ARCHIVE
Memorandum of Agreement on the Archiving and Production of Parliamentary Sound Recordings
There are four main areas in which agreement is required:—

1. Storage

2. Preservation

3. Production

4. Timing

1. Storage
The National Sound Archive will undertake to store those sound recordings which antedate an agreed rolling date being 7 years previous (and are thus transferred to them), in such a way as to ensure that they are secure and reasonably guarded from atmospheric or other conditions which would tend to accelerate their deterioration. More specifically, the recordings would be housed either in the Exhibition Road/Princes Gate premises, which would be the case for those of more recent date, or in one of the other storage vaults sited in London and utilised by the NSA. At the present, this would be either Micawber Street or Belsize Park. The recordings would be subject to the same kind of archival conditions as regards the monitoring of temperature and humidity as apply to the NSA's existing collections. The NSA would undertake to provide this accommodation without charge to the participants.
Transfer to NSA storage will be made by annual increments in the first month of the calendar year. The Parliamentary Sound Archive undertakes to make available with each batch of recordings copies of any relevant finding aids, including Hansard, that it may possess. Transport arrangements for this material would be handled by the Parliamentary Sound Archive.
2. Preservation
The National Sound Archive undertakes to store the recordings in such a way as to minimise deterioration and thus the cost of preservation. It will therefore physically, and if necessary, chemically, inspect the recordings from time to time to ensure that they receive treatment when appropriate. The NSA has permission to make such preservation copies in either analogue or digital form of the recordings, as it may deem necessary at any juncture, but it will inform the Parliamentary Sound Archive of any action taken.
The Parliamentary Sound Archive will continue to give due consideration to archival factors in its selection of tape types for its recordings.
It will also ensure that during the first period and before transfer, no tapes are permitted to be used to the point where their audio quality is appreciably deteriorated. To this end, the Parliamentary Sound Archive will consider using a system of recording each usage so that it can automatically make a copy of any tape coming under pressure. More than 15 uses might be a suitable maximum without a preservation copy being made.
3. Production (for Listening Services and the Provision of Transcribed Copies)
The National Sound Archive undertakes to produce for listening purposes the recordings emanating from the last three years of transfer on the same day as the request is received. Normally the interval between the receipt of a request and production will be a matter of minutes or hours at the most. In the case of requests for material earlier than the last three years of the transferred recordings, the NSA undertakes to produce the recording within 48 hours, at the worst. Normally, it will do so within 24 hours.
1032
The NSA will make available to any enquirer, as well as to present authorised users, any of the requested recordings for listening purposes only on its premises. For this, no reference will be made to the Parliamentary Sound Archive but a record of such usage will be provided to it once a month. In the case of all requests for transcribed copies, the NSA will refer the enquiry to the Parliamentary Sound Archive for clearance of the request. Once the written assent of the Parliamentary Sound Archive has been received to the request or verification has been telephoned to the NSA by the Parliamentary Sound Archive and duly logged, such verification to be confirmed in writing as soon as possible, the NSA will provide a transcribed copy on an appropriate carrier within five working days. This will invariably be the case with requests not exceeding one reel. In the case of requests of greater extent, the NSA will furnish the required copies as soon as can reasonably be achieved. Where faster times of production are essential—as often is the case with broadcasting organisations—the NSA reserves the right to charge the extra costs incurred in meeting the client's requirements. However, the NSA will not charge those wishing to listen to recordings on its own premises but will operate a scale of charges to be agreed with the Parliamentary Sound Archive on all requests for copies.
In the case of requests for listening purposes and for transcribed copies received by the Parliamentary Sound Archive in respect of material held by the NSA, these will be proposed to the latter with a note of clearance and when it is required that transcribed copies are to be collected from, or distributed by, the Parliamentary Sound Archive, they should be sent to the latter, transport arrangements being organised by the Parliamentary Sound Archive. After use, they will be returned to the NSA as soon as possible.
Both parties accept that these arrangements, which are based upon an estimated scale of usage—itself derived from recent experience—will likely require amendment and adjustment in the light of actual demand. At the present juncture, the NSA does not anticipate that the costs of operating the service will require it to levy any charge upon the House. For copies it will expect to charge upon an agreed scale, a figure which will genuinely defray its actual costs in materials and labour.
The NSA will provide listening access to these recordings to all who request permission for such access, whether they be Peers, officers of the House or general public. In the event of there being any recordings transferred which require limitations to be imposed upon access to them, the House of Lords undertakes so to inform the NSA and the NSA agrees to restrict this material accordingly. In the case of copies that may be ordered, it will be deemed that the approval given by the Parliamentary Sound Archive accurately reflects the wishes to the House and that the NSA is under no obligation to make further enquiries before furnishing the requested copies.
4. Timing
It is the intention of both parties that this agreement is initiated in 1987. The agreement would run for five years in the first instance and then be quinquennially renewable. Both parties will continue to investigate—and adopt as appropriate—improvements coming from the advance of technology which tend towards the more efficient and economical discharge of their operations. To this end, the NSA will investigate the advantages or otherwise of a landline link between its premises and the Parliamentary Sound Archive. Similarly, the House will bear in mind, when modernisation of the House recording equipment occurs, the possibility of switching to a digital audio standard compatible with that adopted by the NSA. The archival advantages of reduced costs and easier restoration make this a desirable course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Stedman and the Lord Ezra set down for Wednesday 13th May shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motivating Britain
3.5 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to call attention to the case for creating a sense of unity and purpose among all United Kingdom citizens; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I say immediately that I am a devout supporter of the principle of clash and clang in a free society of political debate, whether it be in Parliament or outside, because the clash and clang of political debate, political argument, is the life-blood of a free democratic society. There have been times in our past when this has been in danger, and I am of the opinion that while it is not in danger at this present moment the time will come when we shall have to devote our attention to certain issues that are taking place in this country of ours which are divisive, are giving grave concern and are taking the purpose out of the lives of millions of our fellow Britons.
Before the war, I was one of those who trudged daily to the queues for the dole. Sometimes it took us two-and-a-half to three hours in South Wales simply to sign our names to get a paltry few shillings in order to keep body and soul together. And yet, although there were our marchers and our demonstrations, there was no ugly violence. All that happened when the Welsh miners and steelworkers marched from South Wales was that Cwm Rhondda rolled down through Slough and right the way to this famous building. There was not one incident of violence that was recorded. Things are different today and we have to take full notice of that fact.
When there was an act of unity, it was because of the threat to our country. At that moment of threat to our nation in 1939–40, there was a remarkable unity which is unparalleled in world history. In a dreadful moment of stress and threat, this nation garnered itself together and was victorious not only for Great Britain but for millions of others in Europe and in other parts of the world.
Then came the famous 10 years of post-war history from 1945 to 1955. During that time ordinary people were really put on the agenda. We did not wait for any war to get rid of unemployment. We got useful measures under way, such as building hospitals, schools and technical colleges. That is how we got rid of the unemployment, and what a wonderful thing that was. That continued in a most remarkable manner for 10 years.
In that time this nation of ours created something that had never happened before in mankind's history. We created out of a mighty empire the famous British Commonwealth of Nations, and those who at one time had been subjected to a lack of freedom under British rule nevertheless had confidence in the new Britain to ask and want that our monarch should be their monarch as well. That is something of which we can be proud, because they recognised that in this country, irrespective of government, there was a massive sense of unity and purpose. I am very anxious that perhaps that sense of unity and purpose is diminishing.
It is diminishing because of a lack of attention to four particular areas of our national life: housing, health, law and order, and employment and unemployment. People are getting very angry at obvious unfairness and losing confidence in our political way of life. They read in the newspapers of the behaviour of all the oleaginous, shady-takeover City entrepreneurs, who in the language of ordinary people are getting away with murder. Millions of pounds are involved and those people are paid fabulous salaries; yet everyone can understand that what they have done must be illegal. Our people read that one day and they read the next that a woman who forgot to return her library book must go to gaol. The British people say that there must be something wrong in a society that allows that sort of behaviour.
We are an affluent nation and yet millions are trapped in unemployment. London and other cities in their inner hearts are experiencing a dramatic increase in crime and violence. Many of those acts of crime and violence are born out of poverty and unemployment. I ask the House to understand that unemployment is not simply concerned with the method of counting people who are out of work. We cannot be thrilled to bits if unemployment is only 3 million in one quarter of the year and 2⅔ million six months later. Unemployment means agony within a family. It means quarrelling within families and bitterness in the streets. It means an angry reaction in our nation. It means the threat and the fear of bills which pile up and which cannot be paid. It means agony of the spirit. That is what unemployment means.
Another aspect of the matter is education. Education cannot be an accident of death because then it is all over. But that is the only time that some people think that we get some form of compassionate attention, and try teaching us this. It may be a minority but it is there. What is appalling is that education can be an accident of where a child lives. If a child lives in a poor, overcrowded area of our nation, it will suffer from a dreadful teacher-pupil ratio. I believe that this sort of feeling threatens our national unity. The nation is accused of having double standards.
At one time we could see that religion and education were linked together in Scotland and Wales. That may have differed slightly in parts of England. But that linking was vital and I believe that it was a good thing. The centralisation of education is dangerous. We are told that there will be one Minister in charge of the lot. That reminds me of the ambitious Nazi equivalent of the Minister of Education, who stated that at 11 a.m. on every day from Monday to Friday the mass of German children under 11 years of age were on page so and so of the equivalent of the Oxford Reader. That was a centralised system of education. There have to be central contacts. However, I believe the freedom we have seen in our educational system is in danger of being undermined by the principle of centralisation. That is a principle which is alien to the British way of life and it helps to destroy both a sense of unity and a sense of purpose.
Our health service is probably one of the finest systems which mankind has ever seen. It became the envy of the world and it still is. Its creation was an act of decency which I believe is unparalleled. However, it

1035
is in some danger when the Royal College of Nursing and the Confederation of Health Service Employees are outraged to discover that every time they ask for something to meet a rise in the cost of living or to improve themselves they are told that they should concern themselves with their patients and not ask for more money—yet the managers of health authorities have had a rise far superior to that of any nurse, health visitor or midwife. Those managers seem to condemn the possibility of any increase, irrespective of what it is, for the ordinary nurse or doctor. Indeed, some of the managers of the health service are being looked upon as the death-watch beetle of the National Health Service.
When general practitionrs say that they need better general practice help, they do not want more money in their pockets. They are British doctors who simply want to give a much better service to their patients. What is wrong with that? I should have thought that it is something we should applaud. We have to appreciate that the salaries of nurses provide for only third-class accommodation. The British Medical Association has warned that there is a potential disaster ahead if we do not do something about overworked doctors. Patients are at risk. That is not the view of some loony-Left organisation; it is the view of the British Medical Association. I believe that Parliament should take note of what the BMA has said, just as it should take note of junior doctors who complain, as they have for many years, of the appallingly long hours they work.
The Health Education Council has given a warning, as we have all been reading, about the health divide. There is a health gap between the rich and the poor and it has widened. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will reply in this debate the following question. Did the new chairman of the Health Education Authority ban the press conference which was intended to explain what was happening? If that is so, that is very serious. That the equivalent of a civil servant can stop a press conference on this island of ours seems absolutely appalling to me and I hope we shall have a reply. The surgeons, doctors, nurses, therapists and health visitors all put their claims. What they are asking for is not connected with salaries and wages. They want to serve with unity and purpose the patients for whom they are responsible.
I wish to touch upon one other matter. All political parties suffer from time to time from banal and inane utterances made by those within the party. One such utterance which was made a few weeks ago caused great annoyance and hurt many people. It was stated by a Member in another place that you cannot be a Christian unless you are a Conservative. That annoyed members of the Conservative Party; it annoyed members of all the other parties; it also annoyed all the various religious denominations of this country. It did no good whatsoever. It was an argument, a split and a row which need not have happened. It was in no way political; it was simply vulgar and crude.
I believe that Britain could be drifting into a new and dangerous society. Inequality of income has risen dramatically since 1978 and so has poverty. I believe that such things are unhealthy for our country because they help to destroy a sense of unity. There are people who are at the bottom of the poverty scale who do not
1036
have much time for the nation in which they live. It hurts me desperately to have to say that. However, it has to be said. Love of liberty is the love of others; love of power is the love of ourselves. I am desperately anxious that we shall not witness the dangers of Gresham's Law, where the greedy evil can drive out the caring good.
I appreciate that my time is limited and I do not wish to exceed it by even one minute. However, if we in the United Kingdom can restore a sense of unity and purpose among our citizens, I believe that that will be exceptionally good for our United Kingdom, will be good for the British Commonwealth and will set a good example in this sad world.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to your Lordships. You may not necessarily agree with what I have had to say but I thank you very much for your courtesy in listening to me. I sit down grateful for the civilised courtesy that the House has extended me. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the tone and tenor of this debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, are such that he would have us believe that we are a nation wracked by social and economic disparities, a nation divided by class and by money, the poverty of the North for ever at odds with the affluence of the South, a nation stricken down by the ugliness of unemployment, envy warring with greed, a nation heading for ruin and ultimate disintegration. These really are rather emotive, provocative and in my opinion highly exaggerated sentiments. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a few minutes whether there is any validity whatsoever in the noble Lord's comments.
While much of the media in this country may make similar accusations, I think the House will agree that the media does not necessarily express the views of its audience. Instead, it imposes upon its audience its own views. The best barometers, the best interpreters of the political mood of the country, are the national opinion polls in which voting trends are recorded and published. It is important to realise and appreciate the fact that for the past eight years, ever since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, that party has been in the lead in all the opinion polls significantly more frequently than any other party. Moreover, for three consecutive years following the Falklands campaign it was never out of the lead. Not only is that very remarkable but at the same time it neither advances nor enhances the argument of the noble instigator of this debate. Indeed, in my opinion, it goes some way towards destroying it.
Top of the political pops for far more often than not over a period of eight years is no mean achievement, and it is even more remarkable when considering what the state of the nation was eight years ago, the background at that time, and what unpleasant medicine it has had to be given since then in order to start that long cure of all its ills. Do you remember, my Lords, eight years ago when inflation was more than 20 per cent? Do you remember the number of working days lost due to those ceaseless strikes? Do you remember the power of the unions, the restrictive practices?

1037
Do you rember the economic ills and the crises of the nation? Do you remember the low esteem and the sinking regard in which Great Britain was held at that time throughout the world? Do you remember when the boil burst and all hell was let loose during that famed winter of discontent? Is that the sort of unity on which the noble Lord now rests his case? Surely not, for under that previous Labour Administration downright division abounded and fiendish forces were at work. Something had to be done. It was done and is still not finished.
Such was the state of the country at that time that the remedies necessary to be imposed were bitter and, in many quarters, unpopular. Attitudes had to be changed, old habits had to die, overmanning had to be checked, management had to be able to manage, wages had to he linked to productivity, taxation had to be lowered and new industries had to rise. Above all else, we had to be able to pay our way in the world, our goods had to be competitive and we had to become an economically sound trading nation. We had to do all this at the same time as advances in technology were greater and faster than at any other time in our history. How many jobs have been lost as a result of the silicon chip and the computer? I have named but a few areas in which change had to be brought about. They are, nevertheless, some of the most important areas, for achieving the right results here would mean that the benefits thereof would eventually work their way through to the citizens of this country.
Through the leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—who at that time we remember well saying "There is no alternative"—and through her firm guidance, we have come a very long way on our journey of restoring this country's wealth and credibility. It has been a hard, long and controversial journey but it would either be a fool or a person smitten with political envy who did not admit that very considerable progress had been made, again reflected in the current state of the opinion polls, and increasingly so.
When leadership is strong an inevitable fall-out of those who are unable to keep up will occur. Those who are able to adjust less quickly will lag behind. It is those to whom we must give support and encouragement and help them to help themselves for it must always be the duty of any party in power to protect the weak. But in spite of those who protest at this strong leadership of the Conservative Party, I do not detect any undue or abnormal lack of unity or purpose among the many and varied people around the country whom I frequently meet. I can speak only for those. Many may not have liked the medicine but they now understand and appreciate why it was necessary. At the very worst they see no other political leader with any credible alternative.
Since the last war they have never seen any party leader who has had more courage or guts to take painful decisions in the interests of the long-term benefit of this country. Instead, they have grown accustomed to short-term gains at the expense of our long-term interests. As examples of outstanding acts of shoulder to shoulder solidarity among our citizens, first, in times of war, I point to our country's victory in the Falklands campaign as a victory against arrant
1038
territorial aggression; secondly, in times of internal strife, I point to that victory against the forces of evil as depicted in that tragic yet horrendous miners' strike. Courage to resist and conquer such wrongful acts quickly serve to combine and unite nations, particularly the people of this nation. Thirdly, in times of peace, I point to the recent visit to Moscow of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, a visit which I consider sets her aside from all other world leaders as now the most effective, courageous and respected leader on the world stage. What pride she has restored to this country, through this visit and many other besides! Contrast her visit with another recently made to the United States of America. With regard to our work force, I point to the state of comparative peace now prevailing and to the new-found pride of those who work in industries recently privatised, industries in which more than 80 per cent. of the labour force now own shares.
There is an institution in our kingdom which at all times, being above party politics, serves to unite this nation above all else. I refer of course to the Monarchy, to Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the Royal Family. Whatever part of this kingdom they visit, whatever foreign countries they travel to, they never cease to be the cause of fervent and infectious admiration, together with enormous respect. They toil unendingly to bring about peace, friendship and understanding. Her Majesty, as head of state, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as leader of the Conservative Party, serve to unite this country in such a way as to bring about a United Kingdom, strong in its resolve and purpose and respected for reason, freedom and good sense. My Lords, for long may this continue.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for putting this subject on our agenda, and no one is more grateful than my noble friends and I for this unexpected and welcome opportunity of reaffirming the message of the Liberal and Social Democratic Alliance, a message which is increasingly understood and accepted by the electors; namely, that the two major obstacles to unity in this country are the two class-based political parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, made a number of excellent points with which I am sure my noble friends and I would agree, but whether his speech was an appeal for unity, whether he was trying to build bridges with noble Lords opposite, was not apparent to me. Certainly judging from their faces if he was trying to build bridges he was failing.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, made an eloquent speech with a number of good points, but one cannot pretend that that was a contribution to the unity of the nation. Let me say frankly to him that it does not help the unity of the nation to associate the monarchy too closely with one particular political party.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, spoke as though his party was the solution to the problem. But of course it is the problem; it is not the solution to the problem. The Labour Party has never denied that it is class-based. It acknowledges openly and officially that it is the political wing, just as the trade unions are the industrial wing, of the working-class movement. The

1039
party is financed by trade unions, and it allows them to dominate the decisions of its conferences by their block votes. In government and opposition it favours more power to the trade unions, an increased public sector, penalties on private education and health and tax changes to help the poor rather than the rich. As surveys have shown, it draws its votes disproportionately from the C2 and D social classes. It stereotypes its opponents—indeed, the noble Lord did so himself this afternoon—in class terms, as landlords, bankers, takeover bidders, and so on.
The Conservative Party earnestly denies that it is class-based, but in every respect it is the Labour Party's mirror image. It receives its money not from the unions but from the other side of industry. It calls for less power for the trade unions, for a smaller public sector, for help for private education and private health, and for tax changes which favour the rich rather than the poor. That party also stereotypes its opponents in class terms as work dodgers, welfare scroungers, Marxists, and so on.
This country has been divided and hamstrung for decades by the sterile confrontation between these two class-based parties. There was an example of that in another place last Monday during a debate on the same subject. Both Labour and Conservative speakers declared that their party had a single aim: one nation; yet speakers of both parties proved, with a wealth of documentation, with a mass of statistics that the opposite party was a menace to the unity of the nation. The speeches were emotional, ill-natured and often included personal attacks. As a contribution to national unity and a sense of common purpose they were wholly counter productive.
One can see how in some parts of the world, in South Africa, Northern Ireland or the Lebanon, political parties which are based on race or religion increase racial or religious prejudice and conflict. If one looks at British political history one sees how political parties based on class increase class prejudice and class conflict. There is no doubt that that is true, and in other countries that is accepted as a characteristic of British politics.
There is no evidence whatsoever that class-based parties are what the British people want. On the contrary, there is much evidence that they want the position changed. However, until now, that has been all that there has been on offer. Until now, it had seemed impossible that a third political force could emerge, drawing its voting strength from all classes in equal proportions, tied to no class-based source of money, neither for nor against the unions. It seemed impossible that such a force could become strong enough to be a credible challenger for power. In particular, it seemed impossible that such a third force could overcome the defensive barrier maintained against it by the class parties; namely, the preposterously undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system.
Like the class parties themselves, that system might have been specially designed to divide the nation. It gives huge advantages to political parties whose support is polarised either in the North or in the South, or among the rich or among the poor, and penalises parties whose support is spread broadly over the
1040
regions and over the different classes. It is not surprising that those who believe in confrontation support the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Now all that is changing. A fresh wind is blowing. The British people no longer regard the confrontation of two class-based parties as immutable. Public opinion polls and by-elections increasingly show that the British people are supporting the new political force, the source of which is not based on class or on class-based sources of finance, but is capable of judging national issues on their merits and not from the point of view of special interest.
I know what will be said in objection. For instance, if I may anticipate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in one of the last speeches which I think he will make from that side of the gangway, I expect that he will say, using the propaganda of both parties, "These third-party surges are only a flash in the pan; we have had them before and they disappear". But if one takes the long view that cannot be maintained.
In 1955 at the election the Liberal Party polled 700,000 votes. In 1964 it polled 3 million. In the two elections in 1974 the Alliance polled 5 million and 6 million, and in 1983 it polled 8 million. Moreover in 1983 the Alliance went into the election with the public opinion polls showing them having around 22 per cent. instead of 30 per cent., as is the case now. That is the true picture of the new kind of politics coming to this country, of the British people getting rid of the old class confrontation between Labour and Conservative. So the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, need not despair. The Alliance warmly supports the aims of his Motion and will soon be in a position to start carrying them out.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for raising this important matter, though in my innocence I had not thought it would deteriorate into political debate.
There is a case for preserving and creating a spirit of unity and purpose among our people. It is the responsibility of all leaders of all political parties and of the media to do all that they can to create that spirit of unity and purpose. One should remember how we had to combine together in times of war. I remember during the First World War the finger of Lord Kitchener pointing to us: "Your King and country needs you"; and of course we all went. In the Second World War Winston Churchill created unity of the people. He said:
"Victory at all costs; victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
That is how unity and purpose is created—by speeches and with leaders such as Winston Churchill.
We then had, as has already been referred to, the spirit of unity in regard to the Falklands. I go back to my Shakespeare:
"This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound herself.
Now these her princes are come home again
Come the three corners of the world in arms
And we shall shock them! Nought shall make us rue
If England to itself do rest but true!"

1041
That is in wartime, or under the threat of war. Now, in peacetime I expect,
"Nought shall make us rue
If England to itself do rest but true."
We have wars on our hands in peacetime which must be tackled just as those in the past. Crime, violent crime, is increasing everywhere. Corruption, corroding corruption, is increasing everywhere. Noisesome pollution is increasing everywhere. Sin, disgraceful sin, is disgracing everywhere. There is the war. The call of all leaders, of all parties, should again be a sense of unity in combating crime—and I believe it is so—in preserving law and order and in defeating this menace to our society.
However, some branches of the media, and others, do us a disservice when they do not support the police. They accuse the police of brutality. They put pictures on the media against the police when it is the duty of every rightminded citizen to support the police in their most dangerous and difficult endeavours. Not only that, but the courts of law are being degraded with accusations made against them. All that is against the spirit of unity in the people. The war of law and order must be common to all political parties, and I believe it is.
There is in our people now, I fear, a moral and spiritual decay. How is that to be tackled? Sin is no longer condemned. Spiritual values are lost. Here again, the responsibility of our leaders is to education and religion. We must bring home to people the proper values which have made our country what it is.
We hear how, in some places and in some councils, the educationists are teaching people sin, and disgraceful sin. This applies in other fields as well, including the spiritual. Those are the dangers which must be tackled. They must be tackled by all the leaders of the country and by the media to give to us all a sense of proper values. Above all, we must maintain law and order, on which the whole of civilisation depends. We must ensure the maintenance of true religion, virtue and proper standards throughout all our people.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has enabled us to consider this question. I put the issue above all political parties and call on the nation to uphold the standards of the past.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate and I offer to him my most humble apologies for not being here at the beginning of his speech, due to British Rail which did not get me here from Wales in time. I confess that listening to the speakers who followed my noble friend—the noble Earl and the noble Lord on the Alliance Benches—it seemed to me that they were doing anything but promoting unity. Surely you do not stir up the other side if you intend to promote unity; but perhaps I have misunderstood the nature of this debate.
I believe that too often we divide people unnaturally. It has become the habit now to refer to the old, but no one has defined when one is old. We refer to the middle-aged, the adolescents and the young mature adults. We refer to the working class,
1042
the middle class and the upper class. The only way to have unity is to recognise that people are people. The only difference is that there are males and females; and they are not all that different except for one very important biological difference.
The ultimate nonsense is in an advertisement which I now quote. It states that the advertiser is an equal opportunities employer—which it must be by law—and that it welcomes applications,
"irrespective of race, gender, age, sexual orientation or disability"—
though the advertisers go on to state they do not have wheelchair access at present. To me, that advertisement is a total nonsense. If one is advertising for an individual one wants the best person to do the job. It is not necessary to include all the above. It is indicative of the kind of divisions which are artificial.
I look at the so-called advance movements from which we are all suffering, including the animal lobby which loves animals but obviously hates human beings and sprays all kinds of liquids which are damaging to people. There are the people who set up ethnic groups and stir up unreal divisions which never existed until they brought them up. Those people do a great disservice to humanity. I look at the matter simply, and I always have. All human beings want the same—security, achievement and love. Sadly, many people in every country do not get all three. Human beings such as ourselves are very fortunate.
I follow the noble and learned Lord in saying of security that we must abolish crime. I find as a Londoner that it is horrifying to have to admit that I will not go on the London Underground after six o'clock at night because of the horrible crimes one might encounter. I find it terrible that when my grandchildren go out for a cycle ride I have to ask them to telephone me when they arrive home because we do not know what might happen to them. That is not freedom. It is an encroachment on the liberty of ordinary citizens, of whom, thankfully, 99 per cent. are still good, honest and loving people. It is the 1 per cent. who are making life totally untenable.
We are always being told that crime is linked with certain aspects such as poverty and unemployment. Certainly there is a link, but it is not the link that some people would have us believe. I grew up in the 1930s when times were very hard. However, there was not the same high degree of crime because people were not so greedy. Somehow society is now stimulating human greed.
There is the terrible tragedy of the ship which capsized and which we are reading about today. What did that result from? It was greed. It resulted from taking on board too many people and making too many trips without observing all the proper precautions. That is the kind of situation which we must look at first.
When we talk of insecurity we have to consider health. However, we want positive health. Our hospitals are not part of a health service, but part of an ill-health service. They are temples of ill-health. Whatever happened to the wonderful centres we were going to have to promote positive health? That is what we want. People must be kept healthy and not have to be picked up because they are unhealthy. We want security for old people, the handicapped or anyone

1043
who somehow falls through the net. Whatever government are in power must see to all those things before they can say that they have unity of purpose.
Let us now consider achievement. Everyone needs a place in the world. Everybody wants to achieve and to be first at least once. One need only look at those degrading television shows where people go into ecstacies of emotion because they have won a coffee pot. It shows that for once they have achieved something—they are in front of the cameras. These wretched cameras are going to dominate our lives. That does not apply, of course, to the cameras here. It is an indication that every human being wants achievement. They have to have it. They have to have it through their paid work and through the other things they do for the community. They have to have it through being educated to be civilised individuals.
Everyone has talents—I tell you that, my Lords—but they are not always found. Every child needs education, not merely to be a forcing house for A-levels and 0-levels but to be exposed to all the beauties of life, to art, to the joys of painting, to the things that they can do—singing, speaking, writing poetry. All those things are part of life for every human being. They are all achievements. There is sport—not sport just for money, for heaven's sake, but sport in terms of the old Roman idea where sport was something that everybody took part in, and the leaders in the community often were the great sportsmen. Everyone has at least one talent, and that has to be discovered.
I make a plea for not such large conglomerations of industry. Small is beautiful. We demoralise and minimise people when they have to live in great housing units, work in great units, school in great units. Therefore I plead that industry will not become something that is there just solely, as the accountants would say, to give a good balance sheet.
Then we come to love. That word is used now in all the wrong connections, in my view. It still means that every human being demands it. The family—I go along entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Denning—must be the basic unit. There are too many broken homes, too many split marriages. Some people do not even work at it. When I was very young, as a Catholic one was taught that one gave service to community because one was fortunate enough to be healthy and happy, and one had to give. We have to restore those kinds of things if we are to get unity.
A truly great society would abolish completely disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness and poverty. I am not laying the blame on any government. It is the people who have to provide unity of purpose.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in anticipation of the debate I turned back to an interview that was given by the most reverend Primate Archbishop of Canterbury in The Times a year ago in which he said:
"People will wake up to the fact that this is no longer a decent society. They will not accept that greed and self-interest are the driving dynamic of the good society, and that is why I think that people will say, we can't allow this state of affairs to continue".
He went on to say this:
1044
"I believe there is an opportunity at the present time in a highly polarised society to explore much more the middle ground".
It was precisely that direction which took me from the Labour Benches to the Benches of the Alliance, because I believe that both the traditional parties, as my noble friend Lord Mayhew said, are prisoners of their history and their traditions.
The Labour Party is traditionally a class war party, supported and financed by the trade unions, and compelled accordingly to represent their interests to the exclusion of other interests in society. The Conservative Party in its turn represents private enterprise and big business, and if I may say so, in the current culture of economic affairs in this country has elevated greed and self-interest to a virtue. The great prophet of the present age is Mr. Ivan Boesky, who boasts in a book which he wrote of his activities as a great and successful financier that greed is a virtue. I believe that that kind of culture is becoming inculcated into some city affairs in the United Kingdom. It is becoming increasingly accepted in many people's minds that to make money is the major objective in life. Where that occurs, it is a sick society.
I want to analyse briefly just what are the reasons for the lack of unity. I think that one will get unity in any society where people believe that it is a fair society. But today's society is patently unfair. Let me quote one statistic. Between 1976 and 1984 the poorest, the bottom 5 per cent. of households, have seen their share of disposable income decline from 7 per cent. to 6.7 per cent., but the richest one-fifth in our society have improved their share from 38.1 per cent. to 39.7 per cent. In 1985 the numbers living near or below the poverty line, assessed by supplementary benefit, increased from 11 million in 1985 to 16.6 million. In a society in which it is said by government that we are making more money and becoming more prosperous, the poor are becoming poorer.
One can complain about a divided society, but so long as these conditions exist there will be a divided society. There will be resentment on the part of people who see the city slickers earning £300,000 per annum and doing insider dealing at the same time when so many millions of our people are living at the poverty level. That is what is destroying the unity of our nation. For people to feel a sense of unity of purpose they must believe in the democratic society; they must believe that the Government are fair. My noble friend Lord Mayhew has said a word about this.
In the last election the Conservatives got 42 per cent. of the vote—they did not even have a majority in this country—and collected 61 per cent. of the seats in the House of Commons. Labour, with 27 per cent., collected 32 per cent. of the seats in the House of Commons. The Alliance, with 25.3 per cent., got 3.5 per cent. of the seats in the House. That cannot be fair, and neither can it be democratic or contribute to a sense of unity in society.
Liverpool, Brent and Haringey would have escaped some of the problems of confrontation and divisive politics if there had been proportional representation on the local councils. The Alliance collected 20 per cent. of the votes for the European elections and got no seats to represent 20 per cent. of the electors. These are the things that create a sense of unfairness.

1045
I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was much concerned about opinion polls. Let me tell him a little about the situation in Scotland, since the division of our nation is more clearly marked between the prosperous South-East and the neglected North and Scotland. If one takes any of these standards of measurement, unemployment in the South is 8.1 per cent. and in the North 16.6 per cent. Taking weekly expenditure per household, the national average is £156; in the North it is £131 and in the South-East £186. There will never be unity of purpose so long as that great division in our society exists.
I draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who is concerned with the polls, to a very interesting fact in today's Glasgow Herald; the opinion polls record that the Conservative Party has now 18 per cent. of the total votes of the people of Scotland. There is the fact that the Government have cut back on regional aid from 1982 at £900 million to 1985–86 at £300 million, and this during a period when the division is becoming ever greater. The Government have cut back the measures which would enable us to have a fairer distribution of industry.
However much we may desire unity in this nation, these facts indicate that one cannot have unity of purpose where people feel neglected and overlooked. The noble Earl should go up to Scotland and see what is happening there. The people there feel that they are neglected. During the past few days we have debated at great length in this House the abolition of rates in Scotland and the imposition of a poll tax. What does that mean? It means that people who are living in a £100,000 house in the South-East of England will pay the same poll tax as the man who lives in one room with a kitchen in Glasgow. That is the intention of government policy. Such obvious lack of fairness causes the disunity in our society.
I have only two minutes left to end my speech, but let me say that so far as the Alliance is concerned we on these Benches are committed to the creation of a society that is not divided. We shall provide a fairer system of democracy and democratic government. We shall offer a greater degree of decentralisation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that one of the worst features of our society at the moment is the increasing centralisation of power, which makes people feel less involved and of little importance. That is damaging to the democratic system. The Alliance believes in decentralisation, a wider distribution of shares, employee participation, profit sharing and a tax benefit system which will shift the burden of taxation on to people who are more able to pay in order to assist people who are less fortunate. The Alliance believes in a fair society, and it is because of that belief and that conviction that the opinion polls are recording our success.
4.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to a number of eloquent speeches, including the last one. Although, naturally, I agree more easily with my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I endorse much of what has been said today (and no doubt was also said
1046
yesterday) by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when he spoke about the maldistribution of wealth; and I am sure all of us on these Benches would do likewise.
However, when he and my dear old friend the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, talk about the Labour Party being a class party, one wonders when they discovered that idea. The Labour Party is no different today from when they joined it about 50 years ago. It is the same party that they represented so efficiently. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was the darling of the late Ernest Bevin, who had the highest opinion of him—and rightly so. Earlier than that, he was my pupil. I shall not use the same expression of him but he was, anyway, the most promising pupil in the University of Oxford. He was, and still is, clean-limbed. I think he played rugger for the university occasionally. He jumped prodigious distances in both the long jump and the high jump and was a wonderful speaker at the union. I forecast—and I put it on paper—that one day he would be Prime Minister. He forecast a victory for the Alliance. That party may have all kinds of revolutionary ideas, so I suppose that the prospect is still open.
I should like to ask him and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, when they came to the shattering discovery that in some sense or other the Labour Party was based on the working class. Although in these debates noble Lords do not like giving way, I am perfectly happy to do so if either of them can provide the answer to that question.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl how important is converting. Worse than people who see the truth are people who hang on to old ideas in which they have ceased to believe.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lords in question hung on for a good many years but now they have joined what they believe to be the winning side. That is what we understood from their remarks.
A noble Lord: Come off it.
The Earl of Longford: I am asked to come off it, my Lords, but if the noble Lord wants to interrupt perhaps he would rise in his place. I say that they have now joined what they tell us is the winning side and they have repudiated the side that they have represented with such zeal for so many years. But that is by the way and it was said just to enliven the debate a little.
Within reason I gladly support any Motion that is brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. But on this occasion I might not have ventured to take part in so wide-ranging a debate if I had not recently been reading a remarkably interesting book, which I can recommend. It is in what I think is called a softback. It is written by the Reverend David Holloway, the vicar of an Anglican parish in the North-East, who is a very active member of the Church of England Synod. His general thesis is that England is still actually or potentially a Christian country and that all of us, clergymen and laymen alike, should be doing far more than we are at present to make that a reality. In the few minutes that I have to speak, I shall be speaking from that point of view.

1047
The question of whether or not England is a Christian country can be argued interminably. David Holloway points out that statistics from the best poll available suggest that 85 per cent. of those approached were ready to describe themselves as Christians. However, he admits that the figures for church-going make sad reading.
I myself was a member of the Church of England for 34 years—roughly for the same period during which I was a member of the Conservative Party, but that was coincidental—and as an adult I very seldom attended church. I have been a Roman Catholic for 47 years and have gone to church every Sunday ever since I became a Roman Catholic unless I had a plausible excuse for not going. I would make a bet that the great majority of your Lordships, whether present today or on other occasions, would describe yourselves as Christians. Another bet that I would make is that only a relatively small proportion of the Members of this House went to church last Sunday. If any noble Lord wants to take up that bet he may do so, but I think that that is likely to be the case.
No doubt the proportion of churchgoers in the House of Lords is larger than the national average but only a minority will go regularly to church. One should not equate the idea of whether or not one is a believing Christian with the idea of whether or not one goes to church. One could ask people whether they say their prayers, but perhaps that is carrying the matter into too intimate a sphere.
So we have to accept David Holloway's thesis—and I am accepting it—that England actually or potentially is a Christian country. If that is so, is it possible to unite its people on a Christian basis and to appeal in the name of Christianity? It should be done not only by clerics but by distinguished laymen—someone like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who I see is present. He is someone who preaches a Christian message in this House and achieves a good deal of response—probably more in this House than in most other places; so I should not like to say that Christianity is silent in this Chamber.
However, there is the problem that quite a number of very good people are Christians in practice but not in belief. There is no politician in this century whom I admire quite so much as Lord Attlee. But when Lord Attlee, whose conduct was impeccable, was asked toward the end of his life if he was a Christian, he replied, "Accept the Christian ethic; can't stand the mumbo-jumbo". He put that view, in his rather succinct manner. In some way that expresses the attitude of a good many people.
Today I am not pleading for a return to Christian belief. I hope that that will happen, but it is perhaps too hard to expect it all of a sudden to take place. I plead only for a reassertion of Christian values. In case any Jewish friends feel that that approach is narrow I should say that Holloway lays great emphasis on the Judeo-Christian tradition. He finishes his book with three quotations from the Old Testament. We can see that there is plenty of room for all within that Judeo-Christian tradition.
That is one way of unifying the nation. I do not think there is any other in peacetime. We are aware that a nation threatened by extinction will draw
1048
together in wartime in a way that we cannot expect in peacetime. In another context, Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Integral communities, like human beings, are dominated by the instinct of self-preservation".
Patriotism, which is almost dormant in this country, is brought to the fore when we are faced with a threat such as that presented by Hitler. We cannot expect anything like that in peacetime.
We are about to have a general election. No one knows who will win it. The one certain thing is that there will be many differences of opinion and a great many acrimonious exchanges. That is part of democracy. No one would suggest that we wanted to pack that up and enter a stage of permanent coalition, although that is what we are confronted with.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, in his own way speaks a well as his father but along rather different lines. His father specialised on homosexuals and badgers. The noble Earl is stronger on Mrs. Thatcher's merits. His father was a good speaker and so is he. If I may respectfully say so, the noble Earl is infatuated by the merits of that remarkable woman Mrs. Thatcher. No dispassionate observer could suggest that Thatcherism—we all know what is meant by that; the appeal above all to self-interest spilling over into selfishness—can be united with the Labour Party's traditional ideals. The Alliance must speak for itself through its newer or older members. They must express their own point of view.
No one can imagine that there will be a coming together of minds. Mr. Harold Macmillan, the former Conservative Prime Minister, by implication made plain his views about Mrs. Thatcher more than once in this House. Mr. Butler's views of Mr. Macmillan were made plain on many occasions. Mr. Edward Heath made plain his views on all those people on many occasions. With any of those gentlemen one could imagine a coming together. There was once something called "Butskellism", but those days are past. We cannot now expect anything very harmonious.
We must face the fact that sharp political conflicts will continue in the immediate future. I do not wish to imply that I disagree with everything for which Mrs. Thatcher stands. I agree with her on pornography. On that subject she is excellent. If it comes to that, she is better than some of my dear friends. On the subject of hanging of course she is abominable. One cannot agree with everybody on everything.
I want to say very sincerely that I think that when Mrs. Thatcher lit that candle in a church in Russia she struck a blow for religion which I hope will never be forgotten. I am bound to say that in all honesty. That does not mean that I think she is the right person to be re-elected. Whoever wins the election, we want someone who will unite the nation. I hope that it will be someone who can achieve, however imperfectly, the ideal expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Granville of Eye: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his Motion and for his moving and sincere speech. I am sure many of us agree with him when he says that a sense of unity and purpose is vital. I should like to deal with another

1049
aspect of that topic. We are talking about consensus. The problem is how to achieve consensus except in a time of national crisis. There is a practical side. There is no doubt that one of the problems we face at present is the overwhelming power and importance of the media, particularly television, and the effect that it has on a large number of people. If one talks to people in the morning they will tell you what they saw on television the previous night. They will also tell the people who ask them how they will vote.
I want to be frank about this, because unfortunately we have recently witnessed what is called a process of character assassination. That has had a serious effect. It is not new. Mr. Harold Wilson suffered from it when he was Prime Minister. I think that it was Churchill who said that if we want to get rid of a government, we should not attack the whole. We must find the one loose brick and keep at it until we have destroyed the government. There are many people who think that that has been happening in respect of the present Prime Minister.
The media have tremendous power when there is an election coming. People read newspapers and see television every day. I may be exaggerating, but we must recognise that the BBC is the official opposition. It does not matter what we say here. It does not matter what they say in another place. I have listened to people who have studied this issue. There is no doubt that there has been an orchestrated campaign of character assassination. Although Parliament and constituency meetings are important, no one is as important as the programme-makers. They put over arguments which influence the public.
The orchestrated character assassination technique is the idea of some of the up-and-coming publicity boys, but it boomerangs. They think they are getting away with it and then they discover that it begins to boomerang. I think we are in the middle of a boomerang period now.
One other point has been referred to during this interesting debate. It arises from the problem of consensus. There are two parties. We nationalise; we denationalise. What is the effect of that upon the country's trade, industry and employment? We should go to some of the big industrial fairs abroad and hear what overseas buyers say. They ask where we stand. They say it is swings and roundabouts. They ask what they are to expect.
There is a great deal of talk about a hung Parliament. I went through a hung Parliament from 1929 to 1931. The Liberals had 59 seats. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister when the Labour Party took over with a minority government. What happened? There was a financial crisis. Maggie Bondfield was Minister of Labour. We had 3 million unemployed people. The fund was bankrupt; the pound was running. We had to borrow from Pierre Laval and from America to save the pound. We woke up the next morning, not 12 months ahead in thinking it out and planning it.
I met Sir Herbert Samuel outside 10 Downing Street. He said, "Will you be my PPS?". I said, "Do you mean that there is a Labour Government?". He said, "They resigned 20 minutes ago". I met Sir
1050
Archibald Sinclair in his silk hat and frock coat. He was the Chief Whip of the 59 Liberal MPs. I asked him where he was going and he told me that he was going to Paris. He was Secretary of State for Scotland. That is how national governments are formed—not a year ahead. It ended in crisis unfortunately.
The Ottowa agreements reared their ugly head after the national government had been formed. Sir Herbert Samuel took half of the Liberal Party out of the Government, Sir John Simon took the others into the national government and it became the Liberal National Party. It lasted for 14 years.
I think that we must think back a little. I agree that we must achieve a sense of national unity. I was greatly interested in the noble Lord's speech, but I think that in trying to achieve this we must look back to see what happened in the past.
4.21 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the essence of this Motion has been expressed many times in different ways by thinking people of all parties, because our nation is still divided—for example, by class—to a greater degree than many others in the West. Many of us hoped that as the division between the working man and the white-collared person became blurred, and the ownership of cars and other desired consumer products became more common, so would class differences largely disappear. Admittedly, the extreme manifestation of a privileged aristocracy is no more. However, the "them and us" syndrome remains.
Historically the battleground has been in industry. We are trying to improve matters in industry. For its efficiency it is absolutely vital that we should do so. Few people would disagree that a company should be a partnership among shareholders, management and workers. This is easy to say but hard to achieve in useful practical terms.
When I joined industry in 1958 management did not seem to realise that it could no longer wield a big stick over their blue-collared workers. The only alternative would have been what in Army terms is called "leadership"; in other words, inspiring the labour force with a sense of purpose and belonging to the firm. The result of this failure was that at a time when unions could have been persuaded to bring their thinking and procedures into the 20th century they turned in on themselves. They gained excessive power which, with honourable exceptions, was not used either in the nation's good or in their own members' long-term interests. Apart from unnecessary strikes, the crises in the London docks, demarcation in the shipbuilding industry and in British Leyland are just three obvious examples. I need hardly mention the miners.
We are of course to a great extent prisoners of our past. In days gone by the fighting between political parties may even have been amusing and in a less complicated age may have done no great harm. Today these antics are not appreciated by the public who believe that they are governed by Parliament. However, what is much more serious is the reversal of policy; for example, to nationalise, denationalise and renationalise steel. It is now manifest in a Labour defence policy.

1051
This, I submit, is the main reason for the formation of the Social Democratic Party. It is most certainly why I and others joined them. Whatever your Lordships may think of the merits and otherwise of proportional representation, it would certainly mean a greater consensus on important issues and avoid some of the bitterness felt by unrepresented electors. Surely one cannot rightly support local government councils when they push down their electors' throats extreme policies by a majority of one or two votes, regardless of the real wishes of their electors or of any minority interests. This is not democracy in any sensible meaning of the word.
I now turn to motivation, which is called "purpose" in the terms of this Motion. Before the First World War, but to a lesser extent between the two wars, there was a sense of national interest and pride engendered by our colonies and possessions overseas. Religion also gave a strong cohesive bond to many people. I remember every day while at Wellington College passing through an archway which carried the inscription: "The path of duty is the way to glory". Humbug and hypocrisy you may well say, but it had its effect to inspire one.
However, this has all been swept away. Today Britain is a second-rate power, surpassed in industrial muscle by several other nations, and we have lost our national objectives. A country needs objectives. Consequently there have grown up idealist groups—communists, humanists, anti-nuclear protagonists and a host of others—fragmented and pulling in different directions. The common merit is that the adherents usually put their cause before solely personal interests, but there is a danger that in doing so they often become fanatics.
If you look at our adversary politics it is hard to find those who put national interests before party or personal gain. The same applies in other areas, and the City cannot be excepted. But yet in so many of us there is an idealism which, if given a suitable cause, will regard it as more important than personal or party gain. To some extent Mrs. Thatcher has tapped this source, but without flexibility or apparently humanitarianism, and the sense of uniting the nation is lacking.
I still find it hard to understand how some on the Opposition Benches could square their consciences in supporting the miners' strike. I once asked this of a senior member of the Labour Party. The only real point that he made was that Mr. Scargill was democratically elected. So much for the idea of what democracy should mean. In the extreme, adversary politics pursued in a nation less stable than Britain leads to civil war.
I know that your Lordships may want me to suggest what should be done in more detail than the broad areas which I have indirectly mentioned. I am not going to do so for two reasons; first, because even now the priority must be to recognise and define the problem. That is why I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on putting forward this Motion. Secondly, there are no obvious quick solutions, but I suggest that a start could be made in the Palace of Westminster—in the Conservative and present opposition parties.
1052
I think that my party has the merit of putting forward a different point of view where one is needed but of refraining from just opposing reasonable measures for the sake of doing so. In this context, just consider the Falklands issue. Four separate governments of different complexions concluded that there was only one solution: sovereignty to Argentina and a lease-back, like Hong Kong. Each time they were in opposition they stood out against this solution. In my view that was irresponsible, to say the least, and I think I hardly need say more.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am in wholehearted ageement with the terms of the Motion which we are discussing, although I am not absolutely certain that I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said in the way of interpreting it.
Equality is what we need above everything else, but not equality which is a hypothetical status or is laid out on paper and which we do not necessarily live up to. We need the equality of opportunity which we can achieve for ourselves. We are not meant to be identical. The human race was not created like that. We are all individuals and we all have our individual talents, aspirations and ability. It is no use trying to destroy that fact by some magical Act of Parliament.
There is Biblical confirmation of that principle, as noble Lords may know, as St. Paul said that we are all members of one body and let not the arms say, "because I am not the eye I am not of the body". We are all individuals and we all belong to our own country, Great Britain. Let us work together and not in separate factions.
Education has been mentioned and is certainly a factor, though it is not quite as important as some noble Lords believe it to be. Far more important is the influence of the home in one's early life. I regret to say that such influence is not as good today as it should be. I am hoping that with a great deal of influence and campaigning that situation will improve.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned religion. I wholeheartedly agree with him that religion is surely a matter which can bind us together more than anything else. However, there is one especially divisive quality today. Fortunately, to a great extent we have got rid of Victorian class distinction, and I am happy to see that happen. But in its place there is something which is even worse; namely, party politics.
Today everybody judges another by whether he supports Labour, Conservative, Liberal or another party. Some noble Lords may think that I am condemning party politics because I sit on these Benches. If so, that is quite the wrong way round. I sit on these Benches because I dislike party politics with my heart and soul. It is the most divisive policy which we could possibly have in the country today. Until we are all ready to work together to improve our country, we shall never achieve equality.
Finally, tolerance of other people's ideas and principles is also an important matter which can bring us together. Intolerance is an extremely divisive factor. We must educate ourselves to this fact. I am sure that noble lords who really wish to see the country flourish will do so.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, first I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Molloy on winning the ballot today for short debates and indeed on the moving way in which he opened the debate. The subject which he chose for debate is one which I know has intrigued many noble Lords as to the exact course the debate was likely to take this afternoon. Noble Lords did not know when they came into the Chamber this afternoon what that course would be. We did not know for certain what was to be the main theme of the debate today.
My noble friend has highlighted the great divide between different sections of the community in a number of areas. It is certainly a unique occasion this afternoon in that the Government Chief Whip is about to make his first substantial speech since he became Government Chief Whip in 1979. Of course that is the period for which the present Government have been in power, and it has provided a useful starting point for us to discuss the Motion in the name of my noble friend.
As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, a Motion in rather similar terms has coincidentally been debated in another place earlier this week. One is bound to ask why a sense of unity and purpose among all United Kingdom citizens needs to be called for. I suggest, as have other noble Lords, that it is the policies of the present Government which have been of such a divisive nature that this call has had to be made.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, thought my noble friend had been provocative. Indeed, he told your Lordships that the opinion polls had consistently put the Conservative Party (the Government) at the top, ignoring the fact that opinion polls have consistently shown that the Conservative Government hold only a minority of the total votes cast in each opinion poll. The anti-Tory vote has exceeded the Tory vote consistently for many years.
I do not know why, but the noble Earl tried to bring the monarchy into the question of the sense of unity and purpose. He suggested it was the Queen and the Prime Minister who united the country. The problem is that they do not. The measures which the Prime Minister has sought to put through this House have not provided the unifying factor. They have been of a divisive nature, and indeed we have had the unique spectacle of the Government suffering over 100 defeats in your Lordships' House on a number of issues which have divided both sides of the House and on occasions have also divided the noble Lord the Chief Whip's own party.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, lashed out at two class-based parties and at sterile confrontation between the two sides, and said that he saw a new wind of change in the Alliance. However, even he hinted that this might be a temporary phenomenon; and that is what we very much believe.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke about the great unity of purpose which was achieved during the First and Second World Wars. He then went on to say that every rightminded person must support the police completely. I entirely agree with and support the general consensus of that point, but it must not be unblinkered support. Over the years we
1054
have suffered from unblinkered support here and we have now moved to a situation where we can quite sanely and without emotion examine complaints as they arise. That is something which has been of benefit.
Under the present Government we have seen the more prosperous sections of the community becoming more prosperous and the poorer sections becoming poorer. We have seen the quality of medical care improve for the most well off and become worse for the least well off. We have seen the richest 10 per cent. of the community improve their standard of living seven times faster than the 10 per cent. in the poorest section of the community. It is a classic case of private affluence and public squalor.
It is no wonder that we are two nations and no wonder that there is no unity of purpose. The Government's policies have increased the divide between North and South and the divide between rich and poor. If we are to achieve a sense of unity and purpose, which my noble friend Lord Molloy wants, the Government of the day must be seen to be acting for the whole nation and not for one privileged part of the nation.
The British people are much concerned and have a great deal of compassion and common sense. They are concerned about poverty, poor housing and injustice. Those are unifying factors throughout the whole nation and they transcend party differences. My noble friend Lady Phillips thought that unity would come through people providing the unifying factor because they want security and love. I am sure that there must be a great deal to be said for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that unity would only come about in a society which people believe is a fair society. I noted that he chose to relate his argument to the question of the unfairness of the electoral system and not, curiously enough, to the question of unfairness in salary levels which touches many corners of society. We have heard of telephone number salaries that are reported as being paid in the City to very young members of the community when at the same time those doing socially useful jobs are being denied a living wage.
My noble friend Lord Molloy mentioned that the Health Education Council report which was published last week came to the stark conclusion that the health of upper income families has improved much more readily than that of the families on low incomes. Thus again the health divide is strong.
My noble friend Lord Longford thought that unity would come through Christian values. Indeed, many of the matters about which we have spoken this afternoon are Christian values; for example, compassion and concern for others. Certainly as long as we can share those values we shall achieve unity through them.
My old friend Lord Granville of Eye spoke about consensus in a national crisis. I am sure that that is something about which we are very much aware. Analysis of the past can be useful but it is the future that we must look forward to. We must learn from the past, but if we are to achieve a greater unity of purpose we must look forward to a government who are concerned about the welfare of the whole community

1055
and are concerned to do something about unemployment, to lessen the inequalities in health and to improve the conditions in which we live. I support my noble friend's Motion.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it was with some diffidence that I agreed to reply to a debate which had the potential of ranging so widely over so many areas of policy. But questions of unity and purpose are central to the function of Whips' Offices, so perhaps it is not so very inappropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and me to find ourselves winding up this afternoon.
It is 15 years since I last wound up a debate for the Government in your Lordships' House, and on that occasion, the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill, I was furnished with a speech some 10 pages long which in effect said no more than that the Government welcomed the Bill and hoped that the House would give it a Second Reading. I therefore compressed it to just that:
"My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome this Bill and hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading".
It is a record that I am rather proud of and I am not sure that it does not stand to this day, but as the sentiments of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, are such that not one single Member of this House could disagree with them, I had hoped to be able to equal, or even beat, it this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, made such a statesmanlike and moderate speech that until the recent speech made so charmingly, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I still thought that I could get away with it. However, I am afraid that I cannot let go by default the suggestion that all the compassion in this regard lies with his side of the House and all the divisiveness with my noble friends' and mine. I therefore have no alternative but to demonstrate that neither of these hypotheses is correct.
In parenthesis the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, complained that neither the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, nor that of my noble friend Lord Arran did much to help the unity called for in the Motion in that they each attacked the other's party. I really cannot see how the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who made the only other blatantly party political speech this afternoon, did better in this respect by attacking both the other parties. However, he did at least spare us the lecture on PR that we received from his allies the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and perhaps we should be grateful for that.
There is nothing so divisive as what I would term "hate politics" and "spite politics", where the emphasis is on taking away from those who have rather than on being able to provide for those who need. There are of course divisions of income and wealth. Raising the standards from the bottom is surely a far more effective way of narrowing the gap than by artificially lowering them from the top. In Britain we have too long underrated the role and importance of wealth creation in general. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade drew attention to this fact and Her Majesty's Government
1056
agreed with it. But the Government have consistently placed great emphasis on developing an economic climate in which industry can flourish and they are trying, by creating opportunities for enterprise, to change the nation's attitude.
Her Majesty's Government want to see everyone have a stake in wealth creation. In our privatisation programme we have been determined to encourage the small investor. In 1979 about 17 per cent. of the adult population owned shares. Today it is 19·5 per cent.
Labour's rate of tax for top wage earners was as high as 83 per cent. Her Majesty's Government have reduced this to 60 per cent. and the population at large has benefited. Real take-home pay has risen substantially, right across the board, including the lowest incomes.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the real take-home pay of a married man with two children on half average earnings has risen by almost 18 per cent. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has been very scathing about Thatcherism. If the record of Her Majesty's Government in this respect is an example of Thatcherism, I am a Thatcherite and I am proud of it.
Punitive taxation of the successful—the "make their pips squeak" philosophy—seldom does anything to reduce the divide between rich and poor. It is nothing more than a ritual killing of the goose that lays the golden egg.
There is also the so-called North-South divide. It is a sad fact of life that there are over 3 million unemployed in Britain today and that the worst concentrations of employment difficulties lie in the regions, the North in particular. But my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham has been constantly keeping your Lordships informed of the steps that Her Majesty's Government are taking in this regard, in particular the Youth Training Scheme and RESTART.
The South-East is undoubtedly better off than other regions but let us not disparage the fact. Let us rather use its wealth-creating capacity to help stimulate growth and jobs in other parts of the country and the Government, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, are contributing to just this through our regional development grants and regional selective assistance. Unemployment is now falling in all parts of the country and, over the past 12 months, it has fallen fastest in Wales and the North.
The Government are also striving to overcome divisiveness in housing. The landlord has so often been regarded as the villain and the tenant as the victim, even in cases where the latter is richer and better placed than the former, and over-repressive measures to curb the landlord have over the years virtually dried up the supply of houses to let. I am pleased to say that it is now government policy to bring back a much greater degree of choice and variety to the rented sector and it is proposed to give local authorities power to give financial support to private sector bodies wishing to provide rented housing.
Even more strange, in society at large it seems to me, is the attitude over buying and selling of houses, where the seller has come to be looked on as someone who

1057
has to be watched and the buyer as someone who ought to he protected. For a seller to gazoomp—that is, to renege on a deal because someone else has later offered him a thousand or two more—is quite rightly regarded as outrageous. But for a buyer to renege because someone else has offered him a similar house for a thousand or two less almost passes unnoticed, although the result can be equally devastating in both cases. This difference of attitude to buyer and seller becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that today's virtuous buyer has to become tomorrow's wicked seller before he can become the day after's virtuous buyer again. But the record of Her Majesty's Government is notable in this connection in that our right-to-buy policy has resulted in nearly three quarters of a million new home owners, and the figure becomes over a million if sales by agreement are included too.
The rift between town and country is hardly likely to be healed by the party opposite's latest policy document on the countryside, two of the main planks of which involve the throwing open of the farmer's land for the purposes of recreation to everybody while, at the same time, the farmer's own traditional country sports are to be banned. In the late nineteen forties the Scott Henderson committee, set up by the Labour Government to look into field sports, found that these were generally acceptable subject to two or three minor recommendations, which were immediately implemented. In the late seventies a Labour Government Bill to ban competitive hare-coursing was dismissed by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House as a legal nonsense. If any future administration were to introduce such a Bill, without a further independent inquiry having first reversed, or at least substantially differed from the Scott Henderson findings, it would be nothing less than political bullying of the most divisive kind.
But, my Lords, perhaps the most divisive rift of all is the one that has been developing—and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to it—over the past few years between the political parties themselves. I referred earlier to "hate politics" and "spite politics". Political hard-hitting is part of the necessary machinery of politics, but there is all the difference in the world between the encouragement of hatred and mistrust between the parties.
If I may say so, nothing of this sort happens in your Lordships' House, partly, I suppose, because the restrictions imposed on us by statute, by convention and by agreement over the years prevent us from deciding the main issues of party political controversy, but partly also because of the general temperament and traditions of the House. I really do believe that, at least over the whole field of politics, your Lordships' House makes a major contribution towards the objectives called for in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, today.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I briefly say that it was not exactly my intention to provide the Chief Whips of both sides of this Chamber the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box. As I do not at all believe in any form
1058
of privilege, I shall have to talk to them both privately about that later on.
I wish sincerely to thank everybody who has participated in this debate. I think that we can all at least agree with Goethe's dictum that divide and rule is a capital motto but unite and lead is a better one. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Lebanon and Palestine
4.55 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster rose to call attention to the situation in the Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Arab areas of former Palestine; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am indeed most grateful for having been given this opportunity to address myself to the problems of the Middle East, and in particular to those of Lebanon and the occupied areas. Unfortunately, this debate has had to be put on at very short notice, but I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have come into the breach in the past day or two. They will have had even less time to prepare their speeches than I have had.
I think one can describe the problems of the Middle East as polycentric, multi-factional, and hydra-headed. What do I mean by that? Hydra-headed refers of course to the PLO. Many attempts have been made to crush them by the Israelis, by Amal, and somehow or other if you lop off one head of the hydra another springs up. They seem to be quite indestructible. Polycentric, my Lords? Well, we only have to look round the Middle East to see how many centres there are.
Multi-factional, what about that, my Lords? What about the situation in the Lebanon, about which I shall talk in a minute or two? How many factions are there there? A friend of mine said recently, "It is not so much a case of 'a plague on both your houses,' but 'a plague on all your 25 houses' ". By that of course he meant all the various political and religious divisions in the Middle East, and there are 17 main factions in Lebanon alone.
Perhaps I might remind your Lordships of some of the confessional groups which make up the infinitely complex, infinitely fragile, political structure of the Lebanon. The oldest established of the Christian communities are the Maronites, who established themselves in the mountain hinterland of Lebanon in AD640 under the leadership of St. Maroun. Politically they are divided into two main groups—the supporters of former president Chamoun, and those of the present President, and they are frequently scrapping among themselves. There are other Christian groups which I could briefly mention, but they are of no great political importance, such as the Greek Orthodox, the Greek Catholic, the Syrian Orthodox and the Syrian Catholic.
Of the Moslem communities it is important to stress that the largest of these—and indeed the largest in the whole country—is now the Shia, who number at least 800,000, and some people say even 1 million. They

1059
are found mainly in the southern part of the country. It is this faction, whose military wing, Amal, have come into prominence recently with the blockade of the Sabra and Shatilla camps, fortunately now over. I shall say a word about that in a minute.
When I was speaking about Lebanon on the last occasion in your Lordships' House—it was in fact on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on 22nd June, 1984—I said that we had reached in the Lebanon a Humpty-Dumpty situation. In other words, the Lebanese Humpty-Dumpty had suffered such a great fall and fragmented into so many pieces that there seemed no possibility of re-joining it. I much regret that that is proving all too accurate today. President Gemayel, who visited this country recently, controls little more than the limits of his garden. The cabinet has not met for nine months, and the government are in no way in control of the country.
I shall not say much about the blockade of the camps, Sabra, Shatilla and Bourg E1 Barajneh, because, as your Lordships will have read in the papers today, the Syrians have entered the Shatilla camp, which is the one where there was the greatest suffering, and they have put a stop to the activities of the Amal. It is perhaps worth mentioning that when the siege was at its height entry of food and medicines to the camps was forbidden, starvation and disease were widespread, women were being fired upon as they went to draw water at the wells, and rats were reported to be eating the flesh of the unburied bodies. What a horrible picture! Having heard an account of conditions there from a Chinese doctor who worked in that area I can assure your Lordships that this was in no sense an exaggeration.
Let me turn now to the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I must make it clear, although some noble Lords may disagree with me, that there can be no doubt whatever that these occupied territories are slowly but inexorably being incorporated into the State of Israel. One cannot get away from that basic fact. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples. As will be appreciated, I am sure, an adequate supply of pure water is a paramount need in countries like Israel, where temperatures often rise to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. There is a lovely passage in the Koran which says:
"We have created from water every living thing".
What a lovely idea that is! But, my Lords, what do we find? the water allowance for agricultural purposes has been fixed at from between 90 to 100 million cubic metres per year for 400 Palestinian villages. This allowance of water will not increase, even by the year 2010. By contrast, however, water for the Israelis' agriculture will increase during the 1980s to an estimated 60 million cubic metres by 1990 for only 30 settlements. There are several quite serious agricultural restrictions: for example, farmers in the West Bank and Gaza face many difficulties. These include restrictions on land that can be cultivated, the amount of water that can be used and the planting of trees. They face unfair competition from Israelis whose agriculture is subsidised, and they have to pay many taxes, including those on land, income, exports, and so
1060
on. Their export is restricted. They are not allowed to sell produce in Israel—a very important point—whereas the Israelis are able to flood the local markets with cheap subsidised produce.
Then there are many abuses of human rights. For example, no political activity is allowed. Road blocks, curfews, demolition of houses, detentions and deportations have been common. Universities are closed periodically and students arrested, as your Lordships will have seen in the press. Youth centres have been closed for the flimsiest of reasons. To take one example, the youth centre at Kalandia camp was closed because it showed the film "The Lion of Africa", which was claimed to be an incitement to riot. I could go on, but I hope I have given a fairly clear picture of the extent to which the people in those territories suffer.
The situation in the Gaza Strip is worthy of rather special attention. Since the military occupation of the strip, together with the Golan Heights and the West Bank in June 1967, attention has been largely fixed on those latter two territories to the virtual exclusion of Gaza. This strip is an artificial entity about 45 kilometres long and eight kilometres wide. It has no historical identity, and it is inhabited by about 500,000 people, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Of this number nearly 50 per cent. are under 14 years of age. Some 350,000 are refugees, living in camps where conditions are about as bad as anywhere in the Middle East. There seems little hope of an improvement so long as the rat-infested sewers continue to run through the camps. The government health services in Gaza are, sad to say, chronically under-staffed and short of funds. They work with outdated equipment. Gaza has no qualified anaesthetist, no heart, paediatric or chest surgeon and only one psychiatrist compared with 2,000 in Israel.
The main purpose of this speech is not to tell your Lordships what has been happening in this area, but to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government concerning policy. Here I think we must do all we can to support the Declaration by the Twelve on the Middle East signed in Brussels on 23rd February, 1987. That declaration has not been given very wide prominence, so far as I can see, but it includes some important recommendations. Time permits me to mention only two. First, Article 4:
"the Twelve would like to state that they are in favour of an international Peace Conference to be held under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of the parties concerned and of any party able to make a direct and positive contribution to the restoration and maintenance of peace and to the region's economic and social development".
What could be more positive and constructive than that? Surely Her Majesty's Government will go along with that. Then we have Article No. 6 which to my mind is also very important and particularly relevant today. It reads as follows:
"Without prejudging future political solutions, the Twelve wish to see an improvement in the living conditions of the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories, particularly regarding their economic, social, cultural and administrative affairs. The Community has already decided to grant aid to the Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories and to allow certain products from those territories preferential access to the Community Market."
There are just two other aspects of this problem that I should like to touch on briefly. One is the problem of

1061
terrorism. I have not given figures of numbers killed or details of attacks because that is largely unnecessary; but I should like to say—I hope we may get further on this if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gets his debate on terrorism—that terrorism is essentially the product of maladjusted people. There are very important psychological considerations behind it. To give one example, the genesis of all this trouble in Lebanon was way back in 1974 when a Christian boy of 14 years, no more, held up a bus containing Moslems and killed them all, just like that; he mowed them down with a machine gun. In my view that 14 year-old boy was not basically evil. He was probably no worse than any of your Lordships' 14 year-old sons, but it happened. I hope that some time may be given to consider this problem in rather more detail.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I reminisce about my earliest visit to Palestine and Lebanon which was during the war in 1942 and 1943. I can remember so well walking over those hills of Galilee—the northern part of Israel now but formerly Palestine—and all the beauty of the spring flowers. One would see little children running joyfully from school with their smiling faces and their warm welcome. I can remember being taken on one occasion to a Palestinian house. There I was given not a glass of water, not a cup of tea or coffee: I was given a bowl, a piece of soap and a towel. I was invited to wash my feet. Is that not a wonderful link with the Palestine of the Bible? How splendid it would be if we could restore something of that atmosphere to those troubled countries today. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I well remember the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, on 22nd May 1985. At that time there was very severe criticism of Israel, with blame for what had happened in the Lebanese camps. At that time it was implied that there was lack of goodwill on the part of the Israelis. Sadly, we have now seen that no one could put order into Lebanon, and the description of "Humpty Dumpty" was absolutely justified. I feel that Israel has received an unfair amount of blame.
So far as the occupied territories are concerned, I am afraid that in a situation like that there is not a choice between a good answer or a bad answer. Sometimes fate gives us the choice between bad, worse and terrible. It is not easy to administer a country in which a lot of vested interests are hostile. The Israelis have tried very, very hard indeed to co-operate with the native population in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to try to improve things, but as soon as anyone among the native Palestinians there shows the slightest sign of co-operation with Israel, terror is applied against them.
In Israel, the Israelis are allowed to have different opinions, to discuss and to disagree in a civilised manner; but I am afraid that among the Palestinians any dissent is punished and squashed by terror. That is the difficulty. It is not just a question of Israeli lack of goodwill: it is the case that one has to make the best of a very bad and difficult situation.
So far there has been no mention that at the present moment Shimon Peres is attempting to arrange a
1062
meeting in which Palestinians will participate. What the outcome will be one does not know. Israel not only wants peace: it needs peace desperately. As I said earlier, the perfect answer is not there as an option.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this Motion and for the extremely informative way in which he did so. My noble friends would, I feel, support all the recommendations that he put forward for the attention of the Government.
At long last a degree of law and order has been imposed by the Syrians in Lebanon. It is a thankless task, for which I think they deserve credit. Already there are an increasing number of acts of violence against the Syrian occupying forces, and it remains to be seen how long even the present measure of order can be maintained.
Perhaps the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, would say something about our relations with Syria. My noble friends and I were among the first to support the Government over the breaking of relations following the disgraceful Syrian association with a monstrous terrorist act. Is it the Government's view that there have been changes of personnel since in Syria and some signs of a more positive policy? Are the Government considering, bearing in mind the immensely important position of Syria in the Middle East, some partial restoration of relations with that country?
At the moment the Syrians have succeeded in raising the siege of the refugee camps. In a world where scenes of cruelty have become all too commonplace, it is hard to beat the spectacle of women and girls running to fetch food for their starving families and being shot as they do so. The relief of these camps was an absolute first priority. We hope and pray that the lifting of the siege will continue.
If I may, I should like to draw attention to the noble conduct in the Bourj al-Barajneh camp of two British citizens, Dr. Pauline Cutting and Nurse Susan Wighton. I hope that the Government will assure us, since there has been talk of reprisals, that they will spare no pains to do whatever is possible to ensure the protection of these two brave ladies and in due course perhaps give them the public recognition that their heroism deserves. Credit is also due to a small band of newspaper and television reporters who have recently shown to the world the real horror of life under siege in the camps. May I also ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell us what the latest position is on the kidnapping of Mr. Terry Waite and other British subjects in Beirut?
Even at the best of times, when Lebanon was free and prosperous, stability was threatened by tension between Christians and Moslems. There was no chance of this stability surviving the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, driven from their homes by Israel. Naturally these unhappy people demanded to be allowed to return to their homes. Naturally also, in my view and I think in the view of most people, very disastrously and most mistakenly, the PLO set up a kind of mini-state in Lebanon to forward thòse aims.

1063
The results were disastrous. First, there was Lebanese resentment at the infringement of their sovereignty and then, much worse, there was the Israeli invasion in which over 100,000 innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were either killed or injured, apparently in the hope that somehow in this way the PLO would be destroyed and Palestinian national aspirations would be ended.
Israel is still contributing to the destabilisation of Lebanon by maintaining a de facto presence in the south of the country and by continuing bombing raids. There have been eight bombing raids so far this year. All these things have been in defiance of unanimous Security Council resolutions.
Will the noble Baroness confirm that it is still the position of the Government, as I believe it is, that they warmly support the work of UNIFIL in the south of Lebanon and will resist all efforts to have the force removed? It is regarded by the people there—the people who are in danger—as their friend and ally, and it has done a splendid job in very difficult circumstances indeed.
It has often been said that there will be no peace in the Middle East until a measure of justice has been done to the Palestinians. Lebanon is one example of this and another example, as the noble Viscount has so admirably shown, is the deplorable situation in the West Bank and Gaza. It is not merely the denial of normal civil liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to vote, but far worse, as the noble Viscount indicated—the deportation of people without trial from their own country. There are collective punishments and frequent shootings of unarmed civilians—so frequent as not now to get much notice in the press, although I saw that there was a case last Monday. It is, I am afraid, an example of colonialism of a rather brutal kind and it is in nobody's interests, least of all in the interests of Israel, that this situation should be allowed to continue.
A just solution has long been available on paper. I refer to the unanimous decision of the Foreign Ministers of the European Community at Venice, which was reaffirmed, as the noble Viscount mentioned, in February this year. On these Benches we congratulate the Government and the other governments of the European Community both on the original Venice declaration and on the reaffirmation in February.
It laid down the essentials for a peaceful settlement. On the one hand, there was recognition of Israel's right to live in peace within her recognised international frontiers, with her security guaranteed not only by an international treaty, but also by European troops on the ground, which is plainly implied in the Venice declaration. On the other hand, there was self-determination for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and—so the Venice declaration puts it—the "association" of the PLO with the peace process. On these Benches we warmly support this way forward.
Further, we support the Government in any efforts they can make to bring about an international conference to start the peace process going. We know that there are very grave difficulties. Such a conference would be attended by all the interested parties including Israel and the Soviet Union, and with
1064
Palestinian representation acceptable to the PLO. This is, I know, a very great difficulty. No one can dictate what the Palestinian representation should be. But all those who understand that the PLO is accepted as the leader by the overwhelming mass of Palestinians, including those on the West Bank and Gaza, must, I am sure, agree that peace negotiations which exclude the PLO are worthless. There must be Palestinian representation at this conference acceptable to the PLO, and we should certainly support the Government in that.
But, alas, there are of course grave obstacles. Last week, overriding his Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Shamir. reaffirmed his unqualified opposition to any international conference and any negotiations on relinquishing the West Bank and Gaza and, as his recent visit to the United States showed, the views of Mr. Shamir carry inordinate weight in Washington. indeed, it is fair to ask how far the United States Government are actually in command of their own policy in the Middle East, bearing in mind their high dependence on Congress and the high dependence of Congress on the pro-Israeli lobby. American Senators and Representatives will explain quite readily that if they oppose the Israeli line they pay a heavy penalty in loss of media support and in campaign contributions particularly. They will frankly admit that Congress seldom decides Palestinian problems on their merits. This lamentable state of affairs places a particularly heavy responsibility on the European Community in its efforts to reach a just settlement.
But though the outlook is bleak—no one can deny that—it is not hopeless, and there are one or two developments which ought to encourage the Community. I am thinking, for instance of the increasingly influential and positive role being played by Egypt and also by Syria and the Soviet Union. I am thinking also of the small but growing section of Israeli opinion which recognises that the status quo is no solution for Israel, no option for Israel, in the longer term; that the balance of power is bound to shift against Israel in the longer term not only in economic, financial and military terms, but above all, in the view of well informed Israelis, in terms of population, of demography. These far-sighted Israelis are willing to trade land for peace.
Then on the Palestinian side within the PLO there are strong elements, braving the murderous threats of the Abu Nidal terrorist group, which are striving also for a just and peaceful settlement. These are the elements, together with the European Community itself, on which hopes for the future rest. Let the Government encourage and build on these elements and they will have the warm support of my noble friends and myself.
5.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, like the last speaker I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for providing us with this opportunity to comment on the continuing chaos and horror of events in the Lebanon. Your Lordships will be aware that on these Benches we have at this time our own particular concern about the progress of events there. But such is the delicacy of the situation,

1065
I am sure your Lordships will understand if I simply reaffirm our constant prayers for the safe return of all captives, including the Archbishop's envoy. Terry Waite's disappearance has perhaps done more than years of war, kidnaps and suffering to bring home to many the reality of life in a country where the rule of law has been replaced by terror and anarchy. It is this reality which I believe should be the focus of our concern, and in this short debate I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to both political and humanitarian realities.
There are in your Lordships' House many who are much better qualified than I am to speak about the political dimensions of the situation in the Lebanon, but I feel that underlying those dimensions is a wider moral one. This is that the institutions we have created in our efforts to bring peace to the world are woefully inadequate to the task. We are thankful to have the United Nations as a world agency, but its existence is a beginning and not an end. Until the UN has the power to intervene in such a situation we cannot be content. It will remain impotent until it is given proper resources and is able to demonstrate a political will that will make it work. The situation in the Lebanon should remind us every day that while we may leap ahead in some fields, we progress little in other more vital ones.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the general effects of the fratricidal conflict that we see in the Lebanon—the cheapening of life, the acceptance of war as a habit, the casual acceptance of torture and murder. These can become the touchstones by which everything is judged. The bell tolls loudest for those closest, but its echoes should reach whoever values peace. For this reason, I am sure your Lordships will join me in believing that the problems of the Lebanon, whether it be the homelessness of the Palestinians or the treatment of other groups and minorities, should continue to concern us all. We must all want to assure the people of the Lebanon, of whatever political or religious group, that their suffering is not forgotten and that we work and pray daily for their deliverance from fear and hunger.
Finally, I should like to salute the courage of those who share the dangers in order to bring aid and relief to those who suffer. I am thinking of the doctors, nurses and officials of the Red Cross and the United Nations agencies who remain committed to their humanitarian work, despite great threats to their own security. They more than anyone demonstrate the possibility of simple humanitarian concern taking precedence over political or personal advantage. Those of them who give their lives we should surely revere and honour as we do the heroes of other causes.
I should also like to thank the Government for the money they have provided to support the work of relief agencies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I share the hope that it may be possible to mount an international initiative to address the causes of conflict in the Lebanon. Until that time—and it may be quite a while—I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that we shall continue to see that funds are made available for relief work. That work serves in particular the widows and orphans of the war.
1066
I began my few remarks by asking that we concentrate today on the realities of life in the Lebanon. I believe that it is only when we see clearly the plight of the most desperate that we shall find the moral energy to move mountains on their behalf.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, the noble Lord the Chief Whip of the Government referred in the last debate to our happy estate in having government by sympathy, by agreement and with mutual affection. He referred to the horrors of government by hate and spite. In the Middle East, government is about hate and spite. It is about nothing else. One cannot run around saying how nice it would be if all the Middle Eastern peoples loved one another. They do not. As the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, pointed out, we are dealing with a situation in which there is no good will available. We are dealing with a situation in which we have to choose between order and terror. It is a straight choice. In governing the Middle East, people must be more frightened of you than they are of the other man.
The PLO is a terrorist organisation. We all know that terrorism has been its method. The PLO illegally got itself into Lebanon. It at first tried to get itself into Jordan. However, thanks to the King of Jordan, it was defeated and expelled. Do not tell me that we are urging the king to have it back. The PLO then went into the Lebanon. I remember Lebanon in the old days, with its strange arrangement of a Christian president and a Muslin chief justice working happily together until the PLO came in. The PLO is the villain of this piece as it has been, to a considerable degree, within Palestine as well.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, may I put one point? Is the noble Lord aware that more than 100 countries, including EC countries, recognise the PLO as the sole legal representative of the Palestinian people? One really cannot condemn all the members of the PLO as terrorists. That is quite ridiculous.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I shall happily give the noble Lord a list of the absurdities upon which the whole of the United Nations agree. When one has this absurd and unworkable forum of bogus representation, one gets people who are perpared to find that black is white and that the PLO is not a terrorist organisation. It has never been anything else; terrorism is what the PLO believes in. It has urged terrorism and used it at every opportunity. When it was finally thrown out of Lebanon, it was not long before it was back again and got back into the camps. We have heard of the misery of those camps. They are the people who are to blame for it—
Lord Chelwood: Where else have they got to go?
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I shall not give way. I have only six minutes. Those are the people who went into the camps. They did not go there to be peaceful; they went there to make war, in just the same way that the IRA goes into Northern Ireland and makes war. We are dealing with terrorists. We should not block our eyes to that.

1067
So far as the West Bank is concerned, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, said that he wished he could restore the Bible situation which he found there before the war. I profoundly wish that he could. However, has he any idea what the Bible situation was? The land was ruled by Rome with a rod of iron. It was ruled in such a manner that wherever one walked one could not fail to see the crucifixes in the countryside. Read Josephus; he tells us what Palestine was like. The archaeologists will tell you that one of the most prosperous times in the history of Palestine was the time when Roman rule gave order. That is what the Middle East needs now.
The West Bank is working very well, It has order. That order may involve some people being thrown out or being expelled from their own country. However, it is vastly better than the chaos which is the alternative. The same situation exists in Ireland. We are the Jews in Ireland as the Israelis are in the West Bank. Both of us are doing an exceedingly good job.
To my noble friend Lord Mayhew I should like to say that though we have been friends for a very long time, I have recognised this strange aberration of his during all the time in which I have been with him in Parliament, from the time when he was with Ernest Bevin in the Foreign Office. At that time, the attempt was made to allow the Arab nations, who had armies available at that time, to destroy and annihilate the Jews. It was a shocking part of our history and it failed because of the tremendous courage of the Jews who defeated Ernie Bevin's plan. At that time my noble friend acquired his anti-Semitism—
Lord Mayhew: What?
Lord Paget of Northampton: —and I have never known him to dissent from it for a moment. There has never been an occasion either in this House or in another place that he has not used his opportunities to viciously attack Israel.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my old friend. However, he surely is not suggesting that I am racially prejudiced against the Jews. That is a very serious accusation and he has no evidence. I am willing to prove the contrary. If I may remind him, there is a grove of trees planted in my honour in Israel. It is called the Christopher Mayhew Grove. Perhaps he can answer that.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I do not know how that happened in the negotiations in which he was representing Ernie Bevin. Those kinds of actions may happen when one tries to conciliate one's enemies. If that grove is there for any purpose, that is the purpose, because he has never been anything other than an enemy of Israel. I am not saying that he is racially prejudiced. Doubtless he will tell us that many of his best friends are Jews. However, his behaviour has never displayed any love of Israel; this is the final time and I am tired of hearing it.
This is an occasion on which we can look at the situation. The issue, and the only issue, in the Middle East is terrorism. That overwhelmingly transcends all the others. Until you have destroyed, defeated and
1068
bound terrorism, you can have no peace and no order. Get your priorities right—that is what I urge on the Government—and do not say that in order to settle this we have to bring the terrorists, the PLO, into the negotiations. The rule which the Government try to follow is that they do not deal with terrorists. Once they deal with terrorists—whether they be the IRA or the PLO; it is just the same thing—they will be in trouble.
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith: My Lords, the rather short notice of the debate has certainly left me less well prepared for it than I should have liked. But having served for many years in what was then Palestine, I should feel ashamed if I did not speak, however briefly, in support of the Palestinians now in Lebanon and in the West Bank and Gaza. In part, at least, it was for their welfare and that of their parents and grandparents that we undertook responsibility for the Palestine mandate. We failed them in the end in this responsibility, with the consequences for them that we see today.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has done a great service in drawing attention so eloquently to their plight, not least because there is a worrying disproportion between the attention that this has received and the attention given to sufferers with more powerful backing. If an American hostage is taken, still more if an American is killed, all America is up in arms, sometimes literally so, when it results, for example, in the bombing of Tripoli, with British support. If an Israeli is killed—it may be Sidon that is bombed, with shocking casualties, or it may be Tunis—this is called "teaching the terrorists a lesson". But when Palestinian Arabs die in tens of thousands—the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has given 100,000 as the number—or survive certainly in hundreds of thousands in the most deplorable conditions, the world's reaction is strangely muted; a curious disparity of response.
Only a week or two ago we saw how the concert of Western opinion—again with British support—has induced Russia to make important concessions in the interests of Soviet Jewry. Is it too much to hope that concerted action by ourselves and others could help to alleviate the Palestinians' ordeal and redress the injustices which have been done to them? Latterly, it is true, conditions in the camps of Lebanon have become so appalling that more publicity has been given to them in the press. The heroic efforts, which have been mentioned, by the charitable organisations—the British charity, Medical Aid to Palestinians, and others—to bring medical skills, medical supplies and food into the beleaguered camps are worthy of the highest praise. I commend this charity, Medical Aid to Palestinians, to your Lordships for any support, moral or material, it may be possible to give it. The news in this morning's papers about the relief of the camps will come as an encouragement to these efforts.
But while conditions in the Lebanon have received their share of the limelight, less than ever is said about conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, where abuses of human rights, contrary to international conventions—the fourth Geneva convention in

1069
particular—receive scant attention in the press. First and foremost is the expropriation of lands on which Arab families have lived for centuries, so that a very large proportion of West Bank land is now under Israeli ownership or control. Other abuses have been mentioned by previous speakers—restrictions on freedom of movement, freedom of association, academic freedom. I need not expand on them.
One or two have not been mentioned; for example, the obstacles which are being placed to the reunification of close families where spouses or children are living on different sides of the border; the maltreatment of prisoners and suspects under interrogation in prison; the denial of political status to prisoners of conscience—a matter which Amnesty International has taken up in the strongest terms—and injuries of the most severe kind, often by gunfire, inflicted on children throwing stones. On the economic side—less poignant but hardly less important—there is the apparent determination by Israel, to which the noble Viscount has referred, to integrate the economy of the occupied territories into her own and to prevent any separate development.
One example of this is that agricultural marketing in the West Bank and Gaza has to be conducted through Israeli state agencies, undermining the European trade concessions to Palestinian farmers recently agreed in Brussels. Another example to which the noble Viscount also referred is the rigid control of water resources which has forced thousands of Palestinians off the land, compelling them to seek work as unskilled labourers within Israel itself.
In these and other ways it is clear that Palestinians of the West Bank have become second-class citizens in the country where they have always lived. In the words of Professor Leibowitz of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
"One and a half million Palestinians are deprived of their civil and political rights. This is a false democracy".
Professor Leibowitz is an example of the large and growing number of Israelis determined to uphold civilised standards, and if arguments and pressures could be more vigorously concerted and pursued it would seem odd that Israel's government should be less responsive to them than, in the recent instance, Russia has been. In Israel there is at least an organised government. In the Lebanon, where conditions are so chaotic, it is a puzzle to know what can be done and for the time being we may have to make do with palliatives.
Among various ideas that have been put forward is the suggestion that we and other friendly countries should give more generous hospitality on humanitarian grounds to such refugees as might wish to be resettled outside the Middle East. As a nation we have fine traditions of asylum and the idea could certainly be worth pursuing. But I have some doubts whether it could make much headway except within the framework of a long-term political solution.
Palestinian refugees so far have taken the line that what they want is not only charity but justice, and have been slow to relinquish the hope of returning to the land from which they have been obliged to move. Palliatives are useful and I do not want to disparage them. They are useful but they are not enough and
1070
they should not distract us from our efforts to help towards a more fundamental settlement.
The Venice declaration, which explicitly recognises Palestinian rights to self-determination, is still, I am glad to say, a cornerstone of our policy and that of our European allies. I was glad to see that we and they are now also supporting the idea of an international conference on the Middle East because I now believe this to offer the best, and perhaps the only, hope of such a settlement. I am glad to see that the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, seems now to agree with this approach.
I would ask the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate to say what progress, if any, has been made in the matter of a conference and what in her view are the prospects of overcoming possible objections by President Reagan and highly probable objections by Mr. Shamir. In addition, I ask her whether she can tell us anything of what passed in the Moscow discussions between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Shevardnadze on the subject of the Middle East in so far as it is relevant to this debate. Perhaps she can also tell us whether anything relevant to that emerged from the recent conversations between the Prime Minister and King Fahd.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for initiating this debate and for his knowledgeable speech, and we have also heard a number of interesting speeches from other noble Lords who have a close acquaintance with the Middle East. The noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, who has just sat down, knows the Middle East in detail and speaks of it with understanding and sympathy.
I cannot pretend that I have the same expertise, but I recall a visit to the Lebanon and Jordan over 30 years ago with Members of both Houses. My noble friend Lord Paget who has just spoken was also a member of that delegation. Prior to setting off we were asked by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to do all that we could to improve relations with the Lebanon following the recent bitter war. We were received with a good deal of argument but also with kind hospitality. I remember the long talks we had with men such as Mr. Chamoun, Mr. Emile Bustani and Mr. Henri Pharaon, as well as with Ministers in the Government. As my noble friend said, Christian and Moslem worked together in government and administration, and the country was prosperous. They appeared then to have overcome the religious divide in a remarkable way.
Beirut was a prosperous and beautiful city and port. We walked through its streets with interest and without fear. We also visited some refugee camps which had recently been set up there, and although we had a sense of foreboding we did not fully contemplate the appalling, catastrophic developments which lay ahead. We did not foresee that friendship between Moslem and Christian would turn into bitter hatred and violent conflict or that, against all the precepts of the Koran, Moslem, would kill Moslem, and that Beirut would be changed into a scene of dreadful carnage and suffering.

1071
This House has debated that tragedy before, and it knows its causes. There have been invasions and civil war.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I remember that visit very well, but surely my noble friend recognises that the friendship between Moslem and Christian which was very evident then only went when the PLO came in.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend has made that point in his speech, but I shall read his remarks very carefully. I am describing the scene as it was when he and I visited the area all those years ago. My reflection at the time was that it was a happy place. It was only when we visited the refugee camps which were then recently built that we felt that dark days lay ahead. That is what we reported to Mr. Selwyn Lloyd when we returned to this country.
Perhaps I may summarise the three great initiatives which have been taken on the Lebanon and the Middle East. First, there were the United States-Soviet peace talks initiated by the United Nations in 1973–74. Secondly, there was the Camp David agreement of September 1978. That had some significant results, notably the handing over of Sinai by Israel to Egypt. Thirdly, there was the Venice Declaration of 1980 which had much in common with the Geneva objectives.
The regrettable failure of those initiatives does not mean that we should not continue to try. It is important that this House should recognise that Britain cannot resolve this intractable problem alone, but in concert with our partners in the European Community. Through the United Nations and other channels, which I shall mention shortly, we can at least persist in efforts to create a movement towards peace.
The Government have stated their policy on a number of occasions. They have said that they will co-ordinate their efforts with those of the United States and the moderate Arab states, notably Jordan and Egypt, while maintaining a friendly dialogue with Israel. In fact, the United Kingdom has gone further than the United States in opening channels with the PLO and holding talks with its officials. We do not forget the proposed meeting between the Foreign Secretary and the Jordan Palestinian delegation which fell through some three years ago. At that time Sir Geoffrey Howe made an important statement:
"An international conference may certainly have a part to play but we are not yet convinced that the scene has been sufficiently set for that".
Well over a year has passed since he said that, and I mention it because I strongly believe that a conference must take place at some stage, though the moment must be right and the preparation for the conference must be careful and adequate. I think that is a view which the House shares and which noble Lords have reflected in their speeches. There must be a will to succeed and there must be full preparation before talks start.
So far as concerns the United Nations, I assume that the Government are still committed to Resolutions 242 and 338. (I shall return to those later.) In fact, those resolutions were the basis of the Venice Declaration and the talks at Geneva.
1072
There are certain events which make this a timely debate. The first is the recent visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to this country. The Financial Times reported that the king:
"has been attempting to address attention once again to the intractable conflict at the root of the Middle East's problems—that between Israel and the Arab world. They said that the King was out to remind Britain—and through it the US—that the ultimate fate of Western interests in the region as a whole will most probably depend on the resolution of the Palestine dispute".
It seems that King Fahd reflected the frustration of moderate Arabs at the lack of progress, the virtual stagnation in the Middle East peace process and the inactivity of the United States. Perhaps the noble Baroness could comment on that and confirm that that is a fair summary of the political situation at the present time. I think we can assume that Her Majesty's Government are in close touch with the United States Administration on a possible initiative. That really lies at the heart of this debate today.
I now turn to what is probably the most important potential development, and I would welcome the observations of the noble Baroness on this point. The Prime Minister returned from her visit to Moscow a few days ago following her extensive talks with Mr. Gorbachev. To what extent was the Middle East discussed in those talks? I ask that specifically because the Soviet Union now seems to be very anxious to attend any international conference on the Middle East, and appears to me to be anxious to mend fences with Israel. That could be of immense importance.
Let us take this development with other calls for a conference as follows. First, following the special meeting at the end of February, the European Community called for an international conference which would include the Soviet Union. That was an initiative in which Her Majesty's Government participated. Secondly, the Islamic summit held in Kuwait in January stated that there would be Arab support for an international conference. Again, in my view that is a development of the greatest importance.
Thirdly, we read in the International Herald Tribune that Mr. Yassir Arafat said he would consider the possibility of a delegation of Palestinians to such an international conference which did not include members of his PLO. The resumption of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Israel would be an event of profound importance. It would also remove the United States and Israeli objection to the participation of the Soviet Union in a conference. Therefore we may be approaching an historic opportunity.
If we take all these factors together we must agree that the prospects are much more promising than appears on the surface. A conference with the backing of the United States, the Soviet Union and the EC would not necessarily resolve the problem of the Middle East—the ultimate solution must depend on the people of the area itself—but that could be an immensely powerful impetus towards a settlement.
What we cannot and must not dismiss from our minds, as several noble Lords have reminded us, is the suffering of the people. We read about it daily and we see it on television. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, the courage of journalists such as Mr. Brent Sadler and the photographers who are responsible for

1073
the pictures we see and who bring the dreadful realities into our homes has to be greatly admired. The suffering of the hostages, such as Mr. Terry Waite, who so far as I can see are guilty of nothing save a desire to help others, reminds us that there is nothing more cruel than religious wars. One can only hope that they will soon be released.
We are conscious of the 40,000 or so hungry Palestinians who have been besieged in refugee camps in Lebanon for over four months and of the efforts to relieve them and to get food to them. We are filled with respect and admiration for the brave people who, for no reason other than compassion, risk their lives hour by hour to minister to the sick and to the wounded. As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, there are outstanding examples. We know of the dedication of Dr. Pauline Cutting and Miss Susan Wighton. Dr. Cutting has already operated on over 500 casualties and admits to being numbed by the scale of human tragedy.
I understand that they are now regarded as prisoners with a price on their heads because they appear to have alienated the militias. I shall be grateful to the noble Baroness if she can tell the House what steps the Government are taking to assist Dr. Cutting and nurse Wighton and whether they are in further peril. We are glad to learn today of the food which has now been taken to that area.
For all those reasons, and many others, is it not essential that everything should be done to hasten the end of this wicked shambles? I believe that the Government are anxious to do what they can to help. In that they have our full support. The whole of the Middle East has been destabilised and it is a grim lesson to us and to the whole world. There is suspicion and old scores to be settled, but the Arab world and Israel have an urgent duty to seek a lasting solution. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I know that there are Arabs and Israelis who are moderate and who are working to that end. The rest of us have an equal duty with others to help towards and, if necessary, press for a solution. Together we can do a great deal but alone we can do very little. Perhaps the Government themselves can stimulate the move towards the conference which so many people on all sides are now advocating.
6.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for the opportunity to debate the appalling situation in Lebanon and the plight of the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. We greatly appreciate the deep knowledge and long experience of the Middle East which the noble Viscount brings to our debates.
Those who, like the noble Viscount, knew Lebanon in happier times—and I know that this evening many noble Lords have spoken from personal experience of visiting the Lebanon—grieve at the tragic waste of human resources over the past 12 years. From its former glory as the business and cultural centre of the Near East, Lebanon has become the stage for the
1074
region's conflicts, played out in civil war, foreign invasion, terrorism and economic decline. Perhaps 10 per cent. of the population have been killed or wounded since 1975. Every new development brings a new twist to the civilian suffering.
The plight of the Palestinians in the refugee camps of Beirut and South Lebanon, and of those Lebanese who were caught up in the recent fighting, is of great concern to us all. We have repeatedly called for a ceasefire and regular access to the camps for relief workers and humanitarian aid agencies. We deeply deplore the appalling suffering inflicted on the civilian population by the continuing violence, particularly the sniping in the camps in West Beirut which has killed women who were seeking to buy supplies. We welcome the news that relief supplies are now reaching the Shatila camp as a result of the Syrian action yesterday—a point referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. We hope that the siege of Bourj al-Barajneh will be lifted very soon.
This afternoon I pay tribute, as have so many of your Lordships to all those who at great personal risk are working to relieve the suffering. I, too, salute Dr. Cutting's courage in carrying on with vital humanitarian work in the face of these dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a specific question about Dr. Cutting. I can tell him that we are alert to the need to do whatever we can to ensure her safe departure once she indicates a wish to leave and circumstances permit it. Our ambassador in Beirut is closely watching the situation.
As noble Lords will know, last month we allocated a further £550,000 to the International Committee for the Red Cross and UNRWA for relief work in Lebanon. This is in addition to our contribution of £1 million to UNRWA's reconstruction appeal for Lebanon and of £5 million per annum to UNRWA's general budget, a large portion of which is disbursed in Lebanon. We have also contributed £650,000 to the ICRC in the last two years for its work in Lebanon.
The wider problems of Lebanon are compounded by the inability of the legitimate Lebanese authorities to re-establish control over the whole country. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told President Gemayel when he came to London in February, we remain firmly committed to support Lebanon's sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity.
We have consistently pressed Israel to complete its withdrawal from Southern Lebanon—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. We regard Israel's "security zone" in South Lebanon as provocative and against Israel's own long-term interests. We urge the Israelis, therefore, to work with the UN Secretariat to enable the Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to deploy to the international border to fulfil its mandate of bringing peace to the area. UNIFIL's achievement in the face of immense difficulty is impressive. UNIFIL is a force for stability in the area. We fully support it.
The Syrian occupation may at last have brought some measure of stability to Beirut. We hope that stability is maintained and extended. But in the final analysis neither Syria nor Israel, nor even the

1075
international community, can hope to impose peace in Lebanon. Peace will come only when the Lebanese communities themselves, now tragically divided, are again able to work together, free from all outside interference, to rebuild their country. The recent successful exhibition in London "Lebanon at Work not War", was a timely reminder of the skill and enterprise of the Lebanese people. It is encouraging that there are once more signs of movement towards national reconciliation. We hope that all Lebanese will now work towards this essential goal.
We in Britain are naturally most concerned about our fellow citizens missing in Lebanon. During his recent visit, Walid Jumblatt said that he would continue his efforts to secure Terry Waite's freedom—I recognise the terms in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to this matter—and would do all in his power for British hostages. I regret that I have no good news to impart this evening. We continue to do all we can to establish the position of all British hostages in Lebanon; we are doing all we can to obtain fresh information.
I should like to pay tribute to our Ambassador in Beirut, Mr. John Gray, and his small staff who, like their predecessors, have shown great professionalism and dedication under the most testing and dangerous circumstances.
The Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 also suffer from an atmosphere of tension and confrontation. Nearly all your Lordships who spoke referred to the occupied territories. The frustrations of a people denied their rights, including their fundamental right to self-determination, can easily boil over. Violence breeds violence, and the cycle of protest and repression gathers momentum. We deplore violence from whatever quarter, and we fully accept Israel's right to ensure her own security. But security considerations cannot justify the use of collective punishments and deportations. We maintained a regular dialogue on human rights with the Israel authorities, and have urged them scrupulously to respect their obligations as occupying power. As my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said to the Middle East Association last January, the Israels cannot,
"indefinitely ignore the aspirations and frustrations of the Palestinians under occupation without destroying the democratic values of Israeli society".
In answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked, we have made clear our strong opposition to deportation in our regular dialogue with the Israelis. The United Kingdom statement on behalf of the Twelve deplored the deportation of Hanniya as contrary to international law.
We urge the Israeli authorities to work to promote a better atmosphere in the territories as a prelude to negotiations. A freeze on settlements, an increase in permits for family reunifications and the lifting of travel restrictions on Palestinians are long overdue.
We and our European partners are committed to help improve the conditions of Palestinians in the occupied territories. This year we increased the annual EC aid programme to the occupied territories to £2 million and the EC contribution to UNRWA to about
1076
£14 million. As your Lordships will know, we contribute 20 per cent. of the Community aid budget. We have also more than doubled our bilateral aid programme to £1 million a year, half of which will be channelled through Jordanian institutions. An ODA team has just visited the area to assess how this new aid can best be used.
The Community, also on a British initiative, has adopted measures to facilitate the export of produce from the territories to the European market. This will encourage new trade flows and provide the Palestinians with an incentive to improve their living standards. The Commission is working actively to overcome the remaining obstacles to such exports.
Conditions in Gaza are of particular concern. This was a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, made. This tiny area suffers from appalling overcrowding, compounded by the appropriation of land for Israeli settlements. It lacks essential facilities. As a specific contribution to the acute difficulties faced in Gaza, we are giving £100,000 over two years to the Rafah municipal sewerage scheme and £94,000 over three years to the Gaza enterprise training scheme, but all this can be no substitute for peace negotiations for a just and lasting settlement. Such a settlement in the Government's view must ensure both security for Israel and justice and self-determination for the Palestinians.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the PLO and the peace process. We believe that the PLO should be associated with negotiations. In this context, the noble Lord referred to the Venice declaration. However, the PLO can expect to play a full part in the negotiations only if it renounces violence and recognises Israel's right to a secure existence. I am encouraged by the growing consensus that some form of international conference could help break the current deadlock. We salute the efforts of all those working towards this end.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, referred to the work of the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed this with him when he visited London last January. Agreement has yet to be reached on what the powers of such a conference might be, who might be represented at it or how it might carry out its work.
The noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, asked about the American attitude to an international conference. The US Administration have pledged to explore all avenues that might lead to a settlement, including the proposals for an international conference. We regularly discuss this with the American Government.
Before a conference two things need to be clear. First, there must be a real prospect of progress. The parties to the conflict must reach enough common ground on the procedural aspects to permit this. We stand ready to contribute, whether individually or with our colleagues in the European Community, to the establishment of that essential measure of common ground. Secondly, it cannot be rushed. The hasty convening of an inadequately prepared conference that failed to make progress would be a disaster leading to a hardening of historical positions. That was the sense of the statement made by the Foreign

1077
Ministers of the Twelve in Brussels of 23rd February. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred to this.
We of course fully support the points made in the declaration. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary played an important role in its preparation. We and our Community colleagues will continue our efforts to encourage all parties to find a settlement. Mr. Tindemans, representing the Presidency, is shortly to tour the region. He will encourage the efforts of the parties to overcome the remaining difficulties. Mr. Tindemans will not be visiting Syria.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about changes in the attitude of the Syrian leadership. While we agree that Syrian deployment at the camp has provided a welcome relief, we continue to believe that ministerial contact with Damascus is neither necessary nor appropriate in the absence of evidence of a change of heart over terrorism or a willingness to play a constructive role in the search for peace.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary held useful talks on these issues with Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze in Moscow. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about these talks. They were impressed by the Soviet willingness to contribute in a realistic and constructive manner in efforts to advance the peace process. In some respects the Soviet analysis is similar to our own. The Soviet Union is fully aware of the need for further detailed preparatory work before any conference can be convened. It is therefore encouraging to note its acceptance of contacts with Israel as a part of these efforts.
The noble Lord asked also about King Fahd's visit. King Fahd confirmed that progress towards a settlement remained a high priority. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed the situation in the Middle East with King Fahd during his State visit last month of course. She is to see him later this week. The Middle East will be included in the talks of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in Washington later this week.
With what I have been able to say, I hope that your Lordships will be assured that we shall continue to do all that we can to promote peace negotiations.
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Baroness who has replied and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, many of them, as I said earlier, at very short notice. I think that we would all agree that the ground has been covered very fully and effectively. There were several important points made which filled in the lacunae in my own speech. Since there is a little time in hand, perhaps I may refer to one or two points that were made by noble Lords and which were not picked up exactly by the noble Baroness.
First, I should like to refer to the criticism of the PLO made by the noble Lord, Lord Paget. On many occasions in your Lordships' House he has described the PLO as a terrorist organisation but, as I have said
1078
also on many occasions and as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, the PLO is an umbrella organisation. I do not know quite how many groups it covers. At the last count I think that the number was eight or nine. Some of these groups are quite moderate. Indeed, the PLO representative in London, Mr. Faisal Awada, belongs to the most moderate group of all, known as Fata. I think that that is an important point to make.
Secondly, as regards UNIFIL, I agree with speakers who said that its presence is most important and that it should be allowed to continue. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that it may be possible to strengthen its numbers, not to enlarge the range of countries represented but to increase the numbers and also at the same time to provide the force with a rather more effective mandate.
The third point that I should like to make is one which has been mentioned by one or two other noble Lords. I consider it most important that we should encourage Russian involvement in the peace settlement. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Patents (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.23 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Northfield.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, since this Bill has given rise to a certain amount of controversy, I do not think that it would be right to let it leave your Lordships' House without making one or two comments. I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long.
Our view from these Benches is that this Bill should have been a Government Bill. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Northfield, when he introduced the Bill in his Second Reading speech on 12th January (Official Report, 12/1/87: col. 447), said: "this is effectively a Government Bill". I believe that it would have been perfectly normal for the Government to introduce this measure as a public Bill because, as I understand it, it was originally intended to be included in the Intellectual Property Bill, which never saw the light of day.
We now know that we have plenty of time in your Lordships' House, and I do not think that even the business managers, who have had their day today, could have objected had the Bill been introduced in government time and with full government responsibility. The fact that the Government did not do that has given rise to a certain amount of confusion and perhaps allowed controversy to take place that otherwise would not have done. For instance, there has been debate about the future estimated cost to the National Health Service. I accept—as I accepted on the second day of Committee—that there were difficulties in making such estimates. Nevertheless, if

1079
the Bill had been a public Bill introduced by the Government, the Government would have had to produce a considered estimate at the outset and not, if I may say so, one that was dragged out of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the second day of the Committee stage, when I asked him—and I had given notice of the question—what would be the Government's estimate of the future cost to the NHS. The estimate—and he admitted it—was made rather hurriedly and I found his reply, interesting though it was, somewhat incomplete.
We could have debated this estimate and indeed other estimates that were around and the Government would have had to accept or reject the various figures that were put forward from different private sources. They would have had to explain their position and make it perfectly clear and we should have had the opportunity to decide whether they were going about matters the right way.
Next there was the controversy over the interests of various noble Lords, a controversy that has been widely aired in the press. I believe that the press comment has been extremely unfortunate. There is a perfectly clear convention in this House that noble Lords are on their honour to declare their interests and, as I understand it, this system has worked extremely well hitherto. It may be that wiser heads than mine will decide in the future that there should be a register of the interests of Members of this House just as there is in another place. Certainly wiser heads than mine—and maybe there is already a committee even now doing this—will be advising the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on this matter. But I do regret that these matters have become a subject of public comment and, if I may say so, a matter for rather cynical discussion in the press. I believe that that could have been avoided if this Bill had been introduced by the Government as a public Bill.
There has also been controversy over the conduct of the debate during the various stages of the Bill. I believe that some remarks were made which would not have been made on mature reflection and which we must all regret. Nevertheless, I believe that the debate would have been conducted in a perfectly orderly manner if the Government, as was appropriate, had taken their full responsibility for the Bill.
I felt it my duty to raise these matters because they caused difficulty and on occasions showed your Lordships' House in a somewhat unhappy light. Nevertheless I do not want to dwell on them because I want to come to the main point of what I have to say.
I must speak in my capacity as Opposition spokesman on these matters and not simply as another noble Lord speaking on a Private Member's Bill. Our view was stated quite clearly at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he said that, unless it could be clearly shown that there was no significant cost to the National Health Service as a result of the enactment of the Bill, we should oppose it.
The only rider that I add to that remark—and I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me—is that our attitude might be somewhat softened if we were convinced that the extra revenues to pharmaceutical companies resulting from the application of the Bill
1080
would be applied to research and development, which, as all parts of the House agree, needs every encouragement. My noble friend Lord Northfield rightly emphasised that point.
However, I must confess that both I personally, and your Lordships generally, I believe, are still in some confusion about some points, such as the cost to the National Health Service, and the question of how much will be devoted to research and development and what the eventual result is likely to be. So I have to say again to the Government that, if they want the Bill, they must take full and open responsibility for it. They must prepare their position properly and in detail so that the issues that I and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey have raised may be fully and properly examined and indeed probed when this Bill arrives in another place.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said in previous debates, the Government support this Bill. The Government have made it plain that we see it as providing encouragement to the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. We have accepted that as research for new drugs becomes more complicated and expensive something needs to be done about the products whose patents will be affected by the transitional licence of right provisions of the Patents Act 1977.
It has been argued that companies should be able to afford to fund research without this measure and that they already profit enough from the sale of drugs to the National Health Service. But we must all remember that this is a risk industry where today's best selling drug can swiftly be knocked off its pedestal by a new entrant to the market. We should also be proud that many new drugs owe their discovery to our scientists and that as a result the pharmaceutical industry provides a balance of payments surplus of about £800 million per annum. I believe that the Bill has been improved by the amendments effected in Committee. It is now fairer to the makers of generic drugs who are not patentees.
I turn now to the question of the cost of this measure to the National Health Service. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said in Committee on 19th March. He said that the Department of Health and Social Security had examined the position and was satisfied that the additional cost to the service would not be significant. He went on to refer to an analysis conducted by the DHSS which indicated that in 1985 and 1986 there were estimated cost savings to the NHS of less than £1 million in the first year and about £1·5 million in the second year due to licences of right. He also pointed out that that should be measured against the total NHS drugs bill of £1,800 million per annum.
I need hardly remind your Lordships of the way in which the DHSS controls the drug companies' profits through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. That acts as a moderating force and ensures that the NHS pays a reasonable price for its medicines and that the companies can achieve a reasonable target profit level. Your Lordships have also been told that the

1081
unions in the pharmaceutical industry support this measure, as do the generic drug companies within the Association of the British pharmaceutical industry.
I come now to the noble Lord's point that this should have been a Government Bill. If the Government had been able to bring forward legislation on licences of right, it would have contained provisions similar to those contained in this Bill. As your Lordships will be aware, there was no opportunity in this year's legislative programme for the Government to do so. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have been involved with this Bill. I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for the fact that on one occasion I was able to reply to them only in a hoarse whisper as a result of a heavy cold. My answers were also brief. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for helping calm things down when stridency was threatening to mar our proceedings.
I am grateful for the concern and almost solicitude for the Bill shown by my noble friend. After the further assurances we have received this evening, I hope it means that he will help the Bill obtain a fair wind when it reaches the other Chamber. He may be wrong for criticising the Government for asking me to take this issue through as a Private Member's Bill. As he knows, and as he has said, the measure was expected to be included in the intellectual property legislation which, alas, did not get into this Session's programme. When the noble Viscount the Leader of the House realised that a promise had been made in April 1986, almost a year ago today, he sought the best way of honouring that promise.
It is doubtful whether the noble Viscount could have persuaded his colleagues to introduce a government measure because that would have opened the way for many others, disappointed by the postponement of the intellectual property legislation, to ask for similar treatment.
In an effort to be helpful, the noble Viscount wrote to me and suggested that I should introduce this small Bill. My interest as an adviser to a pharmaceutical company had been clearly declared; for example, on 22nd April 1986, the same day, I think, on which the promise was made, and repeatedly before and after that date. It is known to the noble Viscount and to the House. Of course, the promise of repeal of licences of right had been made to me in the debate of April 1986. I therefore expressed my thanks to the noble Viscount. I have persevered with the Bill through some difficult days. I hope that will enable him to prevail upon his colleagues to take it up in another place if it is unexpectedly obstructed there. I also thank Ministers who have quietly and firmly backed the measure from the Government Front Bench and put parliamentary draftsmen at my disposal.
May I be permitted to make two final comments? It is helpful to see the funny side of things. These Bills can provide some hilarious experiences. The two companies which oppose the Bill were misled by their
1082
public relations and legal advisers into making such extravagant attacks that they hanged themselves in public, and all but the most gullible were laughing at them. I do not think that my noble friend was right when he said that the Bill's progress had been rather bitter. I thought it had been rather funny. The public relations man invented a spurious story about what had happened on the day of Second Reading. He had to withdraw the story when it was found to be so obviously a lie and defamatory. I notice that the companies have gone strangely silent in recent weeks.
This is perhaps the most hilarious piece of all, but after I had failed to answer media calls day and night from journalists hoping to obtain a sensational story, one reporter, notebook in hand, hit on the idea of accosting me for a sensational story about the Bill in part of this building which is private and reserved for Members. All I can say is that I have not seen the young lady since. Perhaps Black Rod has consigned her to the Tower!
Journalists prophesied the Bill's demise at every stage. Even in The Times important facts about the Bill and its costs were concealed, presumably in order to provoke me once again into an extravagant response. The Bill is still on course. It is a small but significant measure with no real cost—the figures have been given today—to the National Health Service.
The Bill removes a handicap that exists on research-based industry and researchers which exist in no other country, a handicap that is made doubly hard by the erosion of patent life which we must all soon face. The Bill, as the Minister pointed out, is supported by the country's four biggest trade unions as well as by the employers. I hope that if I can now get it into law I shall have the last laugh on those who have consistently prophesied its death. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene, but before the noble Lord sits down I should remind him that he should not appear to gloat in any way over the passage of this Bill. There are some doubts in the minds of many people and some questions which remain unanswered. They may well be answered in another place when the Bill is discussed there. With all due deference to the noble Lord, he was not correct when he said that the companies were fraudulent or have gone suddenly silent. Many doubts remain. They would undoubtedly have been expressed had there been more time to discuss the Bill in your Lordships' House.
I am far from satisfied about the Bill's effects on the National Health Service even though the Minister has replied. I am not convinced that the PPRS is the perfect instrument or mechanism for controlling the profits of the multinational drug companies. As my noble friend Lord Williams said, those and many other questions might well have been asked had it been a Government Bill. I hope that the Bill will not be thought of as a joke. My noble friend said that he hoped he would get the last laugh. No one is laughing about the Bill's imperfections or the questions that remain unanswered. I shall follow the Bill with interest in another place and I hope that some of the questions will be answered.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I should like to say that before I sat down I was not gloating at all. I was trying to see the funny side of what has been a tortuous path in getting this Bill through. If my noble friend's telephone had been ringing day and night in connection with this Bill, as has mine, I think that in the end he would be quite happy to say that it is good that we can see the amusing side of the serious operation of getting a Bill through Parliament. My attempt was to lighten the proceedings a little by seeing the funny side of a very serious operation.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to Commons.

Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill, unlike the Bill with which your Lordships have just dealt, began in another place where it was taken through its stages in the capable and experienced hands of my honourable friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, Mr. Albert McQuarrie. It has government support and the Scottish Office gave my honourable friend assistance with drafting and with consultations.
The Bill, which has been welcomed by all sides in another place, will make arrangements in Scotland on similar lines to those already in existence in England and Wales under the Registered Homes Act 1984. It is concerned mainly with social work care establishments which require to be registered with local authorities under Section 61 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Its principal purpose is to give local authorities powers to charge fees for the work that they do in registering independent residential care establishments for adults under the 1968 Act. It also increases to a limited extent the powers available to local authorities to exercise a measure of control over establishments once they are registered.
Clause 1 clarifies the criteria for registration of establishments under the Act. It amends the level of social work care which necessitates registration and it expands the definitions to take account of the changing forms of accommodation which have developed since 1968. It is not the intention here to exclude establishments already registered but to provide clear criteria to assist local authorities in dealing with new cases.
Clause 2 allows voluntary registration of certain residential establishments for children which provide both education and social work care under Section 61 of the 1968 Act. In this it removes an anomaly. At present such establishments, if they are currently registered as schools, cannot register for social work purposes even though child care is a significant part of their work. These establishments include List D schools since direct funding ceased in 1986 (they have a new status), certain grant-aided schools and certain independent schools. This clause should make it possible for schools which commonly take a mixture of referrals based on social work and education needs to be properly assessed by local authorities, which will be able to develop their arrangements through the
1084
combined operation of both their social work and their education departments.
Clause 3 extends in a number of small but important ways the control that local authorities have over establishments registered with them. First, it requires that local authorities be notified of the name of the manager if he is not the proprietor. Formal registration of a manager is not required, but the unsuitability of an individual is already grounds for cancellation of registration. This new provision gives local authorities, for the first time, an interest in who is appointed as manager. Secondly, the clause requires the registered person to give 28 days' notice of his intention to withdraw. This is simply to assist the orderly transfer of registration. Thirdly, there are set out the grounds for cancellation of registration. The Bill restates the existing grounds in the present Section 62(4) and adds to them failure to notify the name of the manager and failure to pay the annual fee for continuation of registration.
Fourthly, Clause 3 extends the present limited powers of local authorities to attach conditions to registration. It gives them discretion to make any reasonable conditions relating to the proper operation of an establishment, and it gives them power to vary or extend conditions already introduced. These powers are always subject to the right of appeal by the registered person to the tribunal which is established under Section 64. The remit of the tribunal is extended for the purpose. Fifthly, the clause specifies certain information which must appear on the certificate of registration, while leaving the possibility of including other information at the discretion of the local authority.
Lastly, when existing registration lapses or is cancelled, local authorities are given powers to allow an establishment to carry on for up to 60 days without formal registration. This is to minimise the disruption for residents of the change of the person in charge. I suggest that these provisions should assist local authorities without posing undue problems for those running establishments. Many of the measures have already proved useful in England and Wales.
Clause 4 requires independent establishments providing both nursing and residential care to be registered with both the health board and the local authority. At present health and social work legislation in Scotland neither requires nor prevents such legislation. Similar provision already exists in England and Wales. As your Lordships will know, there is a growing tendency among the more innovative establishments in Scotland, particularly in the private sector, to make this kind of combined provision. At present there is no certainty that such providers are able to secure joint recognition and there is scope for different interpretations of the law by different local authorities. This clause clarifies and resolves that problem.
Clause 5 contains the main element in the Bill. It enables local authorities to charge fees for their registration and inspection functions under the 1968 Act on a similar basis to that already operating in England and Wales. It does not seem right that local authorities should continue to be denied the opportunity to recoup their costs, as do their counterparts south of the Border.

1085
Charges will be payable on application for registration, on applications to vary the conditions, for issuing a new certificate of registration following a change to certain elements in the certificate and for annual continuation of registration. Local authorities will have discretion as to the level of charges, subject to a maximum for each type of fee to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. These provisions differ slightly from those of England and Wales. In England and Wales uniform fees are set out in regulations.
Perhaps I may elaborate briefly on the fees provisions. They do not extend to establishments providing day care or those providing for children. The registration fee will not be retrospective. Establishments which are already registered or which have already applied would not be charged but they would be liable for fees relating to variations and continuing registration in the future.
The Secretary of State will have powers to prescribe the times at which fees are paid. Consultation on this matter and on maximum levels of fees will be necessary. Should my right honourable friend decide on the order of fee levels now existing in England and Wales—namely, £550 for registration and £15 per place annual fee—this would equate to no more than a matter of pence on the weekly maintenance for each resident. CoSLA is, of course, anxious to be able to charge fees and not to be at a disadvantage longer than it has to be over its colleagues in England and Wales.
Finally, Clause 6 makes it an offence to re-occupy premises for the purpose of the 1968 Act where local authorities have used their powers to remove residents from an establishment which is not registered or where an offence against the 1968 Act is believed to have been committed.
Standards of care in registered establishments for the elderly and other vulnerable people are of very great concern to us all. The greater flexibility afforded by the Bill and the ability to charge arc designed to enable local authorities to devote more professional and other resources to their registration and inspection responsibilities and so give establishments and the public the highest possible quality of service.
The Bill has been discussed with representatives of local authorities, professional interests and the voluntary sector which have all welcomed its provisions. My honourable friend has received a considerable number of letters in support. Its passage in another place was accomplished with only one minor technical amendment and without a Division. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope you will give it a fair wind.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
6.52 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that the House should be grateful for the detailed information we have received from the noble Baroness in respect of this Bill. She said that she had had some help from the Scottish Office. I reckon that Mr. McQuarrie obtained the Bill from the Scottish Office. For some reason the Scottish Office is anxious to proceed with this Bill—almost as anxious as it is to proceed with another
1086
Bill that is before the House, which has been my main preoccupation over the past weeks and which is not nearly finished yet.
The Bill before us is an interesting one. I read the purposes of this Bill, which are stated as:
"An Act to make further provision as to the registration of establishments under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938".
I then read Clause 2, which states:
"Any grant-aided schools or independent school within the meaning of section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (which defines terms used in that Act)".
I immediately went to the Library to find out what this meant. I discovered that, according to the definition under the 1980 Act, a residential establishment is not a school at all. A residential institution is one conducted under a scheme as defined under the Acts of 1928 to 1935, Part VI of the 1946 Act, Part VI of the 1962 Act, and Part VI of the 1980 Act. This information was not very enlightening, and this is really an example of legislation by reference. It is the worst kind of thing to understand and I am not going to ask the noble Earl to go through the whole matter to tell me what it all means and follow the changes which we have.
One of the matters which troubled me was that the new Section 61A(1) says:
"Any grant-aided school or independent school … which performs functions such as are described in section 61(1)".
They are very limited and I can only think of approved schools—List D schools. We used to call such schools Approved Schools and they then became List D schools. They were run directly from the Scottish Office, and for years now the Scottish Office has been trying to hand them over to local authorities. Local authorities, in their straitened circumstances, have not been too willing to take on additional expenditure for which they are to receive only half of the cost.
I should like to know exactly how this matter is tied up with the transfer of List D schools. Some of the List D schools are run by churches. A long time ago I was a member of an estimates committee in another place and one of the tasks we undertook was to go around and make a report on List D schools in Scotland. The report was not very much in their favour as compared with the List D approved schools in England as we visited them. We were very far behind. There was one very well known school which gave the impression of walking into a school in Dickens' time. These schools were run directly by the Secretary of State, although I am talking about a fair time ago. On the other hand, there was one such school run by the Catholic Church in Tranent where the situation was very different indeed. If this Bill is to apply there I am very interested and I should like much more information. I shall probably get that in the Committee stage when eventually we come to that.
I make this appeal. The day after we return from the Easter Recess we are to deal with another Scottish Bill. I am sorry the Leader of the House is not in his place but I know that my remarks will be conveyed to him. The burden is going to be placed on the Scottish Members. The rest of the House may be having a holiday as from tomorrow—that is, if we finish that Bill tomorrow—but the Scottish Members who are interested in the Bill on abolition of rating will not see

1087
that as it leaves the Committee stage until next Wednesday. By the time it reaches them in various parts of Scotland it will be Friday. After that we shall have to spend our time, not here where it is easy to meet together, but in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and in Ayr (where I live), thus forgoing our holiday in order to get amendments down for the Report stage. There will not be much time for that because the amendments will have to be posted in order for them to arrive in time for the day after we return to the House.
I hope that the Committee stage of this Bill will not place us in the same position—and certainly it should not. Already we have business on two days in the week that we come back, and I hope that we shall not also have the Committee stage of this Bill because the Bill will not be given the scrutiny that it demands.
To turn now to Clause 2 of the Bill before us, that contains the provision about:
"Any grant-aided school or independent school within the meaning … of the … Act … which performs functions such as are described in section 6(1) above may, but shall not be required to apply for registration".
can that be explained to me? If all these new benefits are coming and some of these List D schools will be transferred perhaps to some independent outside body or charitable body, surely, if the beneficial effects of the Bill are to be realised, the word "may" should be replaced by "shall".
There may be some simple answer to that but I have not received it and I have not had time to ask anybody about it. I think that the noble Baroness was probably in the same position. I should like some answer to that matter.
On the other question of nursing homes I noticed that, under Clause 1(1) dealing with the changes to Section 61, it speaks of:
"the whole or a substantial part of whose functions".
That is a difference. However, other references are purely to the whole institution and that could apply equally to nursing homes. The definition of "nursing home" is slightly changed as well.
The noble Baroness said that things had changed slightly, particularly the attention given to elderly people. That does not apply to approved schools, because they are not for elderly people, but for young people. I gather that she was referring to nursing homes for elderly people. During our discussions on the other Bill I mentioned nursing homes and questioned which category they would come under and whether they would be subject to a personal charge or to a collective charge. I have not yet had a proper answer to that question because it will have to be prescribed.
It troubles me that this is almost a new growth industry. I have seen hotels which have suddenly ceased to be hotels and have become nursing homes. The definition of nursing home that still remains demands a standard of care which must include a medical practitioner or a qualified nurse. At present the authorities have the right to concern themselves with the people who are employed, the adequacy of staffing and other such matters. I gather that there has been no change in that.
1088
The Bill gives powers that may not exist at present for these new nursing homes that are springing up. I noticed that when West Sound Radio, which is based in Ayr, published its balance sheet it had a considerably increased profit. The balance sheet showed specifically that a considerable part of the increased profit came from nursing homes. One would not have expected such a body as a radio station to change its line of business and become involved in nursing homes, most of which are very expensive. Considerable care is required by local authorities in respect of registering these homes and I gather that their powers are unchanged.
There is quite a lot in this Bill which we have not considered because it only reached us on 23rd March, and that is not all that long ago. In fact, we actually received it on 24th March. We have not had time to look at it properly and to realise its importance; nor has the noble Baroness had time to consider it.
There is a lot of hard work involved in this Bill in terms of drafting and going through the previous legislation, checking up on what is being done and on what kind of schools and other bodies are affected. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for telling me that "grant-aided schools" and "independent schools" really mean approved schools.
I approve of the increased powers given to local authorities. However, I am worried that certain bodies may apply for registration but will not be required to do so. If they do not apply for registration where do the powers spring from? The noble Baroness should query that point with her advisers. However, in the meantime I should certainly not think of opposing the Bill and I hope that we shall be given time after we have completed the Report stage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill to give it the attention which it demands.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy on so eloquently bringing this Bill before us today. It is a small but important measure designed to enact for Scotland provisions very much on the lines of those—or most of those—in the Residential Homes Act 1984, which is applicable to England and Wales.
My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State is wholly in support of the Bill. We have for some time ourselves sought a convenient opportunity for enacting a similar measure in Scotland and are most grateful to my honourable friend Mr. Albert McQuarrie for his enterprise in taking matters forward in another place on our behalf. We have been glad to co-operate by giving all possible assistance with drafting and with such consultations as have been possible in the short time available.
We believe that the provisions of the Bill should commend themselves to local authorities and the owners of voluntary and private establishments. This has been confirmed in formal and not so formal discussions with representatives of local authorities and voluntary organisations.
We particularly welcome the prospect that local authorities will be able in future to recoup some at least of the expenditure which they incur in the

1089
exercise of registering and inspecting all independent homes. Charging for such services is wholly consistent with the Government's policy on charging for local authority services and I, too, support my noble friend Lady Carnegy's hope that authorities will use the income provided for their registration functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised a number of points and he prefaced his remarks by referring to the pressure which those of your Lordships who are taking an interest in another Scottish Bill now find themselves up against—not least the prospect that over the Easter holidays we shall have to do a great deal of homework. Perhaps this Bill coming as it does at this moment does not give all of us enough time to study it as much as we should like. That is the position in which I am today and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will excuse me if I do not respond to all his points now. I will of course write to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I know that my noble friend Lady Carnegy, when she winds up, will be commenting on some of the points concerned.
I would just say on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised about which schools will be encouraged to apply for registration under the 1968 Act that the position, as I understand it, is that all the former List D schools, which are continuing to provide child care services from 1st April 1986, were encouraged to apply. Although in theory Clause 2 of the Bill would make such continuing registration voluntary, in practice it is unlikely that the managers of any of these establishments would not follow through on the applications submitted, or would subsequently withdraw, and seek to continue to operate without social work registration. That would make them liable to repay substantial grants to the Secretary of State on the basis of agreement reached between the establishments and the Secretary of State when new arrangements came into operation on 1st April 1986.
I very much hope that the Bill will obtain your Lordships' approval, and that it enjoys a safe and speedy passage through the House under the guiding hand of my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him, when he is having a look at this, to have a look at Clause 5(3), which relates to fees. In paragraph (a), it states:
"the maximum fees which may be imposed by local authorities under this section; and
(b) the times at which fees may be charged",
may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. But in the next subsection it states:
"a local authority shall have regard to their reasonable expenses in carrying out their functions under this Part of this Act in fixing fees under this section."
Surely it is the Secretary of State who should have regard to these things before he fixes the maximum fees, and then he can leave it to the local authorities.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord makes. I shall certainly have a look at that, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing it further.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend has undertaken to respond at the next stage to a number of the points raised by the noble Lord. In regard to the timetable, having had a word this afternoon with the noble Lord, I have asked that the day when the House will be fully occupied for the whole day with the rates Bill should not be the day when we take this Bill in the dinner hour. I have already asked for that, but there will have to be a discussion with the usual channels about when the Bill will be taken.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, I think, all concerned are anxious that this Bill should not be long delayed. Therefore we shall have a rather tight timetable, but we shall try to meet the convenience of the noble Lord and my noble friend on the Front Bench so far as we can.
So far as concerns the definition of the word "establishment", I said in my remarks that in the main they are establishments for adults but there are others, and I went on to describe them. When the noble Lord has time to go through the Bill with his usual care and unbelievably experienced assiduousness he will find that there is a variety of different sorts of establishment to which the Bill applies, but in the main they are establishments for adults.
My noble friend responded to the question about the List D schools. I think that when the noble Lord reads what my noble friend said he will find that that is in fact a clear explanation of the position now for List D schools, which have of course been changing their status and changing the way they operate. The Bill picks up the point where they now are and incorporates them in the arrangements. The nursing homes which are dealt with in the Bill are those which have a social work and health element. It is a question of joint registration, and the health side of it would be overseen by the health board and the social work by the social work authority.
As to the fees, my understanding is that the Secretary of State simply fixes a maximum and the local authority has discretion to decide any fees up to that maximum. The figures I quoted are the figures at present operating in England and Wales, which would amount to something like 28p in regard to each resident in an establishment. That was simply a figure to show what would happen if the maximum were fixed at what the fee is in England and Wales. Of course it may be fixed higher or it may be fixed lower, but the provision in the Bill is for discretion up to a maximum.
I think those were the main points that the noble Lord raised, but we shall doubtless get more information from my noble friend at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Housing Stock: Repairs and Renovation
7.16 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the repair and renovation of the housing stock.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there have been many debates on the subject of housing, and no doubt there will be many more. The most recent in this House was introduced by my noble friend Lord Winstanley on 10th December 1986 and dealt with the economic and social implications of the housing situation. In another place there was a debate on 10th February of this year introduced by Dr. John Cunningham on housing and homelessness. These previous debates—two of a large number—illustrate the wide-ranging nature of the housing problem. The Question posed tonight concentrates on the physical condition of the housing stock.
I regret that more noble Lords have not been able to participate in discussing this vital issue, no doubt because of the lateness of the hour, although I believe that one or two who are not down on the list may intervene later. I am indebted in any event to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for taking part and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who will be replying on behalf of the Government.
The condition of housing in this country has been the subject of much inquiry, as we know. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I just summarise what has emerged from the various reports because that sets the scene and shows the dimension of the problem. The most recent comprehensive report has been the English Housing Condition Survey published in 1981. We know that a further survey relating to 1986 is being compiled, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will be able to tell us when that might appear so that we can be a bit more up to date in our information.
According to the 1981 survey, dwellings requiring repair work of £2,500 or more at the then value of the currency amounted to over 4 million of the housing stock in England, or 20 per cent. A very large proportion, therefore, of the total English housing stock required fairly major repair at that time.
More recently the 1985 Department of the Environment inquiry into the condition of the local authority housing stock in England estimated that 3.8 million, or 84 per cent., of all local authority dwellings needed repair and maintenance work at an average of nearly £5,000 per dwelling or, in total, £19 billion. That is a report issued in 1985, and purely for local authority housing in England.
Next we have the Audit Commission, which compiled a report dated April 1985 that estimated that the backlog of repairs and maintenance for local authority housing is growing at a rate of £900 million per annum. Finally, there are the estimates for the amount of repairs in the private sector. They have been estimated by the AMA to amount to £26 billion. If you add all this up on the basis of the most recent and most comprehensive inquiries, it comes to about £45 billion that is needed to put Britain's housing stock into reasonable repair.
Let us now see what is being done about this. I should like to say straight away that it would be quite wrong to claim that nothing is being done about it. A great deal is being done by the Government, by local authorities, by voluntary organisations and by partnerships of various sorts. The question is not
1092
whether anything is being done. It is being done. The question is whether in aggregate it is of sufficient size to enable us to see this problem being resolved in a measureable amount of time. That is the issue.
Let us look at some of the things that are being done. First, so far as I can gather from interpreting the figures, local authorities have at their disposal in the financial year 1987–88 a net £1.4 billion for home improvement and for housing generally after taking account of only 20 per cent. of the capital receipts on the sale of houses. I believe it is 15 per cent. in Wales and 20 per cent. in England. In addition to that, there are improvement grants. These were quite substantial in 1983–84 but subsequently have been very much reduced. There is a variable element here. They are at a relatively low level at the moment compared with where they were in 1984.
There are a number of partnership schemes. I should like to give the example of one in which I am involved known as the Neighbourhood Revitalisation Services Scheme, which was initiated by the National Home Improvement Council and has recently been supported quite substantially by the Government who put in £2 million to be matched by the private sector. This is to undertake approximately 25 schemes in areas where it is essential to get a modicum of improvement to housing in the locality to show what can be done on a partnership basis.
Next there is Neighbourhood Energy Action, another voluntary initiative in which I am also involved, which is currently insulating 300,000 homes a year for low income households, particularly for the elderly. We know the repeated sad statistics we have every winter; the problem of health for the elderly caused by extreme winter weather. I am glad to say that the Government announced this afternoon in answer to a Question in another place that it is their intention to continue to support this scheme and indeed to expand it. I am very glad to hear that, because it looks as though we might be able to build up the number to something like 500,000 per annum. But I should explain that our estimate is that there are something like 7 million households in this category to go for, so there is still a long way to go.
Finally, I should refer to the multiplicity of inner city initiatives. I shall not go into those in detail, but obviously they would have their impact one way or another on housing. So we have a variety of things being done. But the question is are they enough? Do they add up to enough, bearing in mind the enormous size of the problem in monetary terms—no less than £45 billion? It is difficult to reconcile the magnitude of the problem with putting together all the initiatives I have outlined. It may of course come to more than appears on the surface.
I should like to complete this brief review of the situation by making two proposals. The first is this. I think it is indeed unfortunate that we are so out of date with our statistics. That we should in 1987 be referring back to the 1981 survey strikes me as being quite wrong. I wonder therefore whether, because of the importance of the question of the state and the condition of housing, we could not have an annual trend survey. I am sure it would be in the interest of government to show what is being done. It would be in the interest of all of us to have more up-to-date

1093
statistics, and then we could debate the matter to see whether or not more should be done in one year. As it is, we have to put these figures together from a multiciplicity of sources, starting from different bases, and a lot of it is guesswork. That is my first suggestion.
My second suggestion arises from the first. I am wondering whether there ought to be an attempt at an overall strategy to see whether these various initiatives, all of which are perfectly reasonable and need to be encouraged, tot up to the sort of combined effort that is required. If they do not, what other initiatives should be taken? I make those two very simple suggestions in the light of the size of the problem we have. We are all pleased that certain initiatives are being taken, but we must remain concerned whether they will cope with this problem, even over a long time. Surely what we must aim for in this country is to have adequate standards of housing for the people who live here. In particular we must make sure that people can afford to heat their homes reasonably and to have them adequately insulated. I should have thought that that should be a prime objective of any government.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must apologise for not putting my name down, but I am only too pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in this Unstarred Question. I am sure the House is grateful to him for having put it down. I shall confine myself to speaking about London because the lack of progress made under the present Government in the repair and renovation of the housing stock is highlighted by the latest Greater London House Condition Survey. Therefore I support the point that the noble Lord has just made about our having an annual survey so that we can see what is what.
The Greater London House Condition Survey, which was published last month by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, shows that as many as one in five homes in Greater London last year, 1986, lacked basic amenities, was unfit for habitation or required substantial renovation work. Despite a reduction since 1979–1 was glad the noble Lord admitted that—in the number of homes which are unfit or lack basic amenities, renovation work has barely kept pace with the deteriorating condition of London's housing. In fact the number of homes in London in serious disrepair has increased under the present Government and so has the outstanding repair bill.
The Government are reluctant to attempt any estimate of the level of investment required to maintain, let alone reverse, the rate of deterioration in the condition of the housing stock, because they wish to shift more responsibility on to individual owners to maintain their homes in good repair. In fact they are planning to restrict grant aid for the renovation of the private housing stock. This is quite a serious matter. The Government will not allow the owners of public sector properties—that is mainly the local authorities—to invest what they need to maintain their housing stock. This is part of the real problem; and owners in the private sector frequently cannot afford to invest what is necessary to repair or renovate their homes without grant-aid. And it is this grant-aid which the Government wish to restrict.
1094
This is clearly borne out by the results of the Greater London House Condition Survey, because, unsurprisingly, it shows that the poorest—and by that I mean elderly people, families on low incomes and unskilled workers—are the most likely to live in properties which arc in poor condition and they are the least likely to he able to afford the necessary repairs. That is the problem and that is the dilemma.
Only a small proportion of households living in unsatisfactory accommodation in London would he able to pay for the necessary repair and renovation work out of their income or savings. The repair costs of over half London's households exceed those households' average income. According to the survey, only one-fifth of households whose repair costs are over £5,300 have savings of over £5,000. The other four-fifths do not have them.
The clear implication is that if local authorities are forced to restrict further the improvement grant-aid it will hasten the deterioration in the condition of the housing stock and will increase the link—it is a very important and very worrying link—between poverty and poor housing conditions. Therefore if the Government are concerned to make progress on the repair and renovation of the housing stock they must be prepared to lift borrowing restrictions to enable local authorities to provide more grant-aid. In this small intervention of mine, all I am asking is that the Minister should assure the House that the Government are willing to do that.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has asked this Question tonight. I suppose it would have been even more apt last week, which was National Housing Week; but we cannot always put Unstarred Questions when we want to. It is also very suitable that the noble Lord should be asking this Question, since he is president of the National Home Improvement Council, whose interesting report I received last Monday.
The noble Lord has described the scene extremely well. For our part, we fail totally to understand how the Government can sit by and watch the increasing dereliction and deterioration of the housing stock of this country. There is absolutely no doubt that the deterioration increases. The Government may be doing something, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, but they are not doing enough. Report after report has emphasised the appalling condition of the stock and the billions of pounds needed to stop the rot. But the Government fail to respond adequately and refuse even to allow local authorities to spend their own money, raised from council house sales. They are allowed to spend only 20 per cent. of that money each year.
It is small wonder that local authorities have some empty houses in their stock, because there is just not the money available to improve them. Even so, it is a fact that local authorities have a much smaller percentage of vacancies than either housing associations or the private sector—and government departments are the worst of all.
The 1981 House Condition Survey, as the noble Lord said, revealed that 4.3 million houses were either

1095
in such poor condition as to be unfit for human habitation or lacked basic amenities or required repairs costing £2,500 or more. The number of homes in serious disrepair had risen since 1976, when the previous survey took place, from 860,000 to 1,050,000. The Department of the Environment's own survey in 1985 revealed that public housing was in an advanced state of decay. That study estimated that over 3.8 million dwellings—84 per cent. of the stock—was considered to require expenditure totalling £18.84 billion at an average cost of £4,900 per dwelling. That is nearly double the cost per dwelling which was quoted in 1981.
As the noble Lord said, the Audit Commission, the Government's own watchdog, said that the backlog was growing at the rate of £900 million per annum. As an example, Birmingham will need 600 years at the present rate of progress to carry out the full modernisation of its traditional stock. It is interesting to note that despite £1,294 billion spent in urban aid since 1981—a figure the Minister may well quote in replying to this debate—the inner cities still present the most distressing examples of decline. One must remember, of course, the vast amount of rate support grant they have lost.
In February this year, as my noble friend Lord Pitt said, the AMA published the Greater London House Condition Survey, a London-wide survey of physical housing conditions, and a linked social survey. In addition, the boroughs of Barnet, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey and Islington had in-depth surveys carried out also covering physical and social conditions. Those who are interested in housing really should study them.
On the provisional results the report gave—I am referring to the Greater London report—it seems that there has been a significant reduction in the number of unfit properties and the number lacking the five basic amenities. But the main message is the very worrying trend of increasingly serious disrepair and the greater number of properties that will become unfit in the future. Both these trends, which are particularly prevalent in the private sector, demonstrate that the battle against unsatisfactory housing conditions must continue at an ever-increasing level if London's housing is to improve faster than it deteriorates. In fact, the forecast is very bad.
One of the most significant findings in the social survey is that the residents' perceptions of their own housing conditions are considerably more optimistic than those of qualified surveyors. A lot of people just do not realise how their health can be affected by damp, condensation, poor ventilation, and so on. Good insulation, which was again mentioned by the noble Lord and is most important for comfort, for energy conservation and saving people's fuel bills, is also not very often appreciated until it has been experienced.
On that subject, the cutting of the grant for home insulation so that it is available only to those on supplementary benefit seems to be one of the crazier economies this Government have made. Those on supplementary benefit may well find it difficult to find the percentage of the cost that they are being asked to pay. I ask the Minister what that percentage is to be, if
1096
it has been decided. Or have the Government seen the light and decided that they will not ask the recipients of supplementary benefit for any payment? If not, I suspect there is likely to be very little work done for the comfort of the poorest in our society or for the saving of their fuel costs.
The AMA has just finished its own update on the 1985 inquiry into the condition of local authority housing stock in England. The general point is that the housing stock in all tenures is deteriorating at a faster rate than it is being repaired or improved. The bill for local authority stock has gone up from £18·84 billion which was quoted in the 1985 inquiry, to between £21 billion and £22 billion; that is, up by £3 billion in a year. The results of the Greater London House Condition Survey, to which I have referred, confirm that the condition of the private sector stock, and the privately rented stock in particular, is worse than that of the public sector.
We expect this trend in London to be confirmed by the results of the 1986 English House Condition Survey, which I understand has now been completed by the DoE. I should like to ask the Minister whether this is so and, if so, will she tell us some of the provisional results of this survey when she replies and also when we can expect publication? I have given her warning of those questions.
I should also like to ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has, that the local authority stock condition survey should be revised and reviewed on a regular annual basis. Can the Minister give us any assurance that that will be done? As I have said, the AMA in its up-date asked its members to complete the Summary Form A giving, on exactly the same definitions as used in the 1985 return, an account of the local authority's revised estimate for repair and maintenance expenditure of the housing in its stock. If the AMA can manage this useful and informative exercise, surely the DoE can.
So what are the Government going to do about this housing crisis in our country? New house building starts have gone down from a total of 275,000 in 1975 to 168,000 in 1985. Grants paid to private owners and tenants, where the greatest problems are, peaked in 1984 to 229,000 but were down to 138,000 in 1985. Why? What is the estimated figure for 1986 and what are the intentions? I suggest that a review of the grant system is long overdue and an increase in resources to meet a rising repair bill is needed now more than ever.
The Minister may tell us that the local authority capital housing programme has gone up from £2·324 billion in 1985–86, to £2·532 billion in 1986–87, to £2·922 billion in 1987–88. But the HIP allocation—and that is what is particularly important in the light of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—has gone down from £1·65 billion in 1985–86, to £1·465 billion in 1986–87, to £1·366 billion in 1987–88—£300,000 down in the two years.
The important point—I have mentioned it before and I intend to mention it again—is that the Government hold back local authorities' accumulated receipts and will not let them spend 80 per cent. of them. That hold back has gone up in cash terms from £0·355 billion in 1985–86, to £0·78 billion in 1986–87, to £1·24 billion in 1987–88. It is absolute nonsense.

1097
Can the Government change their dogmatic mind and let the authorities spend what is their money on retrieving the truly devastating situation of housing disrepair and housing shortage in our country? It is people who are suffering—from homelessness, from appalling and very costly bed and breakfast accommodation and from inadequate and ill-maintained homes. After all, a decent home is the most basic need and it is what hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens do not have. When will the Government accept this and do something constructive about it?
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has raised a matter of continuing and considerable importance, and I am most grateful to him for putting the Question so positively in asking, in effect, for a progress report on the repair and renovation of the housing stock. One of the vital things to remember about the housing stock is that it is constantly changing, changing in response to changes in demand, in living patterns and in expectations. All this is a perfectly healthy sign of a vigorous market.
Added to this is what we might call the "life-cycle" of each house or building. From the day that it is completed, a house is subject to a constant onslaught from the wind and the weather as well as from its occupants. This natural wear and tear means that the house and all its elements—bricks, mortar, tiles and slates—gradually deteriorate and without regular maintenance will eventually have to be replaced. We need to bear all these processes in mind when we come to look at the condition of the housing stock and the progress being made in its repair and renovation.
It seems to be fashionable at the moment to claim that the housing stock overall is getting worse, that more and more houses are falling into disrepair faster than ever before. Indeed those suggestions have been made again this evening. No doubt there are houses which are getting worse, just as there are houses which are being improved. But to understand the overall effect of all the changes taking place in the housing stock we need to compare its condition now with its condition in the past. This brings me to one of the reasons for carrying out the quinquennial English House Condition Survey to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew our attention in his opening remarks.
The latest survey, which began last September, is three times as large as the previous survey in 1981. This will give us more accurate data than previous surveys on each separate region and on the local authority housing stock. The survey covers housing of all ages. The surveyors look at the extent of disrepair, fitness for human habitation and the presence or absence of basic amenities and other aspects of stock condition. The survey will measure condition on a comparable basis across the whole stock. In addition, because the 1986 survey has gone back and resurveyed the dwellings in the 1981 survey, we shall be able to make an assessment of the changes that have taken place during those five years.
The field work for the physical survey and the interviews have all been completed and the pilot stage of a supplementary survey collecting information from local authorities on their improvement activities
1098
is currently in progress. I believe that it was on this supplementary survey that the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked for some additional specific information. This supplementary survey of the local authority stock is planned for this summer to provide more detail on this sector, and analysis of the results is likely to take some time. So it will not be possible to publish a report on this before next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested in this respect that not only should the Government commit themselves to a five-yearly survey but that more should be done to collect data in between. I believe that he called it an annual trend survey. We fully recognise the importance of collecting reliable, comprehensive data on house condition, and I can confirm that the Government will wish to continue to collect the information needed to help inform their decisions. But whether this will always and necessarily be in the present form of five-yearly surveys I cannot say.
But there is a problem in trying to collect information on house condition too frequently. Real changes in condition cannot reliably be measured at intervals of less than about five years, and if we conducted annual surveys, for example, it would be difficult to disentangle changes arising from variability between surveyors from those representing a real change in condition. We also have to recognise the considerable input of resources within the department needed to mount a survey of over 30,000 homes throughout England.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, referred to the Greater London House Condition Survey and the results published at the beginning of last month. The picture on this is not all gloom. There was a small increase in the number of homes in disrepair, which rose by 4 per cent., and there is no room for complacency. But there were, nevertheless, some encouraging results. Overall housing conditions in London were shown to improve between 1979 and 1985. There were substantial falls in the number of homes which were unfit for human habitation and the numbers which lacked basic amenities. They decreased by 41 per cent. and 57 per cent. respectively.
But of course action on the housing stock does not wait on survey results. As has been said, local authorities are spending over £2½ billion on the maintenance and renovation of their own stock. They are also spending over £500 million on the private stock through improvement grants and other forms of action, while owners themselves are spending far greater sums of around £10 billion on the repair, maintenance and improvement of their homes. An enormous amount is therefore being done, to which I shall now turn in a little more detail.
The public sector has a particular responsibility for its own stock. It is not only the owner, but also the landlord. Most of this stock has now been in use for 30 years or more. In many cases houses will have received little investment since they were built and in some cases it seems that properties have not even received adequate day-to-day maintenance. We have encouraged authorities to consider carefully the maintenance and renovation needs of their stock and to develop proper programmes for carrying out the work needed.

1099
I know that many authorities are now carrying out systematic surveys of their own stock and considering their priorities for action. We are helping by publishing advice from the Building Research Establishment on ways of addressing some of the more difficult technical problems that authorities face, particularly with non-traditional forms of construction.
Our Estate Action Team is visiting authorities to discuss innovative approaches to tackling rundown and problem estates, involving new approaches to tenant consultation and management as well as investment in physical changes. We have increased the resources available to local authorities for investment in housing in two successive years and I am glad to say that over 50 per cent. of this investment now goes toward the renovation of authorities' own stock, compared with less than 30 per cent. in 1979. The Government believe that this proportion could increase still further.
The primary responsibility for private housing, on the other hand, rests with the owners. This is not our view alone. It is the view of all those who spend such large sums on their homes. Clearly, many houses which deteriorate over time or because they are neglected are rescued and repaired privately. Many first-time buyers, for example, will take on and do up a house which needs improvement and is therefore cheap. They can then sell on at a higher price. We can rely on the workings of the housing market to keep this cycle going.
But sometimes the cycle breaks down. The owner or occupier cannot afford the work that needs to be done. Then there is a role for grant aid. Since 1979, local authorities have given more than one million home improvement grants worth more than £3 billion. Levels of grant expenditure are no longer at the peak levels which prevailed at the time of the special arrangements for 1982–83 and 1983–84. But they are still at very high levels, with perhaps £400 million spent in this last year alone. Possibly that will go some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, on that particular point.
In answer to the suggestions that all would be well if the Government made more money available, I must emphasise that we are already making more money available for investment. Gross provision for local authority investment in housing has been increased for the second successive year. But it is still essential that we control local authority spending as a whole, as it contributes directly to the PSBR. We estimate that more than half of authorities' housing spending this year will be funded from capital receipts. If we increased the prescribed proportion of capital receipts, less would be available for HIP allocations. That would simply result in a different distribution of spending powers within the given total. It would divert resources away from some of the areas most in need of investment. Over time, authorities may use 100 per cent. of their receipts; the prescribed proportion simply controls the rate at which receipts are used.
Whatever the level of local authority spending, we want to see it being targeted where it will do the most good—helping people who otherwise could not afford to help themselves. That is why my honourable friend the Minister for Housing announced that he intended
1100
to change the way the Home Insulation Scheme works. Making more grants mandatory will not help to increase the rate of repair and improvement if it means that more grant money is given to people who do not really need it, leaving less for those who do. That does not seem to be the right answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, raised a specific question on that point concerning the scheme announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction in December of last year. The scheme proposed that the general rate of grant of 66 per cent. should be withdrawn. However, it proposed that a 90 per cent. grant would be extended to all householders who are in receipt of housing benefit or supplementary benefit. He said at that time that the changes would be introduced next year. Therefore, the new scheme will be laid before Parliament in due course. The details of the administration of the materials payment are still being worked out in consultation with the MSC and NEA. We expect that the average householder will pay a contribution of about £5. NEA is considering how to help clients who are genuinely unable to afford even that small amount.
On the subject of home insulation and draught-proofing, I was happy that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, felt able to give a welcome to the announcement by my honourable friend on draught-proofing which was made today in another place. We keep the home improvement grant system under review to see what can be done to make it responsive to problems which emerge. Your Lordships will recollect that we have taken power in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 to introduce a new type of grant to assist with works to the common parts—the roof and shared areas—of blocks of flats. In particular, long leaseholders can be faced with very heavy repair bills and we thought it right that they too should be able to get help.
Local authorities continue to take an active role in the renewal and regeneration of whole areas of rundown private housing. Concentrating grant and other resources, both public and private, in housing action areas and general improvement areas remains an effective way of targeting help to those who need it most. Apart from the higher levels of grant which are available, authorities have been able to benefit from the provisions we made in 1982 to encourage the coordinated repair of whole blocks of dwellings. More than 100 such "enveloping" schemes have now been approved, covering more than 10,000 dwellings in 14 authorities. Their impact locally has invariably been beneficial, and, when used sensibly with other powers, can help transform an area's prospects.
A new initiative on agency services, announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction in November last year, brings together several strands of improvement policy. Agency services are run by a range of public and private sector bodies and they offer help to people to recognise, carry out and finance works to their own home. Some deal mainly with grant-aided work; others go wider and arrange packages of loan finance; some concentrate on small-scale work, perhaps done by their own teams of workers. These organisations provide a valuable service to their clients. But they can also help local authorities to make the best use of their

1101
resources for private sector improvement. Agency services can sort out the most appropriate finance package for their clients, identify those in most need of grant and ensure that only reliable builders are used.
We wish to see an expansion of these services. To this end, we are to meet half the £6 million costs of establishing 50 new schemes over the next year or so in the private and voluntary sectors. Half of these schemes are to be set up by the National Home Improvement Council—of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is the distinguished president—as a further stage in the development of its neighbourhood revitalisation service initiative. I expect the first of these new schemes to be announced soon after Easter. A further 25 schemes will be helped through Care and Repair Ltd. These will concentrate especially on the needs of elderly people, enabling them to stay in their own homes in comfort and dignity. Funding for nine individual schemes has already been agreed, and a start made on the ground. And the Anchor Housing Trust will shortly announce plans for more of their successful Staying Put schemes. Clearly schemes of this sort are responding to a widespread need, and the Government expect the private sector, with some encouragement, to play their part.
I have tried to outline the many different ways in which the renovation of stock is being tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that we needed an overall strategy for the future. We are giving further consideration to possible legislation in the light of comments received on our Green Paper. We remain committed to the idea of attracting more private finance into home improvement, making sure we get good value from it and to devising a grant system which is simpler and fairer and which targets help where it is most needed.
Some of the steps which we are now taking will help us to move in that direction. The results of the 1986 English House Condition Survey will provide us with more information to form the basis of our policies. Agency services are a good example of what we want to do. So too is the work being done by organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to help owners ensure that the very large sums of private money being spent are used in the most sensible way.
A further step is to see that people choose and use reliable builders and contractors to carry out work. The Office of Fair Trading has already produced a booklet called Seven Golden Rules to help people select someone who will do a good job of work and give value for money, and the working party set up by my honourable friend to consider all aspects of small building work will be looking at what more can be done to curb the activities of so-called "cowboy" builders and improve the quality of work carried out.
We believe that there is still scope for increasing the amount of privately financed work. A survey undertaken last year for the Building Societies Association showed that two-thirds of improvement and repair works were paid for from savings and income. That may be a tribute to the thrift of home owners, but it also suggests that many people are not always aware that the resources locked up in their homes can be tapped to secure borrowing to do essential repair and improvement or simply to make
1102
the house a comfortable place to live, especially for an elderly person. The financial institutions have an important role to play in developing different loan packages to suit people's varying needs and circumstances. As well as the usual personal loans and mortgage advances, there has been growth of "maturity lending", which involves interest-only payments. I hope we shall see other types of loan which can help people on low incomes who nonetheless wish to use the equity available in their home.
What of the role of local authorities? For the public sector stock they will need to work increasingly in co-operation with the private sector and develop new approaches to the management of their estates. Sensitive locally-based management is needed if repair and improvement programmes are to be successful. This may mean devolving management to a tenant's co-operative or even to an outside organisation such as a housing association, provided of course that the tenants agree. Here again our Estate Action Team is offering ideas and advice. A number of schemes are already under way involving refurbishment of local authority housing by private firms for sale or for rent, or a mixture of the two.
For private sector housing, local authorities need to develop increasing contacts with the building societies and other financial institutions to promote privately financed renovation wherever this is appropriate. There will still he a role for traditional forms of public intervention, but this will be where it is clear that the private sector cannot cope unaided. There local authorities will need to plan and target their spending to make the maximum impact and to raise confidence in run-down areas so that private investment will return.
I have been rather lengthy in responding to the debate, but it will be clear from what I have said that much worthwhile work is being undertaken to maintain and enhance this country's housing stock. This can be successful only if it is based on co-operation: co-operation among central government and local government, the financial institutions, the construction industry and home owners. We shall continue to encourage all of these to play their part.

Liverpool Exchange Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Reverter of Sites Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.

  MANUFACTURING: JOB STATISTICS
  MANUFACTURING: JOB STATISTICS
  FAIR TRADING DISCUSSION PAPER
  FAIR TRADING DISCUSSION PAPER
  CLAIMS AGAINST USSR 1918–51
  CLAIMS AGAINST USSR 1918–51
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984: REVIEW
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984: REVIEW
  COMMUNITY RADIO EXPERIMENT
  COMMUNITY RADIO EXPERIMENT
  SMALL ARMS IN USE BY ARMED FORCES
  SMALL ARMS IN USE BY ARMED FORCES
  GENERAL GALVIN
  GENERAL GALVIN
  SIZEWELL: NUCLEAR ACCIDENT PRECAUTIONS
  SIZEWELL: NUCLEAR ACCIDENT PRECAUTIONS
  RUSSIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES
  RUSSIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES
  LLOYD'S INQUIRY: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  LLOYD'S INQUIRY: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS