Sitting of 16 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 23 July at Seven o'clock.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 23 July.

    UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 23 July.

    WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (VATERSAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

  PRISON DISTURBANCES
  Resolved.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will he graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of an Inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into Prison Disturbances.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Mullinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief
    1262
    constable of the west midlands as to why west midlands police officers have been taking statements regarding the case of the Birmingham pub bombings when this inquiry has been placed in the hands of the Devon and Cornwall police; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am assured by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall that all inquiries and interviews carried out in the course of the investigation of the allegations by the former west midlands police officer Thomas Clarke have been conducted by officers of his force.
    I understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that officers of the West Midlands police have conducted certain inquiries on his behalf in connection with the appeal by the six men convicted of the bombings. These inquiries have no connection with those on which the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall will be reporting to me.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is grave disquiet about the way in which the inquiry is being conducted? I include in that the inquiry that is being conducted by the Devon and Cornwall police. Does he agree that the West Midlands police force is probably the force least qualified in the whole country to be involved in the investigations? Does he further agree that it is the job of the Court of Appeal, not the police, to determine whether witnesses are telling the truth?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall not enter on that ground in a case that has been referred by me to the Court of Appeal. I have seen nothing that in any way justifies the allegations and insinuations that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the convention of the House, that Members of Parliament mind their own constituency business and do not intervene in matters relating to other hon. Members' constituencies? Will he also recognise that the Birmingham pub bombings have a great deal more relevance to the west midlands than to Sunderland, South?
    Mr. Hurd: That is not a matter for me. However, I must say that I have been very disturbed by press reports of what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is reported to have said in Dublin, where he described these people as political prisoners and cast doubts on the whole process of reference to the Court of Appeal. He misled those who were listening to him in Ireland, and brought no credit upon himself.
    Mr. Alton: In retrospect, does the Home Secretary agree that if the impartiality of the case could have been safeguarded by the Police Complaints Authority there would have been greater public confidence? Does he further agree that if the Maguire and Guildford cases had been referred to the Court of Appeal the extradition agreements would now have been agreed and implemented by the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot allow that sort of consideration to influence my decision whether to refer matters to the Court of Appeal. I decided in January to refer the Birmingham case to the Court of Appeal for reasons that I stated to the House at the time. At the same time, I explained why I had not decided to refer the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire cases. Since then, there has been a suggestion of fresh matter in the case of the Guildford bombings. There was a television programme, and we are

    1263
    trying to get hold of what Mrs. Fox, who appeared on the programme, is supposed to have said. There has been some difficulty in getting hold of her statement. That has slowed things down and made it more difficult for me to consider whether there is any new matter of substance that will justify referral of the Guildford case.

    Sentencing Policy
    Mr. Hindasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking powers to grant jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to increase sentences; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I have not received any representations so far this Session, but, as I said during the debate on the Loyal Address, the Government are considering how to strengthen clause 38, as it now is, of the Criminal Justice Bill.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great deal of disquiet among the general public about the fact that convicted criminals receiving unnecessarily lenient sentences are benefiting from a miscarriage of justice in the courts? Will he look carefully at the advice being given by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, and also by Lord Denning? Their recommendation is to allow the prosecution to have the right of appeal and also to give the Court of Appeal the right to increase sentences that it regards as being manifestly lenient. That would settle many of the public feelings of disquiet.
    Mr. Hurd: I have read Lord Lane's speech and discussed it with him. I bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend made when the previous Bill was before the House, and the points that were made in another place. We are taking all those into account and considering, as I made clear in my speech on the Loyal Address, how to strengthen clause 38 of the present Bill.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people in Britain would say that it is eminently fair that if somebody can appeal against a sentence that appears to be harsh, the prosecution should equally be allowed to appeal against an over-lenient sentence?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, I think that many people would regard that as fair. It is quite a revolution in what the prosecution in this country has traditionally been about. I have never regarded this as a matter of principle. I think that there have been substantial practical difficulties about putting this new responsibiity on the Crown Prosecution Service within months of its birth. We have discussed this point in the House. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient and to wait and see how we strengthen clause 38 to meet the kind of considerations and anxieties that he has expressed.
    Ms. Clare Short: Does the Home Secretary agree that as the British prison system is dreadfully overcrowded with large numbers of prisoners who have never been convicted of any offence of violence of any kind, the way to solve the problem is not overwhelmingly to increase light sentences for serious offences, but to reduce sentences for many of the most trivial offences? Will he tell the House what action he proposes to take about that?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct, because she poses one problem in dismissing another. The problem of public anxiety to which my hon. Friends have been drawing attention is very real. The actual level of
    1264
    sentencing for crimes such as rape and robbery has been steadily increasing, but public confidence in the system is shaped by the occasional sentence that appears to be wayward in a lenient direction. I do not think that there is an enormous number of such sentences, but perhaps they attract disproportionate publicity. However, there is no doubt about the shock to confidence in the system when they occur.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the substantial strength of feeling in the legal profession against giving the Court of Appeal the right to increase sentences? That strength of feeling arises not only because of the resource implications, but because of the alterations in the principles which have traditionally always been applied in our law to stop an accused person being subjected to double jeopardy.
    Mr. Hurd: As I said earlier, and as my hon. and learned Friend's intervention again illustrates, this would amount to a considerable revolution in what the prosecution in this country has always been about. I ask my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members to wait a little. I hope that when we come forward with our proposal on this matter he will find it reasonable.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary referred to sentences that were wayward in the direction of leniency. Does he regard the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill as being appropriate for sentencing for insider dealing on the stock exchange?
    Mr. Hurd: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his old pastures. I hope that our dealings across the Floor of the House will be reasonable and constructive. The right hon. Gentleman has imported a question from his last portfolio, which is a little unfair. He will be aware that it is only under this Government that insider dealing has been made an offence.

    Late Licences and Amusement Arcades
    Mrs. Mahonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief constables about the effect on the maintenance of law and order of (a) the number of late licenses granted and (b) the number of amusement arcades operating.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Discussions about amusement arcades were held with officers of the Metropolitan police in November of last year. We have recently asked the Association of Chief Police Officers for information on its experience of amusement arcades as part of our review of the adequacy of the law. The Department is working with the police and others on a number of initiatives to reduce problems associated with licensed premises generally.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister agree that there appears to be a correlation between the increased granting of late-night licences and violence on the street? Does he further agree that amusement arcades are good only for profiteers? They reflect the values of our society and lead to truancy and increased child gambling, which is a phenomenon that is to be abhorred. Will the Minister give local authorities more control over the granting of licences for amusement arcades?
    Mr. Hogg: As to amusement arcades, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has anticipated the concern of

    1265
    the hon. Lady. She will recall that on 6 May my right hon. Friend announced a research programme designed to determine the extent of the use of arcades by young persons and whether that use is addictive and results in criminal or anti-social activity. When we have received the results of that research we will be in a better position to judge whether it is necessary or desirable to legislate.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a related temptation for the younger age group is the increasing availability of lethal weapons? I have a constituent whose 13-year-old son had posted to his school a horrendous knife with a 10-in blade. The young people who are faced with these temptations are buying these weapons at low prices. This must be a contributory factor to the increasing violence and damage that is being carried out by this age group.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has raised a serious point, about which Ministers are extremely concerned. We should like to come to the House with proposals as soon as we reasonably can.
    Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one or two organisations, particularly the Spectrum Children's Trust, have already done some work on what is happening in amusement arcades. That shows that a growing number of children are playing truant from school in order to participate in these activities. Gambling is addictive among young people and many are in moral danger as the hours of opening increase. When the hon. Gentleman receives the results of the research, I hope that he will report quickly and look at those two aspects of the problem.
    Mr. Hogg: I am aware that that view is held by many reasonably-minded people. That is exactly why the programme of research has been commissioned. When we have received the report we will be in a better position to judge whether we should legislate. I am against the concept of a nanny state, and I do not contemplate legislation being introduced unless I consider it to be desirable.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Patnickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has available which allow a comparison to be made between the levels of serious violent crime in England and Wales, France and Germany.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): International crime statistics are published periodically by Interpol. As my right hon. Friend said on 30 June, the latest figures show that there were fewer than two homicides per 100,000 population in England and Wales in 1984. The figures for France and West Germany were twice as high.
    Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I do not wish to sound complacent, but it proves that it is contrary to the widely-held belief. Can my hon. Friend comment on the figures for petty crime, such as car thefts, break-ins and similar crimes, and, if so, will he elaborate?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to say that the vast majority of crimes that inflate crime figures in this country are eminently avoidable. For example, 25 per cent. of
    1266
    indictable crime in this country is theft of or from cars, and about 20 per cent. of that takes place when cars are left unlocked.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that in Sheffield, parts of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and I represent, city centre pubs have been operating a system of early warning for the past five years in an attempt to stem the increase in violence? In spite of that, pub landlords and managers now face a dramatic increase in assaults. How will the Minister respond to the call of the vice president of the local Licensed Victuallers Association for harsher penalties?
    Mr. Patten: I understand that it is a problem for inner-city pubs. I heard the vice president of the local Licensed Victuallers Association, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, on the "Today" programme recently making that very point. It is an inner-city problem and it is best dealt with largely by prevention and warning.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my hon. Friend any comparisons on statistics for street crimes between this country and France and Germany, especially in view of the new crime that appears to be gaining prevalence in south London, called steaming, where gangs of 30 of more attack people on buses and in shops and rob everybody in sight?
    Mr. Patten: I do not have the figures on street crime at my fingertips because the lock on my Red Box jammed and it was only with the help of the policeman behind the Chair and a screwdriver that I was able to open it for 2.30 pm. I shall write to my hon. Friend with those details. I know that one of the main aims of the Metropolitan police force is to stamp out as vigorously as possible those forms of violent crime, and the courts have available an equally vigorous range of penalties to punish those who are convicted.
    Mr. Corbett: I welcome the Minister to his new job. Will he confirm that in the matter of non-violent crime England and Wales are somewhere near the top of the international league? For example, does he know that there is a burglary every 34 seconds and an act of theft or of handling stolen goods every 16 seconds? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Patten: I must begin by reciprocating the welcome. I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his important post. I had not read about it. I hope that we have the same—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is indicating that it may be only temporary.
    It is undoubtedly the case that the majority of crime in this country lends itself not to police detection hut to public prevention. Indeed, about 20 per cent. of all burglaries take place in houses which have unlocked doors or unfastened windows.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not high time that we introduced legislation to prevent the sale of knives to under 18-yearolds? Does my hon. Friend recall that at one time there was great concern about the sale and use of flick-knives? That was abolished with great success. We cannot sell cigarettes to under 16-year-olds, we cannot sell liquor to under 18-year-olds, so why should they be able to buy knives?
    Mr. Patten: I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong concern, which I know is shared on both sides of the House. It is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering at the moment.

    Public Places (Safety)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the operation of existing legislation regarding safety at sports grounds and other public places; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Parts II, III and IV of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, which received Royal Assent on 15 May, amend the existing legislation for spectator safety at sports grounds and the licensing legislation for indoor premises. There are no plans for a further review.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister able to reply to the submissions that have been sent to the Home Office by myself and others about the need for a public safety information Bill in view of the considered opinion of various experienced people and organisations that tragedies such as the Bradford football fire and the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster might have been avoided if the public had a statutory right of access to information on matters of public safety or the lack of it?
    Mr. Hogg: I have not yet seen the letter written by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are committed to improving safety standards, and the Act, to which I have already referred, greatly improves the standards of safety that the public are entitled to expect at sports grounds. Under that Act, local authorities have greatly increased powers to inspect and control. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a whole range of stands have now been brought within control, whereas previously they were not.
    Mr. Marlow: Would not sports grounds and other public places be somewhat safer if the Government would consider introducing a modern version of the stocks and pillories for football hooligans and other types of vandals who make life hell in our inner cities?
    Mr. Hogg: That is the sort of humorous suggestion that I have learnt to expect from my hon. Friend.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were committed during the last month for which figures are available; and what increase this represents compared with the position 10 years earlier.
    Mr. John Patten: There were 951,000 notifiable offences recorded by the police in the first quarter of 1987. The number in the first quarter of 1977 was 614,500. This represents an average annual increase of 4·5 per cent.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that those very serious figures do not represent the full picture? Does he accept that an increasing number of crimes are not reported which 10 years ago would have been reported? As the Home Office is given to establishing research programmes for a variety of activities, will the Minister institute a research inquiry into the incidence of non-reporting of offences that the police should certainly know about?
    Mr. Patten: The Home Office is doing that all the time. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The incidence of reported crime has been rising, not falling. Through insurance, consultation with the police and better
    1268
    prevention, we are undoubtedly helping the situation. The hon. Gentleman is held in great respect in the House and in the Labour movement. If he would talk to Labour local authorities which publish material such as "Police Watch" in Manchester and "Policing London" in the metropolitan area which do such damage to public confidence in the police, he would help a great deal more.
    Mr. Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that opportunist crime has grown exactly in line with the growth in the availability of goods, money and property to steal? That is 96 per cent. of the crime problem. Does he also agree that there is, indeed, under-reporting, that crime will not be prevented by police patrols on the street, but that it will be stopped by the public working with the police, local authorities and other agencies to prevent it?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the facts and figures. He is also right that so much crime is preventable, especially small-scale burglaries. As he is a London Member, I put it to him that many London local authorities, rather than having nuclear-free or anti-police zones, should try to set up crime prevention zones.
    Mr. Chris Smith: In the light of the alarmingly increased figures that the Minister has given, even for reported crime, what real commitment do the Government have to improving crime prevention and what real resources do they intend to put into local authorities to enable them to improve street lighting to make neighbourhoods and estates safer and to carry out the real work of crime prevention that the Government have so far neglected?
    Mr. Patten: Alas and alack, many London Labour-controlled authorities are the last places where we would consider putting extra resources for work of this kind. They spend the resources that they have on publishing periodicals such as "Policing London" and seek to damage police and public relations. Since the Government came to power, neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales have increased by 35,000. We also have crime prevention panels. The Government are committed to crime prevention.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the known connection between alcohol abuse and the rising tide of crime, what steps are being taken to reduce the huge increase in illegal under-age drinking in public houses?
    Mr. Patten: With respect, there is no clear evidence of the connection that my right hon. Friend suggests. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence of problems of alcohol abuse. My Department and the Department of Health and Social Security are looking into this all the time.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the Minister is clearly anxious to make this into a political issue, and as the Government refuse to accept that the increased crime rate is the product of unemployment and deprivation, to what does he attribute the rise in crime in the past eight years, which has, been far faster than anywhere else in the Western world.
    Mr. Patten: Crime has been rising all over Western Europe for the past 30 years. The rate of growth in this country is considerably less than in France, for example, and very much less than in other countries, such as Spain. One has only to consider a couple of randomly chosen periods. Between 1974 and 1979 violent crime was about 49 per cent. Between 1979 and 1986 it was only 32 per cent.

    1269
    The measures taken by the Government are beginning to work successfully on some elements of the increase in crime.
    Mr. Alton: Given, as the Minister has said, that burglaries and break-ins form the largest category of crime and are certainly what the public are most worried about, does he agree that what is needed is not merely the extension of neighbourhood watch schemes, but more policemen on the beat? What is being done to study the relationship between drug abuse among many young people and the number of burglaries and break-ins undertaken by people who steal to feed their addiction?
    Mr. Patten: The police are constantly looking at that connection, just as there are more and more police on the beat taking their important share of preventive work in society. The police, however many there were, could never possibly attempt to prevent all crime. It requires public cooperation and co-operation from everyone who wishes to see crime rates reduced.

    Child Abuse
    Mr. Greg Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by his Department to prevent child abuse and to improve the chances of the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of this crime.
    Mr. Hurd: We have been running a "Stranger Danger" campaign for several years, and await the advice of an independent working group on further publicity measures against child sex abuse. A group of experts is preparing draft guidance to the police on the investigation of these offences. The Criminal Justice Bill would permit children's evidence to be given at the Crown court by live video link. I have asked for comment on whether video recordings should be more readily admissible in evidence.
    Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whenever there is an allegation of child abuse the police should be able to obtain a medical report on the child concerned so that they can decide whether to prosecute? Does he further agree that any attempt to prevent the police from so doing is to be deplored? Furthermore, is there not a clear case for substantially increasing the penalties available to the courts in cases of child neglect and for tightening the parole conditions on those convicted of child abuse?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right on the first point. This would clearly fall within the scope of the inquiry which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced last week. There was a real problem in Cleveland on this point, which I have discussed with the chief constable. I believe that the disagreement about the local guidelines there has now been sorted out. My hon. Friend is right on the second point. One of the changes that we propose to introduce in the new Criminal Justice Bill is to increase from two years to 10 the maximum term of imprisonment for neglect of a child. Many cases involve more serious charges with more serious penalties, but even where it is only a question of neglect, we believe that the maximum should be increased.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Home Secretary have any information about High Court injunctions issued against the parents of children who are alleged to be victims of
    1270
    abuse, forbidding parents from communicating with anyone, including lawyers and doctors, about the circumstances of their case? Will he make urgent inquiries into this matter, and does he agree that if such injunctions have been issued they are wholly unacceptable?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that this is a matter strictly for me, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to point my inquiries in a particular direction, that is if he will give me particulars of what he has heard, I shall ensure that the matter is properly investigated.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: While public concern is fully justified, does my right hon. Friend know whether, or have the impression that, there is more of this than there was in the past?
    Mr. Hurd: It is hard to say and any impression must be subjective. The number of reported cases has obviously increased sharply, but, equally obviously, as society becomes more receptive to these stories, the proportion of abuses reported is likely to increase. It is difficult to go beyond that.
    Ms. Clare Short: Is the Home Secretary aware that when a child who has been sexually abused in its family is then removed from the family it causes the child more distress? A better alternative would be for a power to exist which requires the abusing male to be removed from the family. In his review of child law, will he look into this possibility, which already exists in many states in the United States of America?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly ensure that those who are looking into this aspect of the law take that suggestion into account.
    Mr. Dickens: Has my right hon. Friend taken on board the fact that the nation is extremely angry about the reported rise in child abuse? Does he agree that Parliament has made adequate sentencing provisions and that our judges are doing a sloppy job in some cases? May I ask him to be cautious about the advice that he receives from the Lord Chief Justice when he shapes the Criminal Justice Bill, because that man has not distinguished himself recently in some of his judgments?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not criticise a judge in this manner.
    Mr. Dickens: My criticism was of his judgment, not of the man himself.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not good enough.
    Mr. Dickens: Do you wish me to give the House the reason why I said what I did, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not waste time. Will he please withdraw his criticism of that judge?
    Mr. Dickens: Yes, I withdraw the statement.
    Mr. Hurd: May I deal with the less controversial part of my hon. Friend's question? I think that he is being a little too timid. I do not think that Parliament has completed its job in this regard, and that is why we propose to increase the maximum penalty for neglect.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the Home Secretary is really seeking a framework and apparatus to prevent child sex abuse in future, will he, in the course of his continuing child care

    1271
    review, look very carefully at the model in Scotland? The children's panel there allows all the statutory authorities to come together in casework conferences, which really do prevent problems from reaching a stage at which children are sexually abused.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the inquiry will take that into account.

    Sound and Television Broadcasting
    Mr. Galeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future financing of sound and television broadcasting, of direct broadcasting by satellite and of cable television in, or received by, the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We accept the judgment of the Peacock committee that the BBC should not be financed through advertising and that for the time being the licence fee should remain the principal source of income. Both cable and direct broadcasting by satellite are able to draw on advertising and subscription revenue. We shall consider whether subscription may have a larger part to play in the light of comments on our consultants' report published last week. We shall consider the future of sound broadcasting in the light of responses to our Green Paper.
    Mr. Gale: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assumption of his new responsibilities for broadcasting?
    If subscription payment for broadcast television is to be a realistic possibility, does my hon. Friend agree that that will involve modified television sets? Will his Department therefore take the necessary steps as soon as possible to ensure that all television sets sold in this country after 1990 carry an encription unit?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I fully understand his enthusiasm for subscription, but I think that it would be right now for us to await the comments on the lengthy independent consultants' report, which we have just published, and which goes into the technical and economic feasibility of subscription.
    My hon. Friend will, I am sure, take comfort from the fact that British Satellite Broadcasting is this very afternoon signing contracts with the IBA for three satellite channels. I think that the whole House will want to wish the company every success in this exciting new venture. It has already announced that one of the possibilities that it will be looking into is designing home receivers to pave the way for pay-as-you-view television.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that any changes in financing will not be used for further attacks by the Government on the BBC? In considering financing, will he give the House an assurance that he will seek to remove the anomalies whereby pensioners in warden-serviced accommodation receive free television licences, but other pensioners do not? The House seeks a common low-cost television licence for all pensioners, who deserve at least that advantage from the Government, as they receive no others.
    Mr. Renton: I do not believe that there is any politician in the House who does not think at times that he is the subject of unfair attacks by one broadcasting channel or another. We have looked into the question of concessionary television licences, and we have expanded
    1272
    them to include the mentally handicapped and the disabled. We took these steps to improve the system that was introduced by the last Labour Government. At the moment, we see no way of improving it further.

    Police and Criminal Evidence Act
    Mr. John Townendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the additional man hours required to deal with the extra paperwork and administration resulting from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and if he will estimate the effect on the number of policemen on the beat.
    Mr. Hurd: The first estimate cannot be given because we do not know how much time the police spent on record-keeping before the Act came into force. In many cases where the Act imposes a statutory requirement the police were already keeping records in order to avoid arguments and get convictions. In other cases, new recording requirements act as necessary safeguards on the exercise of additional police powers. How many police officers are available for beat patrolling in any area at a particular time obviously depends on many factors and no one could estimate reliably the effect of any one of them.
    Mr. Townend: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. At a meeting with local Members of Parliament the chief constable of Humberside said that the requirement to take a verbatim record of all statements was taking up a considerable amount of additional time, that it was putting pressure on police manpower and that it was also making it more difficult to get at the truth, because the cross-questioning of suspects became slower and more tedious, those who were prone to lie had more time to think about what they were saying and therefore it was more diffcult to catch them out.
    Mr. Hurd: I know of that point, but it is also a fact that in London and Greater Manchester the police forces had already moved to the taking of something like contemporaneous notes, because they had found that, unless they did that, what went on in a police station was afterwards challenged and they were not securing convictions. That was the reasoning that lay behind that provision in the Act. Tape recording is the answer, and as we introduce it steadily throughout the country, as we are doing, it will solve that problem.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: As my right hon. Friend's officials have been unable to provide him with any estimates, why does he not examine the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary? His estimate is that 2,400 man years and £45 million of additional expenditure were required to do the training for the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and that there has been a significant reduction in arrests and clear-ups, which the Chief Inspector of Constabulary thinks must be connected with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I support the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but when he considers police manpower I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account the problems that this legislation has created.
    Mr. Hurd: Of course I have read the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. It showed that there was a considerable once-for-all training burden on the police. In some rural areas, the need for custody sergeants produces a demand for manpower that I regard as legitimate. I do

    1273
    not accept that record-keeping in police stations is unnecessary. My hon. Friend will have noticed with pleasure that the clear-up rate after the dip last year has begun to improve. It was 5 per cent. up in the first quarter of this year, compared with the first quarter of last year.
    Mr. Corbett: As the Home Secretary does not know how much extra work the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has produced, will he undertake to make inquiries of the police to find out? Does he not recall the Opposition warning predicting that, instead of setting out the responsibilities of the citizen and the powers of the police, the Act would turn into no more than a bureaucratic nightmare?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that when, day after day and night after night, we faced detailed Opposition amendments to increase the paperwork, to increase the bureaucracy and to load on to the police burdens which their representatives and we decided were quite unreasonable. The general election has given the hon. Gentleman amnesia.

    Police (Pensions)
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to improve the pensions of police widows in cases where such pensions are already in payment.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: In common with all state and public service pensions, police widows' pensions were increased by 2·1 per cent. from 6 April; a further cost of living increase will be due next April.
    Mr. Stern: May I gently remind my hon. Friend of the police claim that reserved widows' pensions could not be met because my hon. Friend was fearful of setting a precedent by increasing a pension that was already in payment? I draw his attention to the fact that such increases are now becoming increasingly common in the commercial sector. I hope that he will look again at this matter from the point of view that the public service should not lag behind what is becoming increasingly good practice elsewhere.
    Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I cannot encourage my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was very sympathetic, but I am afraid that it was not possible to agree increases of the kind that were suggested. There were essentially two reasons for that. First, to do so would breach a long-standing convention that public sector pensions should not be enhanced retrospectively. Secondly, because there were other groups in comparable situations, the cost of making the concession would be very great indeed.

    Data Protection Act
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to produce the regulations necessary to give effect to the Data Protection Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: We intend to lay the necessary orders immediately Parliament returns after the summer recess.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister not accept that that leaves a very short time for the people who are expected to implement these regulations in November, when the
    1274
    Data Protection Act 1984 provisions take effect? Is he aware that the chairman of the British Medical Association consultants' committee is saying that it might cost as much as £30 for an access fee for people to get access to their medical records? Will he assure the House that the fee levels set by the regulations will not prohibit people from having access to their records because of financial constraints?
    Mr. Renton: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first contention. The orders will be laid around about 20 October and there will be plenty of time for them to be debated in the House before they come into force on 11 November. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about the fee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in a written answer on 1 July that we would be announcing the level of the fee very shortly.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Franksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, before departing for Washington this evening.
    Mr. Franks: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the latest unemployment figures released today. which show that for the 12th consecutive month the number of people unemployed is dropping? Is it not the case that in relation to the north-west, which shows the second largest drop, in a free and open economy at last the north is showing what it is capable of doing?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that latest reduction in unemployment. which is the 12th successive reduction. The north-west is one of the areas that are reducing the level of unemployment fastest. The north-west is also doing very well under this Government's policies of faster growth, privatisation arid Trident, which is being built in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is also benefiting from an excellent new hospital in Furness. The north-west is doing very well.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister said that she would not support any proposals to impose VAT on food, gas or electricity. Why can she not bring herself to give exactly the same precise undertaking on children's clothing and children's shoes?
    The Prime Minister: I made it very clear during the election precisely what undertakings I would give. I also made it very clear that although there were certain people in the House, particularly right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who wish to constrain the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is not part of my duty to constrain him in his annual Budget. That takes place only once a year, unlike what happened under the previous Labour Government, when Budgets took place frequently.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry, but on the subject of children's clothing and shoes the Prime Minister was anything but clear during the general election. Why does

    1275
    she not say now, in exactly the precise terms that she has used when referring to other items, that she would not have such a proposal coming before the House? Or would she, like the Paymaster General, suggest that such proposals would be vetoed? That is precisely what the Paymaster General said this morning.
    The Prime Minister: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. He will go on raising scares and we will be able to point out how, on a day when the unemployment figures were down, he tried to raise another scare. [Interruption.] Of course he did.
    With regard to the veto, I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to proposals that have come forward through the European Commission. They are not out in detail, but, as he knows, partly due to our very vigorous fight on the Single European Act, any tax changes can be made only by a unanimous vote. Not only would this Government vote against Lord Cockfield's proposal, but a number of our European partners would do so as well.
    Mr. Kinnock: The problem is the move to impose VAT on what are currently zero rated items of considerable importance to the family budget. Does the right hon. Lady agree with the words of the Paymaster General that the Government would
    "in fact veto VAT on food, fuel, children's clothing and shoes"
    Yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Paymaster General specifically confirmed what I said during the general election campaign, and that was his precise purpose. I am well aware of the words that he used. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman does not welcome the fall in unemployment.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's chief scientific advisers will doubtless have drawn her attention to the immense significance of the facts reported recently by our embassy in Tokyo, that the Japanese are marketing a I megabit semiconductor, are about to market a 4 megabit semi conductor, are designing a 16 megabit semiconductor and are reaching out to 64. As the issue has now moved into the public domain with the publication in the United States of the defence science task force report on semiconductor dependency, will my right hon. Friend seek to place this issue on the agenda for her discussions with the President of the United States so that the joint response in the West—the Alvey programme and American efforts—can be co-ordinated?
    The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I do not think that that issue will be at the top of my agenda for this visit to the United States, which will be a short one. Other matters will be at the top. My hon. Friend is well aware of the substantial research and development budget that is paid for by the taxpayer, and I know that he is anxious to encourage more research and development expenditure from the private sector.
    Mr. Cohenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the introduction of a poll tax? Is she aware that in my consituency two adults will pay £1 a week more if it is
    1276
    introduced, that three adults will pay £8 a week more, that four adults will pay £15 a week more and that a single pensioner on supplementary benefit will have to find £1·50 a week more from his pension? For these people and millions of others is it not so much a poll tax as a pole axe?
    The Prime Minister: The majority of widows, single people and single parents will pay a good deal less under a community charge. There will be an 80 per cent. rebate and an addition to supplementary benefit to help people pay. Those who will suffer most are those who are suffering most now under the rating system in areas where there are high-spending Labour councils, or those who are living in the London area.

    York
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister when she next intends to make an official visit to York.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Gregory: While the citizens of York will be disappointed that my right hon. Friend has not yet decided on a date for a return visit, may I ask her to comment on the possibility of further profit-related pay, bearing in mind that in York and the rest of the country about 21,000 companies have decided already to obtain information from the Inland Revenue on how they can implement profit-related pay?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the innovations of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Finance Bill have been widely welcomed. As my hon. Friend has said, many companies are making inquiries about profit-related pay, realising that their work people could benefit substantially if they introduced the system. I hope that advantage will be taken of it.
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Does the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) relate to York?
    Mr. Nellist: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Had the Prime Minister been making a trip to York, would she have taken the opportunity to explain to low-paid workers there and in other cities how it is that she has now withdrawn her opposition to a 20 per cent. rise in hon. Members' salaries that will take them from £370 a week to £450, while she maintains her opposition to the claim of hundreds of thousands of low-paid Government workers whose average take-home pay is only £3 a week more than the rise that she is prepared to accept for Members of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be getting universal support from all those who heard his question.
    Mr. David Shaw: As I returned from the United States last weekend I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman return via York?

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister confirm that some families on supplementary benefit will be worse off as a result of the introduction of the poll tax, which replaces rates and water charges?
    The Prime Minister: Because the amount that will be added to supplementary benefit or family income support is an average amount, some will be worse off and some will he considerably better off. That is inevitable in an average—some worse, some better.
    Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the splendid unemployment figures announced today—[Interruption.]—which have already been referred to? However, will she also consult her colleagues as to the ways in which job creation can be improved in our manufacturing industries? New jobs are very important, but we also want to make a big impact in creating more new jobs in manufacturing industry.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Most of the new jobs are coming from economic growth, thanks to the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are proving extremely good. Manufacturing industry is highly competitive. Its productivity is going up and investment is good. We get more jobs in manufacturing and in small businesses only by turning out goods at prices and with designs that people will buy, and by having highly competitive and efficient industries. Our policies are producing that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the reply given by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) last Thursday? If so, could she make a statement and, particularly, could she confirm that there is forensic evidence to suggest that the same weapon has been used, allegedly, in Loyalist and Republican paramilitary terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is for me to say anything about that kind of evidence. It is not within my responsibility.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the VAT structure, introduced when we abolished purchase tax and selective employment tax with a single positive rate and zero rating for essential items is better than anything else in Europe, and that if we are to harmonise at all it should he on our basis? As I steered the original legislation through the House, with some advice at official level from a Mr. Cockfield, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the abolition of zero rating would not be acceptable to the House?
    The Prime Minister: We have made that clear. We must be able to determine our own structure of VAT. A number of other countries also take the view that they must be free
    1278
    to determine their own structure, and they are just as much against the proposal as we are. The possibility of this going through is negligible.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Redman: Will the Prime Minister explain why families who look after elderly parents, thus saving the state money, in line with the Victorian values that the Prime Minister supports, should be penalised by the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member is aware, the poorest will be protected—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. The poorest will be protected by an 80 per cent. rebate and by an addition to supplementary benefit to enable them to pay the remaining 20 per cent. We believe that rates are levied on far too narrow a base. They are a grossly unfair tax. We believe that the services that are provided by local authorities are provided on a personal basis and that all people, save the poorest, should make a contribution to them. Most people accept that.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Although we should retain local control over the rates of VAT and, indeed, on whether something should be VAT rated at all, does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate objective of the EEC Commission—the free internal market—is highly desirable and was probably the big prize that we expected to gain when we joined the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the completion of the internal market is extremely important. There is a great deal to do in standardising and getting safety regulations across the Common Market with things such as television, electrical goods and services, which would genuinely enable us to get a full and complete internal market. We have never accepted the view that we need approximation of taxation to complete the internal market and we do not accept it now.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement in the Government White Paper on the privatisation of British Airways, where the Government's objective was said to be the creation of a multi-choice system of airlines? Does that not sound a bit hollow in the light of today's takeover?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is a private notice question on the matter later, which will be answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

British Airways/British Caledonian (Merger)
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Blair (by private notice) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading regarding a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the proposed merger of British Airways and British Caledonian Airways.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): None, Sir. The offer was announced only this morning. The Director General of Fair Trading will advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State on the question of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as soon as reasonably practicable.
Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the proposed merger unquestionably satisfies the criteria for investigation by the commission and that he can impose the time limit that he wants? Is he aware that the first the unions knew of this merger was hearing about it on their car radios this morning on their way to a meeting called late last night? What guarantees will he give on job losses in this industry and the other industries that depend upon it?
Most important of all, what has happened to the Government's policy of efficiency through competition? Is it not right that, in 1984, the Civil Aviation Authority specifically called for a multi-airline industry and warned that
"otherwise this country might willy nilly find itself with one privately owned but less than efficient monolith at the end of the day"?
Is he also aware that, in their response to that, the Government specifically agreed with the CAA and said that there must be a multi-airline industry? Is he further aware that, as late as April this year, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government were committed
"to a sound and competitive multi-airline industry"?
Is it not a conspicuous irony that after years of public ownership, when merger was resisted and competition promoted, privatisation should within months lead to merger embraced and competition stifled? What will be the protection for consumers in this private monopoly? Is it not the case that, as with British Telecom, faced with a choice between private profit and the public's rights as consumers, the Government choose private profit every time?
Mr. Clarke: None of that follows from the present position or from my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The legal position is that the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State whether this matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is the strict position and we must wait for that advice. It would be improper for me at this stage, before we have that advice, to give my opinion as to whether it satisfies the criteria for a reference. We must wait and see.
I am sure that the unions, in common with the rest of the public, heard about this proposed offer this morning. The correct steps for the trade unions or anyone else
1280
interested is to make representations to the director general as quickly as possible, who will, as quickly as possible, give his reaction to them. He will then give his opinion and advice to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Something to which the director general will obviously address himself is the effect of this proposed merger upon the competitive position in the airline industry. That is one of the matters upon which we now await his opinion. As the law provides, we must wait for that opinion.
I believe that the hon. Member is getting very hot under the collar and jumping the gun. We will have the advice of the director general as soon as he can reasonably provide it. Then my right hon. and noble Friend will decide whether to refer this offer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that I believe that a decision to refer this offer would be a mistake and against the interests of British aviation? However, will he assure me that, whatever decisions are taken, they are taken speedily so that the many thousands of my constituents who work not only for British Caledonian but for British Airways may take advantage of the splendid opportunity that this merger represents?
Mr. Clarke: No decisions will be taken by the Government until we have the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. My hon. Friend's submission is the type of submission that should now be made to the director general so that he can give his advice to the Secretary of State as quickly as possible and as quickly as practicable in this rather complex case.
Mr. David Steel: How on earth can the Minister square what he has said with the 1984 Government White Paper? The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) quoted part of that White Paper, but the full quotation reads that the Government's objective was
"to encourage a sound and competitive multi-airline industry with a variety of airlines of different characteristics"
Surely the proposed merger is inconsistent with that statement. Indeed, that statement was repeated in the prospectus for the British Airways privatisation.
Mr. Clarke: It was a sound policy in 1984 and it may be that—[Interruption]—and it may be a sound policy now. The fact is that an offer has been made by British Airways upon which we have taken no decisions and have given no reaction. It is being assumed that a decision has been taken about whether or not to refer this merger. That is not so. That decision cannot be taken by the Secretary of State until he has the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. Therefore, all that is happening is that hon. Members are beginning to ask hypothetical questions about events which may or may not arise when my right hon. and noble Friend is in a position to make a decision.
Mr. Michael Grylls: If the Government have to consider this case later on, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that British Airways is not all that large in international terms? It has to compete with sizeable airlines overseas, many of which are much bigger than British Airways. Although we want to see as much competition as possible in Britain, probably on the domestic routes, an airline must be large to compete

1281
overseas. Perhaps British Caledonian is not big enough to compete on the international routes and that may be a very good reason for allowing this merger to go ahead. Presumably those factors will be taken into account.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's arguments are extremely relevant. It is obvious that there will be a variety of opinions and submissions on this matter. Those opinions and submissions are best made, at this stage, to the Director General of Fair Trading. He will give his advice upon a bid by one private company to suggest a merger with another private company. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take his decision about whether to refer this proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when he has had a chance to reflect upon the advice of the director general, who will listen to all the competing arguments. That is the only stage we have reached to date.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that the chaotic and anarchic situation in the industry is entirely due to the Government and the United States Government pressing for deregulation? That has led to the formation of mega airlines in the United States, six of which are bigger than British Airways. Does the Minister also agree that it is very bad industrial relations practice to announce this proposal on the same day that the unions got to know about it at 9.30 am? Surely the Minister cannot dodge his responsibilities by trying to skirt around that. Does the Minister also agree that, whatever happens, if the merger is referred, an early decision should be made because many jobs in the industry are at stake?
Mr. Clarke: It sounds as though the director general will hear some conflicting opinions from Opposition as well as Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) sounded fairly passionate on the subject of competition. It is my opinion that deregulation and increased competition on the transatlantic routes in particular have been of great benefit to the industry, especially its passengers. This exchange is already revealing that this is a complex issue which ought to be dealt with, as it has to be dealt with by law, by the proper process of waiting for the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. I suggest that hon. Members make their representations to the director general, stop getting so excited on the first day we have heard that the bid has been made and wait in due course for a considered decision by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State when he has the director general's advice on the public interest involved in this matter.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Government were also caught by surprise this morning or whether discussions were going on behind the scenes? Will he say one other thing to the director general when the time comes? Will he say that, if this merger goes ahead, some 90 per cent. of
1282
all airline licences will be in the hands of one company, that it will have further licences which belong to airlines in which it has an interest and that, therefore, the death knell will soon be heard for the future of independent airlines?
Mr. Clarke: We have known within the Government about the possibility of this hid for about a week, but obviously we could not reveal that fact until the merger was announced at 8 o'clock this morning. That has enabled all these representations, including my hon. Friend's, to be made to the director general. He will weigh up all the competing considerations which have already been tumbling out within a few hours of the news going public. It will take perhaps a few weeks before he comes back with his advice to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concept of the Government having no policy. Can he tell us exactly when the Government started to have no policy on competition in the airline industry and, when they last had a policy, what it was?
Mr. Clarke: I said nothing of the kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If I got up at the Dispatch Box and began, on the Government's behalf, to give instructions to the director general about what his opinion should be on this hid which he is now considering, the whole House would rightly be outraged. It is now the statutory duty of the director general to consider this bid. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has no power to decide whether to refer this matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission until he has the director general's opinion. Certain sections of the House have reacted to what has been said in this moring's newspapers or on the radio and are already sounding off about a complex takeover bid which we have to consider in the correct way, which is the way laid down by statute. It would be improper for me to anticipate what my right hon. and noble Friend's decision might be.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this worrying episode makes it absolutely clear that there is a need for harmonised company law within Europe and deregulation in air transport to allow the emergence of transnational airlines? As that is not the case, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that a policy will be instituted which will permit genuine competition, at least on the domestic side, or the scheduled domestic carriers will soon be gobbled up?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend raises interesting points about transport and airline policy on which I am tempted to comment, but I suggest that he take the first suitable opportunity to raise them in the House with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who takes a proper interest in this matter and, I think, shares many of my hon. Friend's views.

Business of the House
3.43 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 20 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance
Bill.

Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order.

Motions on the Rate Reduction (Lothian Region) 1987–88 Report and the Rate Reduction (City of Edinburgh District) 1987–88 Report.

TUESDAY 2I JULY—Motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill (Procedure).

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill.

Motions on Ministerial salaries and Members' pay and allowance.

WEDNESDAY 22 JULY—Motions on the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order and the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations.

Afterwards motion on the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) (Amendment) Order.

Followed by Motion on EC documents relating to research and development in telecommunications. Details of the EC documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.

THURSDAY 23 JULY—Motions on Northern Ireland orders relating to water fluoridation, charities, latent damage and enduring powers of attorney. Details will be given in the Official Report.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

FRIDAY 24 Jun'—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.

[Debate on Wednesday 22 July
Relevant European documents:
(a) 5876/85 +ADD 1

Research and Development in Advanced Communications Technologies for Europe ("RACE")

(b) 10277/86
Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 5-xxi (1984–85) para 6 and HC 5-xxx (1984–85) para 6

(b) HC 21-xxix (1985–86) para 3

Thursday 23 July:

Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987

Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987

Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 Enduring Powers of Attorney ( Northern Ireland) Order 1987

Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987]

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
Before we rise for the recess may we have a debate on the Government's non-interventionist economic policy, with particular reference to the complete absence of
1284
Government responsibility for change when unemployment goes up by millions and the claim that credit is due to them when unemployment goes down by thousands?
In view of the fact that we shall probably rise before the Government have reached a decision on references with regard to the merger between British Airways and British Caledonian Airways, could we also have a further statement next week about the Government's attitude to references relating to the merger, so that we do not go into recess without a more precise definition of the Government's attitude than we have been able to obtain this afternoon?
Could we have a statement next week on the future of the European collaborative programme on advanced communications technologies? Will the Leader of the House ensure that, in such a statement, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry explains the Government's reasons for delaying the announcement of funding for information technology—the Alvey programme?
Before the House rises could the Leader of the House make arrangements for statements to be made by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment, which will give the former an opportunity to explain why the Government took the phasing-in of poll tax out of their legislation for Scotland earlier this year, and give the Secretary of State for the Environment the opportunity to explain why the Government want to put phasing into the English and Welsh legislation, whenever that appears? I am certain that that slight lack of consistency will have occurred already to the Leader of the House, if not to the Prime Minister.
Given that the Government's own advisers, the Social Security Advisory Committee, and many other bodies, cannot support the Government's proposals for the social fund under the social security legislation, will the Leader of the House also arrange next week for a statement, before we rise for the recess, from the Secretary of State for Social Services, to tell the House how he intends to modify his proposals in the light of the criticisms from the Government's own advisory body and many other professional and involved bodies?
May I repeat my request of last week that reports of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools be published before the House rises? Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance, in view of the possibility of those reports being published, that time will be allowed next week for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement on the findings of those reports?
Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have now agreed that there should be a Scottish Minister on the Standing Committee considering the Local Government Bill, in recognition of the considerable significance that that Bill has for Scotland and the people of Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman has raised eight points. He wanted a debate on economic policy. I cannot promise a specific debate next week, but I would have thought that, with a certain amount of ingenuity, some of the points that he raised could well be dealt with on Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday.
I shall refer the matter of whether it would be appropriate to make a further statement on British Airways to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall also refer the right hon. Gentleman's point about advance technology to my

1285
right hon. and noble Friend. It seems to me that the debate on Wednesday night might well cover some of the aspects of that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could arrange for a statement on what he sees as a difference in policy between the community charge as enacted for Scotland in the last Parliament and what he believes to be the view of the Department of the Environment now. All that I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I would not necessarily believe everything that I read in the newspapers. I shall refer his points to my right hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the DHSS and the social fund. I shall refer those matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the reports on schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I can give him the undertaking that they will be published before the House rises next week. I shall refer the question about what statements should be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Scottish Ministers. Following the points of order that were raised last week, I undertook to have the question of a Scottish Minister being appointed to this Local Government Bill Committee discussed through the usual channels. In the light of these discussions, I have agreed that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), should be a Member of the Committee to deal specifically with Scottish aspects of the legislation. As I told the House last week, there are of course, ample precedents for Committees on Bills relating to Scotland not having a Scottish Minister as a member. While I have acceded to the Opposition's request in this case, my agreement is without prejudice to the composition of any other Standing Committee that may be set up in future.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend take this parliamentary opportunity to deny categorically on behalf of the Government the report in The Independent this morning that a nuclear weapons test took place at North Luffenham in 1974 using radioactive material with a half-life of 25 years? Will he confirm that any such test would have involved a low-level material with a life of three to four months as described yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces?
Mr. Wakeham: I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and I can confirm that no such material was used and that the allegations in the article in The Independent to which my hon. Friend refers are completely untrue.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As a matter of urgency, will the Minister arrange for a statement, and preferably a debate, next week about the European Commission's decision to harmonise value added tax? The Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister appointed Lord Cockfield, a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in her Cabinet, for the prime purpose of harmonising the internal market, of which harmonising VAT and excise duties is a vital part. The Prime Minister has not given any assurance about using the veto against VAT increases on clothing, books and newspapers. A debate or at the very least a statement is important so that
1286
we can pinpoint the areas in which the Government will use the veto. A deal should not be stitched up after the House rises on Friday of next week so that when we come back the whole thing has been shuffled off between the Prime Minister and Lord Cockfield.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the substance of the matter. I regret that I cannot find time next week for a debate on the matter.
Sir David Price: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention that the departmental Select Committees should be re-established before the House rises for the summer recess; and if not, why not?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), are anxious that these Committees should be set up promptly. However. necessary preliminaries, including membership, have to be agreed first. The House appreciate that Select Committees proceed best with all-party agreement, and we should not lightly depart from that basis. We hope to make progress on further Select Committees later today.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Leader of the House agree that the four Northern Ireland orders which are unamendable and which the House will consider on Thursday are exactly the sort of orders that ought to be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee under Standing Order No. 99? Has he been able to find time to consider the representations I made to him about this matter? Does he accept that the decision not to reestablish the Select Committees before the summer recess is entirely that of the Government?
Mr. Wakeham: As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the decision was made by the Government, but it was done to seek all-party support for the Select Committees, which is the best way to proceed. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in making further use of the Northern Ireland Committee under our Standing Orders, as are other hon. Members, and I am willing to consider that.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his last answer? Does he think that the present procedures for dealing with proposed Northern Ireland legislation are satisfactory? Does he think it right that we should not be able to amend the greater part of the Northern Ireland legislation that comes before the House? Will he give further consideration to that point?
Mr. Wakeham: I am happy to confirm that I did not say that I would do other than consider those matters.
Mr. James Molyneaux: As to Thursday's business, is it not an affront that the House should be expected virtually to rubber stamp Orders in Council for Northern Ireland without any opportunity to amend? Is the Leader of the House prepared to give an assurance that he will seek to remedy that position before we return after the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the inadequacy, as he sees it, of the manner in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House. I am happy to talk to him about that to see what can be done, but I cannot give him an undertaking that an agreement can be reached.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Director General of Fair Trading will be severely handicapped by being unable to study the wise advice that would have come his way about the British Caledonian bid had questions been allowed to continue? Therefore, will he say when he expects to see the director general's report, and will he undertake that in the next Session we shall have a debate on aviation and competition policy in general?
Mr. Wakeham: The length of questions is not a matter for me. The report of the Director General of Fair Trading is made not to me but directly to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said, and I shall consider it.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the latest developments concerning the Peter Wright memoirs intensify the dangers of an infringement of the freedom of the press in this country? It would be monstrous for the House to adjourn and leave the matter unresolved. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide an opportunity for a debate, will he ensure that the Attorney-General makes a statement to the House next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that these are important matters, in which the Government have an important interest. The Government are upholding what they consider to be an important principle. I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my hon. Friend's announcement of yet another procedure motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill mean that the Government intend to ask their supporters to overthrow this morning's important ruling by the impartial Standing Orders Committee that progress on the Bill should be halted because of the violations of fair play and petitioners' rights? If that is the Government's intention, is this not the most shameful episode in a long history of dubious practices and downright cheating on the Bill with regard to individual petitioners, and does my right hon. Friend understand that there will be ferocious opposition to this alteration of Parliament's will?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this issue, as do a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I understand that the Standing Orders Committee met this morning and recommended that Standing Orders should not be dispensed with in relation to amendments made to the Bill in another place. In the view of the Government, it is essential that the Bill reaches the statute book before the House rises for the summer recess. Therefore, I propose to invite the House to reconsider the matter.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Leader of the House will be aware that, arising out of the Sampson report, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has this week ordered an inquiry into police procedure and organisation in Northern Ireland. In view of that, and as inquests have not yet been held on six people who were shot dead by that same police service in County Armagh in 1982, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on this important matter, which some of us may feel is more important than the debate on the fluoridation of
1288
water in Northern Ireland, which is scheduled to take place next week? Will he try to ensure that the Sampson-Stalker report is laid before the House for detailed debate and scrutiny because that is the only thing that will dispel the suspicion in relation to this whole sorry incident?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot promise him a debate next week. However, I will certainly refer the points he has raised to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Marshall: It is now 13 years since Turkish troops invaded Cyprus. In view of the hardship that that has caused, and in view of the interest of the United Kingdom in seeing an early solution to the problem, may we have an early debate on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dealing with Cyprus.?
Mr. Wakeham: I realise that it is an important matter and I will refer my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. However. I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to the reply he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the poll tax? He suggested that we should not believe what we read in the newspapers, but the fact is that we know that Scotland is to be a guinea pig for this tax. Will he bring his right hon. and hon. Friends together to ensure that we are treated equitably in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom? Is it true that the formation of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is being held up because of the Government's difficulty in finding sufficient Back Benchers for it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not have anything to add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition. It is not true that the only thing holding up the formation of the Select Committee is an insufficient number of Back Benchers.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend has received two requests today for further information with regard to the British Caledonian and British Airways proposed merger. He received one from the Leader of the Opposition for a full statement before the House rises for the summer recess, and one from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) for a full debate when the House returns. I do not think that the first suggestion is adequate, and I think that the second suggestion will be too late.
Surely the House requires an adequate opportunity for hon. Members who did not get an opportunity to express a view today, to express it fully before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reaches a decision on whether to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Will he give consideration to a short debate, even though it may be for only one and a half hours, before the summer recess so that we can make clear to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that we do not want the matter to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's strong views on this matter, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Leader of the House enlighten us about the conduct of the

1289
Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill that met for the first time this morning? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did attend, but he did not respond to any points made by no fewer than four Scottish Members. We were given an assurance by the Minister for Local Government that Scottish questions would be replied to from time to time as was seen fit, or words to that effect. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that that is an adequate response to the Scottish aspect of the Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that during business questions I should answer detailed questions about proceedings on Standing Committees upstairs. However, I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent the Government on that Committee will give adequate and excellent answers to the points raised.
Sir Ian Lloyd: In the context of my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), he will be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy has announced within the past fortnight that he proposes to have major legislation on the denationalisation of the electricity supply industry on the statute book in November. If the Select Committee on Energy is not reappointed, and since it is virtually the major vehicle of inquiry into such matters on behalf of Parliament, we will have a vehicle that is sitting without wheels and tyres until November and the opportunity of examining this major piece of legislation will not exist. Is this not a case of constitutional sack cloth and ashes?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend courteously wrote to me about these points and I appreciate that. I want to proceed as fast as I can, but I do not believe that I should proceed other than with all-party agreement as to the way we should proceed.
Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Leader of the House noticed the publication of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry about the United Kingdom motor components industry? Will he arrange for an urgent debate on the report in view of the apparent decision by Lucas Electrical to sell its automotive division to Fiat Motor company and other Italian companies on a piecemeal basis with a risk of further redundancies in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot arrange a debate next week. In any event, it would he better to proceed when the Government have had a chance to study the report and make their response.
Mr. Peter Rost: May I press my right hon. Friend further on re-establishing the Select Committees before the summer recess? Will he accept that it is an urgent House of Commons matter since the Select Committees have an obligation to report and work on behalf of the House? Some of them are anxious to get on with some urgent work, particularly the Select Committee on Energy in view of the pending legislation.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a House of Commons matter and that is why I am seeking to proceed as fast as I can, but obtaining agreement from both sides of the House.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion 111 which was tabled yesterday and signed by myself and 18 other hon. Members?
[That this House expresses its concern at the announcement that 9,000 staff are to be made redundant by British Rail over the next three years; recognises that British Rail receives a lower level of support both per head of population and as a percentage of gross national product compared with other European railways; in addition, believes that the Government does not sufficiently acknowledge the benefits offered by rail as a national asset; calls on the Government to ensure additional and adequate funding for British Rail; and further calls on British Rail to look carefully at its staffing policies in the light of possible revenue generation.]
Does he recognise that there is concern on both sides of the House that British Rail may be forced, because of the reduction in the amount of grant coming from central Government, to concentrate only on its profit-making services, leaving many thousands, if not millions, of people without a rail service that they can afford either in terms of availability or of the price charged? Does the Leader of the House consider that, given the status of British Rail as a national asset, the House ought to have an opportunity to discuss its future, especially in view of the recently published report of the Select Committee on Transport? We ought to have an opportunity to discuss this before the recess, and I ask that time be made available to debate this important matter next week.
Mr. Wakeham: I should like to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot offer him time next week. I understand that job reductions will affect managerial and clerical support and not jobs giving direct service to rail users. British Rail aims to make the reductions through natural wasteage and internal transfers. Nevertheless, I recognise that it is an important matter, and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: In view of the obvious importance of the subject that she will be discussing and of the admirable leadership that she is giving, will the Leader of the House make it possible for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House next week on her return from Washington?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that, if she wants to make a statement, I will make it possible.
Mr. Peter Snape: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and ask the Leader of the House when he will find time to debate the latest report from the Select Committee on Transport into the Alice-in-Wonderland situation within British Rail? Trains that arrive 10 minutes late are deemed to be on time, fare increases at six monthly intervals are deemed to be adjustments, reductions in PSO grant to the most under-funded railway network in Europe are described as tough but achievable, and the latest round of job losses will apparently include many grades except those of the chairman and members of the British Railways Board, which, together with incompetent Ministers, are responsible for this tragic and absurd situation.
Mr. Wakeham: I regret that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time for a debate next week. However, I know that he will use the opportunity on Monday to question the Secretary of State for Transport during transport questions.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I press my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House further on the question of the establishment of the Select Committees? He said that he is endeavouring to proceed with the agreement of both sides of the House, which I understand he has. The Chief Whip on the Liberal Benches is indicating his assent, and I understand that the Labour party also wishes to move ahead. May I remind my right hon. Friend that, without the establishment of the Select Committee before we leave this place for the summer, the Clerk's Department will be idle and will be spending a great deal of money? I am sure that that would offend my right hon. Friend's natural inclination to save money or use it effectively.
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that I am doing all that I can to set up the Select Committees. I shall continue to do so as best I can.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When will the House have time to discuss the serious and important evidence presented yesterday by the Committee of Public Accounts, condemning in remarkably candid language mismanagement and financial anarchy involving millions of pounds of taxpayers' money? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Office is condemned for showing no serious concern about the breakdown of management and control at the National Museum of Wales which has been going on year after year? How can we consider the possibility of giving the Welsh Office greater powers over efficient local authorities in Wales when it has been condemned in that document as being grossly inefficient?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a debate on these important matters will be the more useful when the Government have had a chance to study the report and to make a response.
Mr. John Townend: As the Member representing the eastern suburbs of the once great port of Hull, may I tell my right hon. Friend that the priority given by the Government to the regeneration of cities such as Hull has been warmly welcomed? Is he aware, however, that the biggest boost to the economy of areas such as Liverpool, Hull and Goole would be provided by abolition of the national dock labour scheme, which has played a significant part in the decline of Hull as a port? Is he aware that abolition would enable Hull and other northern ports to compete with Felixstowe and other non-scheme ports and private ports? Will he discuss legislation on those lines with his colleagues and at least provide time for a debate on a subject on which there is great feeling in the north of England?
Mr. Wakeham: These are very important matters and I will certainly refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy to make a statement in the House about the future of information technology research in this country? The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it will be possible next Wednesday to discuss research and development in
1292
the European Community, but is he aware that the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy in Manchester this week mean that there will be no matching programme of United Kingdom research and that we shall lose control of the United Kingdom element in any European programme?
Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. As I understand it, one of the most important aspects is to encourage the amount of private sector resources going into research as the Government are already putting in very substantial sums.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whether or not it is decided to phase in the community charge, the introduction of the national non-domestic rate will proceed on schedule as the north stands to gain substantially from rate reductions for business?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's comments, but I cannot anticipate details of the Bill before it is published.
Mr. Graham Allen: Given the difficulty experienced by the usual channels in setting up the departmental Select Committees, will the right hon. Gentleman consider removing any further embarrassment by allowing Back-Bench Members on both sides to elect Members of Select Committees directly, enabling them to be far more independent of Government and shadow Government and thus to carry out their role of scrutiny better than at present?
Mr. Wakeham: The Select Committees are appointed by the Committee of Selection. So far as I know, there are no Ministers or Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on that Committee.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in industry that the British space plans should be published as early as possible so that the many important projects that are under way can continue with some measure of certainty? Can he make any statement as to when the publication date will be announced?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to make any announcement, but I will see that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry lets my hon. Friend know as soon as possible.
Mr. Peter Pike: In view of the wide public concern about the Government's plans to privatise the water authorities, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Select Committee report on pollution of rivers and estuaries will be discussed by the Government and debated by the House before there is any further move towards privatisation?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the report. I cannot undertake here and now to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, but I will look into the matter.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I echo the request for an early debate on the membership of Select Committees? In view of the privileged position in which Scotland finds itself in terms of very high public expenditure and of greater per capita expenditure on the

1293
Health Service, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should always be English representation on Committees dealing with Scotland so as to keep an eye on the amount of taxpayers' money going to Scotland from the general Exchequer?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point and tempts me to try to organise a debate, but I regret that I must give him the same answer as I gave earlier.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the past couple of weeks there have been calls from Tory Members such as those from Bournemouth for a six-day week for miners? Will he arrange a debate on that subject between 24 July and 21 October? I am sure that people in the mining industry will be pleased to fill the public gallery if Members of Parliament are prepared to return to work during their three-month recess. Will the Government also accept a paper to read from Mr. Christopher Benson, chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation—a man who is supposed to be super-efficient and receives £27,096 per year for working a two-day week—as it may help Tory Members who think that miners should work six days a week while some of those Members are moonlighting all the time?
Mr. Wakeham: If I organised such a debate during that period, I should certainly be here and I imagine that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be here, but I wonder how many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would come along. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mr. Christopher Benson are in any way justified.
Mr. Skinner: It is in Hansard.
Mr. Wakeham: That gentleman has done a great deal to turn around the situation in the London docklands and snide remarks of the kind made by the hon. Member for Bolsover are not appreciated.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. We often receive answers that we do not like.
Mr. Skinner: The Minister did not give any answer. One of his friends——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to resume his seat.
Mr. William Cash: In view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Washington tomorrow, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate in the immediate or near future on the dangers of a trade war between this country and the European Community, on the one hand, and Japan and the United States, on the other, as the matter is becoming of ever grave concern?
Mr. Wakeham: Trade matters are very important and we shall have to find opportunities to debate them before too long, but I cannot go any further than that today.
Mr. Bill Michie: The Leader of the House has announced that on Tuesday we shall have the opportunity to debate the ludicrously high salary increases proposed for Members of Parliament.Will he give an assurance that in dealing with allowances we can discuss
1294
the allowances paid for secretarial and research staff, and so on, as that is far more important than whether Members of Parliament get a rise?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Allowances are paid so that Members of Parliament cart carry out their work efficiently. Those matters can, of course, be raised in the debate on Tuesday.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I remind my right hon. Friend that the Easter recess came and went and the general election intervened and that if the statement requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on the national space plan is not made before the summer recess it will be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, whenever it is established, should consider as a matter of urgency the decision-making process in relation to the United Kingdom space plans as there are clear signs that the Government either do not care or do not attach to these matters the priority that they deserve?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. I believe that this is an important matter and I shall certainly refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is there any prospect of an urgent statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs regarding the measures necessary to protect tourists against blatant exploitation because the law appears to be inadequate? If the Leader of the House would agree to walk through Parliament square, he would find that a vehicle is habitually abusing the law by selling goods at extortionate prices. Both the police and the local authority claim that they have no power to prevent this from happening. Surely the law should be strengthened and measures taken to protect tourists who are so welcome in this city and in this area of it.
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, I shall refer that to my right hon. Friend, but, as he is answering questions on Tuesday, that seems to be an opportunity for the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise the matter with him directly.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Before the House rises for the recess, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate and division on the question of the Government's lack of a democratic mandate in the nations of Scotland and Wales? Will he comment on rumours circulating in the House that both Front Benches are united in wanting to avoid a debate and division on this important topic facing the Scottish and Welsh peoples?
Mr. Wakeham: As far as I am aware, this is not a matter on which there is any agreement between the two Front Benches. It seems that the matter has arisen several times since we have returned from the general election and that the hon. Gentleman is most concerned that his view is not finding a great deal of favour.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the coal industry in the light of the comment of the Leader of the Opposition that he is now in favour of a six-day working week for the mining industry?
Mr. Wakeham: I note my hon. Friend's request, but I cannot promise a debate next week.

Business of the House
  Summer Adjournment
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that on the motion for the Adjournment on Friday 24 July up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers the subject of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next; a ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Prisons
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The House has from time to time been warned of the dramatic rise in the prison population. Last Friday that population stood at 51,029, nearly 4,000 more than a year ago and over 9,300 above the certified normal accommodation, which is the uncrowded capacity of the prison system. Six hundred and forty-eight of those prisoners were being held in wholly unsuitable conditions in police cells, so diverting police officers from operational duties.
The main reason for the latest growth in the population is the substantial increase in the number of offenders being dealt with by the Crown court and an increase in the average length of custodial sentences passed by the Crown court. Moreover, despite our efforts to reduce court delays, the number of prisoners held on remand has increased by about a further 1,000 over the last year to 11,000.
Those who commit serious offences should receive severe sentences. The Government have legislated to increase the sentencing powers of the courts where necessary, and the courts in their decisions have reflected public concern by passing longer sentences, for example. for rape and armed robbery. At the same time, we have made clear, most recently in our election manifesto, the need to strike a balance between tough sentences for those who pose a threat to society and lesser sentences for those who pose no such threat. Hence the emphasis which we have placed on tough and challenging alternatives to custody, to which the courts have responded with a substantial increase in the proportionate use of community service orders.
Sentencing decisions are for the courts, and the responsibility of the Government is to make sure that the decisions of the courts are not frustrated by a lack of prison accommodation. Prisons have to be places with the right levels of security in which prisoners can live, and prison staff can work, in tolerable conditions. The problem of overcrowding, and what it means in practice, is well known to any hon. Member who has visited one of our local prisons. We have 5,000 prisoners crammed three to a cell designed for one. A further 14,000 are doubled up. Virtually all these people are in their cells for most of the day, relying on pots and periodic slopping out for sanitation. Such overcrowded prisons are hard to control and, I would argue, more likely to result in re-offending.
This Government have invested record sums in the prison service. Expenditure on the service has increased by 34 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and the capital budget has more than doubled. The building programme already known to the House involves the opening of 20 new prisons as well as the refurbishment of existing prisons, and this will have delivered a total of 17,500 more prison places by 1995. The programme has been expanded in each of the last two public expenditure rounds. Immediately, the programme will produce some 3,000 new places in the 12 months from September. We are making every effort to maximise the use of the existing prison estate and I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the prison service in doing so. They are hard pressed and they deserve our

1297
thanks. However, in recent months the rise in the population has outstripped the supply of new places, as I warned in the debate on the Loyal Address and the gap between supply and demand looks set to grow wider still. The report by Sir James Hennessy on last year's prison disturbances, which I am publishing today, reminds us all of the delicate balance between order and disorder in our prisons.
Further action now is essential. That action must be enough to deal with the immediate problem and to prevent it from recurring. We must also preserve the momentum of our restructuring of working practices under the fresh start initiative.
I have therefore taken the following decisions. First, immediate steps are being authorised to secure the opening on a temporary basis of a camp for prisoners—Rollestone in Wiltshire—which will hold 360 inmates. This will be managed and staffed by prison service personnel. I shall keep the need for further camps or other additional temporary accommodation under close review.
Secondly, we shall also need a substantial expansion and acceleration of our plans to provide more prison places in the long term. We propose to set this in hand and I shall make a further announcement in due course.
Thirdly. I am sure that the skills and knowledge of the private sector have a bigger part to play in ensuring the speedy delivery of this accelerated programme. It takes too long to build a prison. I am, therefore, setting up a new prison buildings board within the Home Office, but with a strong outsider element to supervise the building programme and to exploit to the full private-sector techniques in bringing new prisons on stream. My noble Friend Lord Caithness will report immediately to me on further possibilities for using the private sector, following his forthcoming visit to the United States, in the light of the Select Committee's recent report.
Fourthly. I have considered, but rejected, using the power of executive release to ease the pressure of the prison population. Rather, I propose to lay amendments to the rules for prison department establishments, increasing the amount of remission dependent on good behaviour by those serving sentences of up to and including 12 months from one third to one half of sentence length. This is an interim measure, applying only to less serious offenders serving short custodial sentences and the period of remission is, of course, dependent on good conduct. It will remove the anomaly, criticised by the courts, that those on sentences too short to qualify for parole serve a higher proportion of their sentences than more serious offenders who are selected for parole. As it takes effect over the coming weeks it will help the present problem of overcrowding, to the extent of about 3,500 places, by relieving pressure, particularly on local prisons, and it will enable prisoners to be removed from police cells, thereby returning police officers to their proper duties of dealing with crime and preserving public order on the streets.
Fifthly, this measure is an interim one, pending a wide-ranging review of parole and remission arrangements. The operation of the parole scheme in relation to shorter sentences has, as I have said, been criticised, not least by members of the judiciary. In our manifesto we untertook to set up a thorough review of the workings of the parole system and of the arrangements for post-custodial supervision. I can announce today the setting up of that review, which will also look at remission, under the
1298
chairmanship of a distinguished former Member of the House, Mr. Mark Carlisle QC, with terms of reference which I shall publish in full in the Official Report.
The Government have consistently shown in deeds over the last eight years their commitment to the prison service and to resolving the long neglected problems of the prison system, including the lack of capital investment and the reform of working practices. The immediate pressure of the rise in the prison population means that we must amplify and extend that strategy. The measures that I have announced today on prison building, parole and remission, and the opening of Rollestone, are designed to achieve that.
Following are the terms of reference for parole review:
To examine the operation of the parole scheme in England and Wales, its relationship with the current arrangements for remission, time spent in custody on remand, and partly and fully suspended sentences and their effect on the time which offenders sentenced to imprisonment spend in custody after sentence; and to make recommendations on—

(a) whether a parole scheme should be retained as a feature of the penal system;
and, if so,

(b) its objectives

(c) any changes which should be made in law or practice affecting either eligibility or criteria;
or, alternatively,

(d) any different scheme which might be introduced to provide for release befor expiry of sentence, either generally or for particular categories of prisoners;
and, in any case,

(e) the possibility of prisoners released before expiry of sentence being required to perform work of value to the community, having regard to the relative cost and effectiveness of custodial and non-custodial disposals;
having regard to the need for—

(i) fairness and consistency in the treatment of prisoners;

(ii) a clear understanding of the relationship between determination of the original sentence by judicial decision and the proper limits of executive discretion in giving effect to it;

(iii) public and judicial confidence in any new arrangements that might be proposed;

(iv) the resource implications of any changes proposed

Mr. Roy Hattersley: First., let me thank the Home Secretary for the courteous welcome that he gave me earlier today and say how much I look forward to working with and sometimes against him in the years to come.
I should make it clear at once that the Opposition support the central proposal in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, namely, to increase remission for prisoners of good behaviour serving short sentences for minor offences. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that a month ago several of my hon. Friends warned him that some such action would have to be taken after the law and order rhetoric of the general election campaign was over.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how many police officers are today being used, or I might say misused, in the supervision of prisoners, and how many of those officers will be released to go about their proper duties as a result of his statement? On a more fundamental note, does he agree that it would have been far better if, instead of being forced to take action now to avoid a summer prison explosion, he and, more important, his two predecessors had taken more considered action to reduce the prison population in the past?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall—although, apparently, some of his hon. Friends do not—that the

1299
Opposition supported Government proposals both for Executive and for supervised release. Does he not now regret that Lord Whitelaw's unhappy experiences at the 1981 Conservative party conference made him back-pedal so desperately on at least one of those sensible proposals? I assure the Home Secretary that we very much welcome the inquiry into the parole scheme and hope that it will examine supervised, Executive and conditional release. We wish him well in implementing what may and, I hope, will be sensible conclusions arising from the report.
We know from the Home Secretary's speech at Grantham that he, too, believes that we send too many people to prison and keep too many trivial offenders in prison for too long, and we wish him well in his attempts to educate his colleagues to the same enlightened and practical view.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's technique is very different from that of his predecessor. He is trying to kiss me into oblivion, whereas his predecessor never made such an attempt.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, the Metropolitan police tell me that about 625 London police officers are being deployed on day-to-day duties connected with accommodating London prisoners, and that over 200 provincial officers are engaged in similar duties. Some other provincial officers, particularly in the north, are engaged in looking after provincial prisons. When my right hon. and hon. Friends consider the present strain on the police and on police manpower, they will understand that we cannot go on expecting the police to carry that extra burden.
The right hon. Gentleman, albeit courteously, displayed a good deal of cheek in the latter part of his intervention. What my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) had to do was to take courageous action to remedy the neglect that they had inherited. The Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served presided over a system under which crime was rising fast and the overcrowding of the prisons was already evident, but they did nothing about it. If a prison building programme of some substance had been started in the mid-1970s, when signs of the need for it were clear, we would not be facing the problems that we face today.
What my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessor Lord Whitelaw did was courageously to set about remedying that neglect. My right hon. and learned Friend actually accelerated the programme that he had inherited, and thank heavens he did, because we are now beginning to get some relief from the problem. We now have to accelerate the programme again, as well as expanding it.
It is not my job to say whether, in general, too many people are in prison in this country; that is a matter for the courts. What I do say—what we said in our manifesto, and have constantly said—is that the courts, taking account of the realities of the position, need to pay attention to a distinction which I am sure the public perceive very clearly. This is the distinction between those who deserve long sentences because of the severity of their offences or the danger that they represent to the public,
1300
and those who the courts may decide, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, could be properly punished by tough and challenging alternatives to custody.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Home Secretary feel any concern about the number of prisoners on remand, who represent more than 20 per cent. of the total in prison? Is that not unacceptable in the light of the presumption of innocence, and is it not time that we in England adopted the 110-day rule, which has served Scotland so effectively for 100 years?
Mr. Hurd: One should always be a bit sceptical when the Scots urge us to accept all their institutions. There is usually a link between one Scottish arrangement and another, and one cannot he accepted without the other.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know from the discussions on what is now the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that the Home Secretary has power by order to introduce provisions for time limits in England and Wales comparable to those in Scotland. He will also know that, after a period of trial, I have begun to operate different time limits in different parts of the country. I believe that that can contribute, although there will be no magic results, to accelerating the speed of the flow of justice, and so bring down the number of people held in our prisons unconvicted, which I agree is too high—about one-fifth.
Mr. Leon Brittan: I fully recognise the serious problem that my right hon. Friend faces, and warmly welcome the opening of Rollestone Camp to house prisoners. However, does he not agree that it is wrong in principle, and quite contrary to the rule of law and to everything that we stand for, to release convicted criminals prematurely—by whatever procedural means—not on the basis of an individual consideration of their cases, or because of the application of some new and more liberal penal policy, but simply because there is no room to house them? Does he accept that there will be considerable public disquiet at the prospect of some 3,500 prisoners being released prematurely, 630 of whom have been convicted of offences of violence or of sexual offences? Would it not be better to open more camps now than to hold out the prospect of doing so, as my right hon. Friend has done? Would it not also be preferable to make it clear now that what has been done is a one-off crisis measure,, which will not be repeated?
Mr. Hurd: The part of the package that deals with remission is certainly interim, as I said, and for the reason that I gave. May I take up the two specific issues raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, with which he obviously wrestled in his time as well? First, as he correctly observed, I did not rule out the use of additional camps or other temporary accommodation. In considering whether there should be further camps, I had to take into account a number of matters. First, as my statement and one of the exchanges that followed it showed, much of the problem is a result of the growth in the remand population. Camps are not a great deal of use in most circumstances, because unconvicted prisoners need to be held reasonably close to the courts where they are likely to have to be produced.
Secondly, I have to take into account the fact that camps are not a great deal of use, or can only be used, at great risk, for prisoners who could be a danger to the public. My right hon. and learned Friend will have read

1301
Sir James Hennessy's report on the disturbances last year, and he will have seen the dangers that were encountered at Northeye when people were in dormitory or similar accommodation and the situation got out of hand. I do not want to replicate that by opening camps and putting into them people who are unsuitable for camps.
Thirdly, I have to consider staffing. The prison service is stretched to its utmost. The facilities for recruitment and training are at full stretch. I believe that the House and the public expect the job of guarding prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons to be done by prison service officers. Therefore staffing, as well as the choice of sites, is a consideration.
Those are three factors that I, like any other Home Secretary, have to weigh up when deciding on the further use of camps.
I understand entirely my right hon. and learned Friend's point about remission, but it already exists. Unlike Executive release, we are not introducing a new principle. We are altering a principle that already exists in different forms in different parts of this kingdom. Remission is awarded only on the strength of good conduct. The fact is that 82 per cent. of those who might qualify for early remission under the proposal that I have announced are in prison for non-violent offences. As for the remainder, whatever the offence—for example, the pub fight or the street brawl—the courts thought that they did not deserve long sentences.
My right hon. and learned Friend will immediately have grasped that the greatest possible difference in the length of an individual sentence as a result of my announcement will be two months—no more.
Mr. John Wheeler: I support and understand the reason for my right hon. Friend's statement, but may I ask him to assist me over two points? First, will he confirm that the 630 prisoners whom he anticipates will be released sooner are offenders who committed very minor offences? I hope that we are not talking about rapists or serious offenders. Secondly, my right hon. Friend mentioned the improvement in and the expansion of the prison building programme and referred to the involvement of the private sector. Is he able to say how he thinks that will be carried forward?
Mr. Hurd: The relief that I expect as a result of the remission element in the package is 3,500. One cannot give an exact figure, because it depends on good conduct. I said earlier that 82 per cent. of those who might qualify for early remission have been found guilty of non-violent offences, and that the courts did not think that the remainder deserved a long sentence.
As for the introduction of new private techniques into prison building, I have announced the organisational change. We have already been in touch with a number of private companies which we think might be able to help. We are in touch with American experience, which has been triggered to some extent by the report of the Select Committee to which my hon. Friend contributed. After identifying a design, I hope that we shall stick with it and not nibble away at it in an effort to improve it. That is what I mean by acceleration of the programme. There is plenty of scope for acceleration, while preserving the required standards
Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Home Secretary accept that confession is good for the soul, that
1302
now is the time to say that everything that the Opposition told him was right and that the only reason why the Government did not sanction the release of large numbers of prisoners before the election was that they knew that it would be the final nail in the coffin of the most disastrous law and order policy that has ever been imposed on this country by any Government?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not follow through his own logic, ignore the more rabid voices behind him and introduce a conditional release scheme that is fairer and contains an element of control, which the increased use of remission does not contain? Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to peddle the fiction that he will not interfere with the sentencing policy of the courts when he, the Home Secretary, has a Bill before the House that gives power to hon. Members to refer lenient sentences? That means Members of this House, in response to public demand, will call for tougher sentences. Why does the Home Secretary not follow his logic home and abolish that proposal too?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is referring to our proposal for lenient sentences, which, so far from removing, we are proposing to strengthen. There was an exchange about that this afternoon at Question Time. I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that the general election seems to have brought about a loss of memory. That is perfectly true in his case, too.
The policy that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) revealed in March to The Independent is entirely different from anything that could possibly find favour on this side of the House. He proposed the stopping of the present building programme. I cannot imagine anything more destructive or irresponsible. He also said that, as a matter of policy, a Labour Government would bring about a reduction of the prison population by 20,000 in the lifetime of a Parliament. That seems to be a wholly unreal and destructive approach.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members consider that his proposals are both necessary and timely, but they will mean the early release of people to whom judges have given appropriate sentences for crimes of violence? Will he explain to the House why he cannot exempt from his proposals all offenders who fall within this category, but who have been sentenced for crimes of violence?
Mr. Hurd: I have considered that question, because my hon. and learned Friend was kind enough to put that point to me privately early today. I am not inventing remission. My hon. and learned Friend accepts that, and I think that the public would accept it, too. The law gives me no discretion to distinguish between different types of offender on the basis of the offence. Remission exists on the basis of good conduct and on the basis of the sentence passed, not on the nature of the offence. Therefore, I do not have the discretion to discriminate as my hon. and learned Friend wishes. In practice, even if I had the power, to do so would be very difficult. I repeat that a small minority of people who have been sentenced for offences of violence to 12 months or under might qualify for earlier remission. These are cases which the courts thought did not deserve longer sentences. I gave the example of the pub

1303
fight or the street brawl. The greatest possible difference in the length of individual sentences would be two months, no more.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Home Secretary not see a link between the economic policies that have produced so much unemployment and the greedy, atavistic policies espoused by his Government for this prison crisis? Will he elaborate on the private sector proposal, about which he has been very vague? He says that he has been in contact with some American area of activity. Does that mean that he will hand over the prisons to private contractors, or does it mean that he will use the industrialised building techniques that were recommended by his friend Geoffrey Rippon, which produced Ronan Point and all the other magnificent examples of private enterprise techniques?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first point was the platitude of the previous Parliament. He did not serve in that Parliament, so he does not know how platitudinous and often rejected that was. However, he did fight the election and he knows that the awful "crimeometer" was one of the flops and duds of the election. Therefore, I am surprised that he should rehearse that idea again today.
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong about privatisation. We are faced with a dangerous situation, which my right hon. Friends and I have been trying to remedy after a period of disastrous neglect, using the conventional methods of design, arguing with hon. Members in the House where a prison should be, taking into account the planning and the comings and goings, getting on with the design, renewing a design and interfering with a design. We have continued to improve as best we can all the conventional ways of proceeding. As I said in my statement, the procedure is too slow.
I do not think that there is a case, and I do not believe that the House would accept a case, for auctioning or privatising the prisons or handing over the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than Government servants. However, I do not think that we can afford to sit back and say that the way in which we have been doing things in the prison building programme is absolute and cannot be improved.
I was impressed by the Select Committee report. The accounts cited about the United States vary, and I do not say that we should be slavish followers of what happens there. However, it is our clear job in this dangerous situation to look around the world to see whether in this area, as in others, bringing private sector techniques to bear earlier and more vigorously can improve a very serious public sector situation.
Mr. Robert Key: With regard to the establishment of a prison camp at Rollestone in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be staffed by prison officers and that there will be no predictable effect on the requirements of the Wiltshire constabulary? What category of prisoners will be housed there?
Mr. Hurd: Rollestone will be equipped and designed as a category C prison, and that bears on the reply that I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). Obviously there will have
1304
to be discussions with the chief constable of Wiltshire as a matter of practical arrangements. However, I do not envisage asking the Wiltshire police to contribute to the manning of the camp. If I did that, I am sure that the police authority, the chief constable and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) would be on to me for more men at the drop of a hat.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that those of us who demand a high standard of protection for our people welcome the modernisation of our prisons, both for the morale of the staff and for the care of those who have suffered—quite justifiably in most cases—the deprivation of liberty?
The Secretary of State will be aware of a movement to transfer people to Northern Ireland. When speaking of remission, will he accept that there is something unfair in transferring people to complete sentences in Northern Ireland, where they receive a better approach to remission, while those who may be sentenced under Diplock courts and sent to prisons in England do not get the same facility? Does he accept that that kind of approach in dealing with remission causes unrest?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman represents a part of the United Kingdom where there is 50 per cent. remission at the moment, although there are no arrangements for parole. That is the kind of variation of experience that I would expect the committee of inquiry that I have announced to consider to see whether any lessons can be drawn. I can certainly send the hon. Gentleman the rules that apply to the applications that we receive from time to time, as he rightly said, for people to be transferred to prisons in the Province. He will know that the rules and criteria are strict. Most of the letters that I write on this subject explain why we cannot do that. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and set that out in greater detail. He can come back to me on that if he wishes to do SO.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend resist pressure for lesser sentences as a means of solving the problem? Is he aware that many of our constituents are deeply concerned about some of the lenient sentences that come out day by day from the courts? I congratulate him on the more robust prison building programme that he has announced and I commend that to him. I hope that in addition there will be considerably better pay and conditions for the prison officers who will man the new buildings.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right on his first point. The occasional what we might call "wayward" lenient sentence shakes public confidence in the criminal justice system, in particular at the upper or violent end of the scale. I believe that we need to strengthen the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill in that respect.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that we are in the middle of the biggest single reform of the prison service system for many years. We are trying to do away with the ruinous appalling over-dependence on overtime and get decent arrangements for basic salary and working conditions, and to settle the tasks in the prisons and how they are to be carried out. There was always a difficulty in introducing the fresh start reform at a time of overcrowding. However, if we had waited, we would have lost the opportunity. It would not have gone ahead. We

1305
now find that the prison officers are still worried about the limitations, but they have balloted overwhelmingly to support the reform. There is a great prize and we must press on, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave.
Mr. Tom Cox: In view of the reply that the Home Secretary has just given, is he aware that the morale of prison officers is now at an all-time low? Sadly, at all major prisons they are reading the small print in fresh start and they feel that they have no confidence in it. What will the Home Secretary do to build up the confidence of prison officers who at the end of the day will be responsible for running any establishment for which his Department has the overall responsibility?
If the Home Secretary is thinking only of privatisation for the building of new prisons, will the people who are to run the establishments be brought in at a very early stage of the planning and designing of those establishments? Very often the people who build those establishments never have to run them.
The Home Secretary referred to people being kept in police cells. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), the former Home Secretary, said in 1983 that that system would be ended. It has not been ended. Has the Home Secretary visited any of the police cells in London where men and women are now being kept?
Mr. Hurd: In response to the hon. Gentleman's last question, my answer is yes.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks gave an undertaking and carried it out. He undertook that the use of police cells would be ended, and it was. It has now resumed in my time, and I accept responsibility for that. It is thoroughly undesirable and has acted as a safety valve. However, there comes a time when the safety valve becomes dangerous, and that point has been reached in the use of police cells.
With regard to design. we must certainly consult the users. I went to what used to be RAF Lindholme, which my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary brought into the prison system several years ago. The users were consulted on the design for refurbishing that camp to turn it into a prison. The design there is admirable. Having made a decision, we must carry it out. We should not nibble away at it.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point about morale. There was an all-time low. However, when people realised that the opportunity for fresh start was substantial, they rallied round to it. I acknowledge that there are problems of implementation and timing and those are particularly serious in London, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If he follows these matters closely, he will be aware that we are in close discussions with the unions involved about how to overcome those problems and the useful progress that we have made in the past few days will, I hope, be underlined and reinforced by what I have had to say today.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Taking the five points in the statement as a whole, I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend on making some important proposals and on taking what must for him have been a very difficult and uncomfortable decision on remission. Is he aware that he inevitably places some of his friends and admirers in something of a quandary, insofar as we are hound to welcome the relief that the decision will bring to
1306
the police service and the prison service, while at the same time we are apprehensive about the consequences of releasing earlier than the courts have judged right a proportion of the offenders—perhaps 18 per cent.—who will have been convicted for crimes of violence or sex crimes?
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House, the police service and the public that this is an interim solution to a genuine crisis and that he does not intend to continue with it, without the authority of the House, beyond three or four years? Finally, will he reconsider the possibility of taking powers within the Criminal Justice Bill to enable examinations to be made of individual cases of violent crime so that he can overcome the problem of release that he has mentioned?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the spirit behind his question. I do not believe that what I said about remission will exist in isolation for as long as three or four years. I shall be discussing with my former right hon. and learned Friend, Mr. Mark Carlisle, the speed with which his inquiry will proceed. I hope that it will be concluded long before three or four years. As my hon. Friend said, this is an interim measure, but I think that the time scale will be rather tighter than he thought might be acceptable.
I understand exactly—my hon. Friend put it well—the reservations that must be felt about some parts of the package. The right hon. Member for Gorton and others say that we should not press ahead with prison building, and there are others who have understandable reservations about remission. It would have been possible to continue hoping that without taking action the immediate crisis would pass. It might do so, but I am not sure about that.
My colleagues and I came to the conclusion that we had to tackle the problem by finding a solution that would have a lasting effect. I believe that there must be a package. I do not think that supply side measures only, or measures directed only to the demand side of prison places, would produce an adequate answer. I hope that on balance, and with reservations that are understandable, the House will agree that the balance is right.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the business that will follow this statement, and we are likely to have a long night. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes. I ask for questions and not statements.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has given long replies.
Ms. Clare Short: I am sure that the Home Secretary's statement will be extremely welcome to the staff of Winson Green prison in my constituency. The conditions there are foul, and the conditions for the prisoners are the conditions for the prison officers. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the prisoners who will be released under the conditions that he has set out were convicted of trivial offences and that many of them have mental health and literacy problems? The real way to restrict crime is to apprehend those who are guilty, and that is not achieved by a substitute for a law-and-order policy that results in inadequate people being locked up for ever-increasing periods. That substitute policy does not help prison offices or prisoners, and it does not enforce law and order either.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is not correct. The prisoners who might benefit from remission are those who have been awarded relatively light sentences by the courts. That is the basis on which remission is calculated and awarded, and the only basis on which it can be considered by law. I shall not comment on the remainder of the hon. Lady's comments, because I have already been accused by some of her hon. Friends of going on for too long. We have had our exchanges on this "balance" often enough in the past and the hon. Lady knows why I do not agree with her.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is to visit Lancaster castle prison a week on Friday. He will find that over many years the governor and his staff have pressed into use every square inch of prison, but it is still overcrowded. Therefore, prison officers will welcome a reduction in prison numbers. However, neither they nor my constituents would want sex offenders, many of whom have been too lightly sentenced, to share in the scheme that he proposes.
Mr. Hurd: I look forward to visiting Lancaster prison. As I always try to do on such occasions, I shall set aside time to talk to members of the prison service unions, including the Prison Officers Association. They will make their points to me about overcrowding, as they always do. I have already responded to questions about the nature of offences and the nature of the powers that are open to me in altering the rules governing remission.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the major cause of overcrowding at Leeds prison is the many prisoners who are on remand? Will he say whether he intends to take any steps to reduce their number? It has been clear for a long time that Leeds is probably the most overcrowded prison, and I ask him to explain why we must wait until the 1990s for any new building projects at the prison.
Mr. Hurd: One of the most encouraging visits that I made shortly before the general election was to Leeds prison. I am aware of the high state of morale of those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who run the prison, and that, on the eve of fresh start, was extremely impressive.
It is for the courts to decide whether an individual should be given bail. It is reasonable to encourage the probation service to provide the greatest possible information so that the courts can make the right decisions. It is right to establish reasonable time limits where we can so that the process of justice is accelerated. It is reasonable to ask magistrates throughout the country to consider the reasons for the wide variation in the granting of bail. There may be good reasons for local decisions because of local circumstances, and that is a matter for local magistrates, but they need to establish to their own satisfaction that decisions are made on that basis.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a high proportion of my right hon. and hon. Friends regret his decision to release 3,500 prisoners early? First, early release trespasses upon the independence of the judiciary. Secondly, it reduces the deterrent effect of sentences that increasingly do not mean what they say. Thirdly, the form of the order reduces the opportunities for discussion in the House and for voting against the proposition.
Mr. Hurd: I did not expect to carry my hon. Friend with me on this occasion. It would have been possible for me to proceed only on the supply side and to announce more camps here, there and everywhere. I do not think that my hon. Friend has addressed himself to the realities, including what I have said about camps, which are not sensible on the whole for remand prisoners. Nor are they sensible on the whole for those who might be a danger to the public. The problem of staffing camps properly when the prison service is severely stretched, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said, and securely, which the public would expect, is a difficult one. I am not excluding the further use of camps, but those are the sorts of considerations that I must bear in mind.
Mr. Barry Field: Given the considerable increase in the prison population, will my right hon. Friend consider as a matter of priority bringing back into service A and D wings at Parkhurst prison? Will he consider also making an early change to the law to allow compulsory screening for AIDS in our maximum security and long-term prisons? As the Isle of Wight has one of the largest prison populations of any constituency, will my right hon. Friend consider making an early visit to my constituency to meet prison officers?
Mr. Hurd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on his arrival at this place. Even before the glad news of his election reached me I had arranged—I trust with his approval—to visit the prisons in his constituency during the summer recess. My hon. Friend is right to drew attention to the fact that it has taken too long to make the necessary security changes in a couple of wings at Parkhurst. That has been drawn to my attention, and we are getting on with the changes. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about that. Perhaps I could write to him about screening for AIDS. The issue does not arise immediately from my statement. I could give an answer off the cuff, but I might get the detail of it slightly wrong. As it is an important subject, that would be a mistake.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the sympathy that is felt for him by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself in his predicament over prison accommodation. He will be aware also of the support that he has had from the Opposition over having to release about 3,000 prisoners prematurely. I hope that he will be aware further of the deep feeling of Conservative Members about a system whereby people are sentenced to appropriate sentences by judges, only to serve a small proportion of them. I hope that in the long term my right hon. Friend will make adequate provision to ensure that violent and sex offenders serve their full sentence, not a proportion of it.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts that clearly, and he will know the thinking on the proposals that are in hand on lenient sentencing and maximum sentences and on several of the offences that he mentioned. Of course, there is a problem, which, as he rightly says, goes wider than the statement about remission and parole. Both of them offend against the principle that he proclaims, but both have been here for a long time. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks lowered the minimum qualifying period for parole, in a move that I strongly supported. The House knows that there continue to be problems and criticisms, which will not be removed

1309
by my statement, but will not be created by it. That is why, in our election manifesto, we proposed an inquiry, and that is why we are now getting on with it.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Might not an inquiry on this be counter-productive, when judges can look at all the circumstances of the case and simply increase sentences to take account of additional remission? Could not the splendid abilities of Mr. Mark Carlisle be better put to considering ways by which we might more effectively deter potential criminals from getting engaged in crime in the first place?
Mr. Hurd: The splendid abilities of the Government Front Bench, and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), are devoted to that second subject. There is a clear need to study the first subject, which is what I have asked Mr. Carlisle to do. My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the judges, but it is the judiciary who have been complaining about the present relationship between parole and remission. Their criticisms, expressed to me courteously hut forcefully for more than a year, led me, some time ago, to favour an inquiry, which will cover this whole subject.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public will not understand how it is that a Conservative Government, faced with overcrowded prisons, are about to release on to the streets thousands of convicted criminals and hundreds of violent criminals before their time is up? Is there not a strong argument for providing additional prison accommodation rather than doing what my right hon. Friend proposes? Is this not an error of political judgment?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is putting a point to which I have already replied. It would have been possible, although unrealistic and unproductive in the long run, or even in the medium run, simply to come forward with the part of the package of plans for expanding and accelerating provision for the prisons. For the reasons that I have given about timing, staffing and the limitations of camps, I would have had an easier afternoon if I had done that, but I would not have tackled the problem seriously.
As regards remission, my hon. Friend spoke about letting people out on to the streets before their time, but already the upper range beyond that about which I am talking has a system of parole and of remission of one third. I am making an adjustment at the lower end, for those whom the courts have not thought fit to award serious and heavy sentences. The maximum difference in an individual sentence as a result of this proposal is two months.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear carefully in mind those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call when this matter is next discussed.

Business Questions
5.13 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not consider myself a journeyman in the ways of this Chamber, so I must seek your guidance. Is it in order for an hon. Member during business questions to pose a carefully prepared question to the Leader of the House that elicits an equally carefully prepared answer? Neither question nor answer referred to the business of the House; it simply enabled the Leader of the House to make a governmental statement on a newspaper article on the day in question and to make a denial. Is this not a disorderly use of the proceedings of the Chamber? Is it not a practice similar to that which obliged you, Sir, only recently to admonish the Government for an abuse of the proceedings of the House? Would not a similar admonishment be proper in this instance?
Mr. Speaker: Business questions are traditionally wide. I have no foreknowledge of a question that an hon. Member may ask, nor of the answer that may be given to him. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during business questions I referred to the call by some Members of Parliament for a six-day week for the miners and to the need for a debate on the issue, especially when Tory Members of Parliament are just off on three months' holidays. During the course of my question I referred——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not continue business questions.
Mr. Skinner: I want to refer to Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. We cannot have a continuation of business questions. The hon. Gentleman asked his question and got his answer. I accept that it may be an answer that he did not like, but——
Mr. Skinner: It is not that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for me. Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is.
Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. Gentleman can make this a point of order for me, I will have to stop him.
Mr. Skinner: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that you have some responsibility for the Official Report. In my statement, I quoted the fact that the chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation received £27,096 a year for a two-day week. I said no more and no less than that. In his response, the Leader of the House said that I had said things that were not true about this chairman. I quoted from Hansard, column 135, on 7 July and I have made——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the House wish to clear this matter up?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a simple matter. The hon. Gentleman will know, when he reads Hansard, that I did not question the fact of the salary paid to Mr. Christopher Benson. I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said

1311
that the salary paid was not justifiable. Mr. Benson is worth every penny of his salary and he has done a great deal for the London docklands.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that this will not be a precedent for carrying on.

Sound Broadcasting
5.18 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help. I understand that the sound recording of the Home Secretary's reply to the first question and all subsequent exchanges were not forwarded to the BBC as is normal practice. Would you inquire how this came about and report back to the House? I understand this to be unusual, if not unprecedented.
Mr. Speaker: I will look into that, but I am not responsible for what the BBC transmits, thank goodness.
Mr. Mullin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is responsible for feeding the sound downstairs to the BBC. Therefore, it is not a matter for the BBC.
Mr. Speaker: I will look into the matter.

Sound Broadcasting
  BILL PRESENTED
    PUBLIC UTILITY TRANSFERS AND WATER CHARGES
    Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. Colin Moynihan and Mr. Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to confer powers on water authorities, electricity boards and the Electricity Council to act in relation to proposals for the transfer of any of the property or functions of water authorities or electricity boards to other bodies corporate; and to make provision for and in connection with the fixing of charges by water undertakers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

  Resolved,
  That the Duchy of Lancaster Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Further considered in Committee.
  [SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 80

      ROLL-OVER RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE FOR GAINS ON OIL LICENCES
      5.19 pm
      Sir William Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 45, line 40, leave out from `not' to 'an' in line 41.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will he convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in page 45, line 45, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) This section has effect in respect of gains or disposals made on or after 14th May 1987.'.
      No. 49, in page 45, line 45, leave out subsection (2).
      Sir William Clark: This amendment relates to roll-over relief. It is available to most industries in our fiscal system. Rio Tinto-Zinc challenged the Inland Revenue over whether it could deny roll-over relief, and took it before the special commissioners. The case related to the oil industry. The special commissioners ruled that RTZ was entitled to roll-over relief. The Inland Revenue then said, "All right, we will alter the law." If the Inland Revenue wishes to do that, it is fine, but I regret the fact that the Bill states that roll-over relief was never available to the oil industry. This is retrospective legislation.
      If a Labour Government had introduced retrospective legislation, we would be screaming blue murder. Ministers should alter this clause, preferably as I have suggested in amendments Nos. 48 and 49. Roll-over relief is available to other industries, and I do not understand why the oil industry should be singled out for this penal treatment.
      It is said that, since the Government grant licences to oil companies, they arc entitled not to allow them some fiscal advantage which is available to other industries. That cannot be correct. Although the Government issue licences to the oil companies, private enterprise exploits those licences. Had it not been for private money, North sea oil would not have been developed as quickly as it has been developed over the years. If the clause remains as it is, it will have an inhibiting effect on oil exploration in the future, which would be detrimental to our economy. The retrospective element is bad.
      I am heartened that one hon. Member said:
      "In my view, it is a most unsatisfactory principle"—
      he was talking about retrospection—
      "because of the degree of uncertainty it introduces into the affairs of the business men of this country which we legislators so constantly exacerbate. If we establish this principle of retrospection, we are on a slippery slope down which we shall be heading like Gadarene lemmings, and I am delighted to be on this side of the Committee in opposing the principle."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 June 1978, c. 747.]
      That was said by my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General. I know that he will not have changed his mind. Nor will my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the
      1314
      Treasury, who said yesterday in a debate on another clause that he was diametrically opposed to retrospection. At least two Treasury Ministers are on record as saying that they oppose retrospection.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recall the debates on the Finance Act 1975, which introduced capital transfer tax, and the complaints from Conservative Members that the tax would apply from the date of its announcement but the details of which would not be revealed until 18 months later?
      Sir William Clark: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I am trying to make, and I am grateful to him for jogging my memory and that of other members of the Committee. The Conservative party has always turned its face against retrospection. Perhaps the Government will say that the clause will not affect any company which has appealed before the date of Royal Assent, but only one company would be involved in that—Rio Tinto-Zinc—and the judgment was in its favour.
      What has happened to the other oil companies? When there is some disagreement between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue, it is a well-known practice to send the case to the commissioners as a test case. Other taxpayers wait until the result of that test case is known before doing anything about it. Indeed, when a case is pending, the Inland Revenue—it might be too brutal to say that it drags its feet—is in no hurry to settle the disagreement between it and the taxpayer. I hope that my hon. Friend will not argue that the oil companies had the opportunity to appeal. This is the test case principle.
      This matter is fundamental to the philosophy of the Conservative party and the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that in no circumstances should we have an element of retrospection. If the Government or the Inland Revenue wish to change their minds, they should change the law, but they should not make the law retrospective. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove the element of retrospection. I appreciate that time is short. Report stage of the Bill will be on Monday and Royal Assent must be obtained before the House rises next Friday. There may not be time to do as I suggest in this Finance Bill. But I hope that my hon. Friends will assure me that the Government will take the matter seriously and include it in next year's Budget. If they do that, it must cover past and future roll-over relief.
      I have kept my speech brief because we started late. I hope that the brevity of my speech will not militate against the seriousness with which my hon. Friend treats the matter.
      Mr. Tony Blair: There is general agreement that clause 80 raises some important questions in relation to the oil industry and retrospection and the principles that should govern the House of Commons when considering whether to pass retrospective legislation.
      We debated the principle of retrospection on an Opposition amendment to clause 62, but it is right to debate the matter again because there are significant differences between the considerations that affect clause 62 and those that affect clause 80. This case relates to the availability of roll-over relief for oil companies on the disposal of their business assets. In normal terms, the capital gains tax liability on the disposal of assets can be deferred or rolled over if the proceeds are used to acquire

      1315
      replacement assets. If a company sells its buildings, land or fixed plant or machinery, and uses the proceeds to purchase new land, buildings or fixed plant or machinery, roll-over relief is available. Deferral can usually be obtained until the replacement asset is disposed of.
      The difficulty in relation to oil companies arises on what happens to their licences, especially the process that is called farming out licences. I am far from being an expert on the oil industry, but I understand that farming out operates as follows. The Department of Energy awards a licence to an oil company. That company will complete its initial working obligations, which might include the drilling of one or more exploration wells. It might not make an immediate commercial discovery, so, to share the risk of continuing exploration and discovery, it farms out a share of the licence to another company in return for the further drilling expenditure being paid by that "farmingee"—if I can use that ugly word. I did not coin that word. It was used by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association.
      5.30 pm
      Company A may spend a certain amount of money on exploration, then decide to sell 50 per cent. of its licence to company B in return for company B spending a certain amount of money on further exploration work. The Revenue is insisting that company A, the original licensee, should pay immediate capital gains tax on the expenditure contributed by company B, the company to which the licence has been farmed out. That farm-out is considered to be a capital gain.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Surely there is no capital gain. If a third company is brought in, that company will take over the obligations of the initial company that obtained the licence. At the development stage I can understand that profit will accrue, but such profit will not accrue at the exploration stage.
      Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my argument. The Revenue considers that there is a capital gain, but the oil companies do not. That is the issue between them.
      When company A farms out 50 per cent. of its licence, it does not get any cash. Therefore, the oil companies believe that there is no capital gain and that it is perfectly right to defer liability. We are aware that the Revenue takes a different view. However, I believe that a test case was referred to the special commissioners by RTZ and judgment was given in favour of the company.
      Sir William Clark: I have already said that.
      Mr. Blair: I was listening, but it is important that the issues are made clear.
      It is not the case, as it was when we debated clause 62, that everyone had always agreed that a particular tax relief was not available, but then the special commissioners suddenly found a loophole so that that tax relief became available. The Financial Secretary argued for retrospection in clause 62 on that basis.
      I understand that the oil companies have never accepted that they were not entitled to this relief. The oil companies' understanding puts this matter in a critically different position from other areas of retrospection. It is not as though the test case in front of the special
      1316
      commissioners suddenly discovered a loophole that no one believed existed before. The oil companies have always taken issue on this matter.
      I welcome the Economic Secretary to this Finance Bill debate. If the oil companies have always argued that they should be entitled to this roll-over relief, the Minister cannot advance the same argument as was used in favour of clause 62. Many cases are pending, awaiting the outcome of the test case. The Revenue's position is curious because it takes a particular view. It will allow a case to go to a hearing. If it wins the case, it is perfectly happy; but, if it loses the case, it immediately introduces legislation to reverse the effect of that decision. What is the purpose of allowing the matter to go to court if the Revenue intends to introduce legislation reversing the effect of the decision, should it go against the Revenue? Many people are waiting to take their cases to court on the basis of the outcome of the test case. It is unfair that they should be prejudiced as a result of waiting for the test case to be heard.
      Can the Minister give us an idea of the sums of money involved? I have always made it clear that we do not regard the principle of retrospection as absolute in the sense that we are prepared to support the principle if the sums of money involved are large or there are extenuating circumstances. There must be a balance between the principle of retrospection and the funds that are involved in a particular case. We want to know whether such extenuating circumstances exist in this particular case. Is this retrospection in clause 80 simply in accordance with what the law has always been perceived to be, or does it directly affect the interests of a group of people and make the law retrospective contrary to their understanding of the law over a period of 22 years? Those important points require an answer.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has revealed an important point of principle. It is not clear which side of the Committee is responsible for the initial error. I remember that many years ago the Burmah Oil company took its case to the House of Lords and succeeded. The result was that legislation was passed to reverse that decision. A decision on RTZ was taken by special commissioner Judge Patrick Medd in April 1987, but now that decision has been reversed.
      Clause 80 has established an extremely bad principle for the international oil companies. Let us consider the case of Enterprise Oil, set up by the Government. In the countries where it operates licences abroad, whether it be Indonesia, the Netherlands, France, Italy, the United States or Canada, the farm-out of licences is not subject to tax. Therefore, it is not wise to establish a principle in the United Kingdom that can be avoided.
      This is a difficult period for small operators in the North sea and elsewhere as a result of cumulative tax levels. The tax on revenues at marginal rates works out at about 86 per cent. The notional capital gains tax under clause 80 will be a deterrent to exploration.
      The effect of a combination of falling prices, varying exchange rates and the escalating cost of equipment and services in the North sea has led to serious difficulties. In the past 12 months the price of crude oil has risen from $8 to $20 a barrel, but in sterling terms it has risen from £4·96 to £13. The smaller oil operators in the North sea have come out of the deal extremely badly. This is not the time

      1317
      to consider using capital gains tax in the way outlined in clause 80. The roll-over procedure, which was advocated many years ago, should be used.
      The retrospective element has been adequately dealt with in previous debates. I do not believe that there has been any tax avoidance. A case was brought before the special commissioners, and I believe that the judgment reached was realistic and equitable. Since the mid-1970s there have been roughly 200 farm-outs, of which only about 12 cases have been settled. There will be appalling difficulties for the industry and for the Revenue if all those farm-outs have to be settled in the next two years. Indeed, cases can refer back to 1965 with subsequent complications.
      I believe that the Treasury has failed to distinguish between farm-outs made during the exploration and appraisal period—that practice has accelerated the fullest exploitation of the North sea—and those made after the grant of annex B approvals at the beginning of development. If, for example, a company wants to sell an interest in the Forties field or wants to sell an interest in a production capacity to the Japanese it is right that it should fall for assessment for capital gains.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: I apologise to the Chairman and the Committee for not being present earlier. As we deal with the vexed question of annex Bs, can the hon. Gentleman, given his knowledge of the industry, tell us how many annex Bs are not applied for or are held up because of fears in relation to this clause?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I do not have the figures, and that fact can be put down to the Department of Energy. I should have thought that some had been held up, but not a great number. The Inland Revenue says that enormous profits can be made, but I believe that all this can be rendered nugatory.
      The risks and the uncertainties inherent in making an assessment today on future problems are shown in the RTZ case. The Inland Revenue had calculated a profit of £18·46 million which would be shared by the consortium, RTZ's share being £7·1 million, based on 35 per cent. interest. Those are fantastic figures and I dare say were matters of negotiation between the parties. On further assessment, the revised figures were £150,000, RTZ's share being £48,000. The arrangement that the Inland Revenue uses for its computations may impress hon. Members, civil servants and others, but it is pure guesswork. If it is pure guesswork, there is no reason why the exploratory elements operating in the North sea should be affected by it.
      I should like to emphasise some further points. There is no real gain at the exploratory stage if a licence is farmed out from A to B, because B will have to put in the money to develop the field. In many cases, there will be no discovery. If, as in one in 10 cases, there is a good discovery, it may mean that the field will be productive for the benefit of all. With roll-over, when earnings begin to materialise, the company will be in a position to pay. Front-end loading or commitment is totally unrealistic in respect of legislation. Front-end loading affects the cash flow of the smaller firms much more than the bigger ones. It is much more equitable for demands for CGT projections to be carried forward to the time when the fields come into operation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will consider my remarks carefully and bring about changes next year.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall make a brief contribution because many of the points have been made. There are two issues at stake. The first concerns retrospective legislation. During last night's debate on clause 62, the Financial Secretary made it clear that the Government did not like retrospective legislation and that only in certain circumstances would it be a good idea. One of his key points was about the fact that the taxation commissioners had overturned what he described as the "generally understood" position. The Financial Secretary made that point no fewer than seven times in his contribution on clause 62. He used "generally understood" twice, "widely accepted" four times and "accepted" once.
      As I said yesterday evening, I do not understand how the Government can possibly maintain their position on clause 80 if they follow the arguments used on clause 62. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this clause, there is no question but that there was substantial controversy about whether farm-ins were eligible for roll-over relief on capital gains taxation. It was not a "generally understood" position. If there were such a position, the industry would have felt that roll-over relief was available at least for certain types of farm-ins. If there is consistency in the Government's position on clauses 62 and 80, they will have the grace to withdraw or amend clause 80.
      The second issue is whether this is the right moment to tighten oil taxation. We have heard some oil price figures, but we should also consider the number of exploration and appraisal wells drilled. At the end of last month 22 exploration and appraisal wells were being drilled, substantially more than in the spring this year, when there were only 13. The number is much less than at the end of 1985, when the total was 50.
      5.45 pm
      The industry is in a severe state. Part of the responsibility must lie with the Government's headlong and unwise pursuit of low international oil prices. [Interruption] The Government encouraged and welcomed the decline in world oil prices. That was a mistaken policy for a major oil producer.
      At this time it is unwise further to tighten oil taxation and further to restrict the necessary flexibility of people farming in to oil licences. In a previous incarnation the Economic Secretary knew something about this industry, so surely he accepts that it is a good idea to have this flexibility. If a company has fulfilled its obligation and been encouraged by the wells drilled, although no definite discovery has been made, it is a good thing for another company to be allowed to introduce new capital for further exploration wells. Surely the Government do not want to reduce flexibility and lessen the ability of other companies, especially small ones, to have particular licences, discover new fields and therefore secure the industry's future. I very much hope that, given those arguments, the Government will revise their position.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I support the submission of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark). My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should be under no illusion that the oil industry believes that this is a not a very cumulative tax. Add to that the retrospective element, which goes back 22 years—it has not just happened in the past year or 18—months—and there is a double problem. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will recall, if he is prompted by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary,

      1319
      that when he was Secretary of State for Energy he commented to the Treasury that the implementation of the advance petroleum revenue tax was wrong in terms of its timing and measures. The Treasury did not listen but, 12 months later, it changed the law because it found that the oil industry was right and that the effects were detrimental to the industry.
      We are interested in further exploration in the North sea. Farming out has been a practice in some parts of the world, especially in the North sea, for years. The practice is not only well proven but helps small companies and British companies. If clause 80 remains as it is, the major companies will not be adversely affected. The Shells, BPs and Amocos of this world will be able to shrug it aside and carry on, but the British companies and small companies—the very ones that we want to develop—will lose. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I can be relatively brief because many of the arguments have already been deployed.
      The Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) for tabling these amendments, although I did not think that it was entirely gracious of him to seek to take the credit for the development of our offshore industry purely for private enterprise. He may well be more interested in taxation than in energy, but he should recognise that the public sector has been involved substantially. This is not an amendment or a cause that should he approached in quite so partisan a fashion, but it is right that we should consider the matter seriously.
      The fact that the response appears to have been rushed is serious. It is a rather spiteful and swift response, not made at a gracious speed, to a decision by the special commissioners that the Government find discomfiting. It certainly does not seem entirely reasonable that the measure should have been rushed through in this way without, apparently, adequate consultation with the industry. I am beginning to wonder—perhaps the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) shares my concern, to judge from his comments—whether the Treasury consulted the Department of Energy at all. The effect of the measure would surely run contrary to the interest and policy that have long been adopted by that Department. Its effect has already been described by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and other hon. Members, who recognise that the effect of the clause, if unchanged, will be to reduce the level of offshore activity.
      My concern is not really a fiscal one, but has to do with energy policy. The Government have an obligation to ensure that we maximise the levels of extractions from each field in the North sea. That requires substantial investment. A tax policy that deters investment will mean that the amount of oil that we extract will fall. While oil prices have risen, though not, perhaps, on the significant scale that some hon. Members may have expected, the Minister cannot deny—he has experience of this—that oil prices in the 1990s will rise more substantially than they have in the past year or two. If that is the case, the Government should try to ensure that such a level of
      1320
      investment is maintained offshore as guarantees the encouragement of tertiary extraction, orders for British industry and technology and the opportunity for British companies to which hon. Members have referred.
      All those aims will be embarrassed if the Government go ahead with this rather draconian step of retrospection. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) may be much more opposed to the principle of taxation than I am; perhaps I take a more austere view of the cause of taxation than he does. While I accept that retrospection seems harsh—and, accompanied by inadequate consultation, it is even more severe—I believe that the Government may well be giving my hon. Friends and me some ideas. The prospect of retrospection is obviously alien to a civilised society. On the other hand, I suppose that a new approach to the wealth tax, accompanied by some retrospective arrangement, might have some attractions, although I do not suggest that the Minister withdraw his clause for fear of that prospect.
      However, I suggest that the Minister does not go ahead with the proposals until there has been adequate consultation with the oil industry and the Department of Energy to establish what the estimated effect of the measure is in terms of long-term energy policy and of maintaining a viable offshore industry. If the Minister examines the matter from that standpoint, he will make significant changes to the clause. If not, the Government will stand accused—with justification—of acting in a high-handed and draconian manner that is contrary to the best interests of sensible energy planning and development in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Peter Rost: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark). Indeed, I could hardly fail to do so, having been a member of the Energy Select Committee in the last Parliament that spent the six months in the run-up to the election on a detailed and intensive study of the North sea oil industry, the effects of the lower oil price on declining activity in the industry and the problems facing it. We made a great many detailed proposals and recommendations and we are still waiting for a response from the Government. Naturally, we hope that the response in the Budget is not their only one.
      One thing emerged clearly from that detailed report. We took a great deal of evidence, including evidence from the Treasury and the Department of Energy. Although the fiscal regime was, in our view, reasonably fair at that time, we made one specific recommendation that relates closely to the amendment. The report was published during the general election and has probably not been fully noticed yet by the House, but it certainly will have been noticed by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, even if the Treasury has not taken much notice of it. Our report is certainly relevant to the amendment:
      "Although the system of North Sea taxation is not the one which, with hindsight, might be most desirable, we have no fundamental criticisms to make except to emphasise the need for the Treasury constantly to watch developments in the rest of the world and to ensure that North Sea taxation is never a disincentive to activity. During the present critical period, the government, if anything, should err on the side of the taxpayers rather than the Revenue. We broadly welcome the two concessions contained in the 1987 Budget, though we believe that it is arguable that both should have been somewhat more generous in the broad national interest."
      We now find that, at the last moment, the Treasury appears to have thrown in, not only retrospectively, but in

      1321
      a rather penny-pinching manner, a proposal that will undoubtedly have a damaging effect on continuing exploration activity. In view of the long lead times required and the slow-down in investment in the North sea that has already taken place, what is needed now, if anything, is a little pump priming by the Treasury rather than disincentives.
      The retrospective nature of the measure is bad enough. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury are well aware of the detailed workings of the oil industry; they understand what farm-outs are about, and that they are as much a part of the oil industry structure as, for example, reinsurance and some underwriting are at Lloyds, or partnerships or consortia are in the rest of industry. However, the Revenue does not seem to understand that. To propose to tax farm-outs for capital gains before the true nature of the reserves of oil have been proved as economic seems ludicrous. The proposal is unacceptable not only because it is retrospective, but because it would undoubtedly hinder further development in the North sea.
      The whole of clause 80 should be deleted until there has been more meaningful discussion with the oil industry to find a compromise. There are certainly plenty of precedents for proper negotiation, and the oil industry has always been prepared to come up with a compromise solution. In this case, it appears that the industry has not been properly consulted. Without amending or deleting clause 80, we shall be imposing a tax on the transfer of licences in cases in which no commercial discovery has yet been made in a way that will undoubtedly provide a major disincentive to further development. If there is not a major concession on this point, drilling activity will decline in precisely those critical years when we should be accelerating development in order to maintain self-sufficiency for the United Kingdom. If there is not a major rethink by the Treasury, the proposal will be not only counter-productive, but a penny-pinching, badly timed measure that is contrary to the best national interest.
      Mr. Douglas: I shall be extremely brief and I apologise again to the Committee for my lack of attendance.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury should know better, because he has had deep experience of the Department of Energy, and he knows that there are distinct differences between exploration and appraisal and the development stage. What would one be trying to do, either front the point of view of the nation's industrial and commercial interests or from that of future tax revenue? The measure would tie the oil companies at the exploration and appraisal stage. This clause is a backward step and would restrict exploration.
      I am not saying that the oil companies are not slick chicks and know how to manipulate taxation. On occasion the Government have been too generous in their taxation policy; I have made that plain. We are talking about trying to entice companies to specific licences in cases where either the consortium as a whole or one or two members on the licence have said, "We have carried out our exploration drilling, but we are in some difficulty and cannot go forward because of cash flow." They then look round to see if they can find someone who will come in. The company that comes in will not necessarily invest cash but may do something in kind. It will drill a couple of holes and get a share of the licence. That is totally in the national interest and seems a sensible way to proceed.
      1322
      6 pm
      I take it that all hon. Members received a note from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association. It talks about companies A and B and says:
      "'A' should pay immediate capital gains tax on the £10m expenditure contributed by 'B', which is considered to be a gain by 'A' on 50 per cent. licence disposal to 'B'."
      Does the company pay on the total £10 million? We must be clear about that.
      There is another vexatious problem about which one of the Ministers in the Department certainly ought to know better. Annex Bs are not given away like Omo gift coupons. They have to be analysed in great detail by the Department and the operator or the consortium that is operating the licence. It surprises me that apparently there have been no discussions on this matter between the Department of Energy and the Treasury. I plead with the Government, in the interests not only of the oil companies but of ensuring a much more even development of the North sea, to examine these matters and to have discussions with the oil companies. There is ample precedent for this.
      The original Bill on oil taxation was moved by Edmund Dell and envisaged that tax procedures did not start immediately. If my memory serves me right, they started at clause 10 which gave more time for discussion with the oil companies. That was under a Labour Government.
      These are delicate and difficult matters and the Minister will not cave in all at once under the pressure of the points that have been made. There are good technical and national reasons and long-term taxation advantages for not inhibiting the oil companies. If they are inhibited, it will inhibit the eventual tax flow from the development of the fields. The Government ought to know better and ought to behave much more sensibly.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley):I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) for giving the Committee the chance to debate the two most crucial aspects that are raised by the clause. They are obviously matters of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. They are the issue of retrospection and the question whether the refusal of roll-over relief inhibits exploration activity. I shall begin by discussing retrospection.
      Both the inland Revenue and the oil industry have proceeded for a number of years on the basis that oil licences did not qualify for capital gains roll-over relief. The industry did not like this situation. Indeed, it lobbied annually for the law to be changed to make gains on oil licences eligible for such relief. However, the very fact that such lobbying efforts were made illustrates that there was broad agreement about what the law was—if not about what it ought to be. For example, before the 1983 Budget the United Kingdom Offshore Oil Industry Tax Committee wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor saying:
      "CG rollover relief is not available under Sections 115–121 CGTA 1979 for a capital gain accruing on disposal of an interest in a petroleum licence … UKOITC propose therefore that the law he amended."
      Similar representations have been made by either Brindex or UKOITC before almost every Budget since then. In previous Finance Bills, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has put down amendments to change the law on these lines, as have my hon. Friends the Members

      1323
      for Havant, (Sir I. Lloyd), for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall). and for Bedford, North (Sir T. Skeet).
      There has been broad agreement about what the law is. The hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that there was considerable uncertainty about the law. I think that they were referring to another aspect of the capital gains law as it applies to oil licences. It is whether a gain arises on the transfer of an interest in an oil licence when no cash changes hands. That was in dispute until fairly recently, but a settlement was reached and the parties to the settlement agreed that a gain did arise and settled with the Revenue.
      Only one company continued to pursue a case with the special commissioners and, as has been recognised, that was Rio Tinto-Zinc. It pursued the separate point about whether such a gain was eligible for roll-over relief. The resultant decision by the special commissioners casts doubt on this long-established application of the law. In that case, the special commissioners determined that an oil licence could qualiy for roll-over relief. Of course, a ruling by the special commissioners applies only to the specific case from which it arose and could be reversed in a higher court. To allow the matter to proceed through the courts would mean a long period of uncertainty and litigation until the courts had determined whether, and if so in what circumstances, gains on oil licence transfers are eligible for roll-over relief. Therefore. the Government announced on 14 May their intention to introduce clause 80 to establish the legal situation beyond doubt.
      I well understand the odium that attaches to the word "retrospection". Changes in the law which retrospectively upset the established and accepted legal basis on which people have planned their lives clearly are odious. However, the clause has no such disruptive effect. On the contrary, it reaffirms the legal validity of the established and accepted understanding on which the industry and the Revenue have planned their affairs up to now.
      About £ 1 50 million of tax on past gains is at stake. The hulk of this arose from a comparatively small number of sales of interests in developed fields. If these amendments were accepted, they could possibly give rise to an unexpected windfall gain to the companies that sold their interests in a field, and a corresponding windfall loss to the Exchequer and taxpayers. That is not right.
      Mr. Douglas: The Economic Secretary should look carefully at the words that he is using. He spoke about "interests in developed fields." A cash flow could be available. It seems that the Minister is asking for tax to be paid at the exploration and appraisal stage and not at the development stage. There is a substantial difference.
      Mr. Lilley: That is an important point, and it is an important distinction that has arisen in the debate. As I recall, no hon. Member, nor the industry, has ever argued that there would be any economic benefit or industrial gain from allowing roll-over relief on developed fields. The practical consequences of capital gains tax roll-over relief on oil exploration are restricted to exploration licences.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South, for Bedfordshire, North, for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and many other hon. Members have drawn this distinction, as has the industry, and they have argued that
      1324
      the lack of roll-over relief may inhibit transfers of interest during the exploration stage. I agree that such transfers can be beneficial. It is in the public interest that licences be in the hands of those who are most enthusiastic to develop them and who have the cash to do so.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend has used a very blunt instrument—the Finance Bill—to bring about the change. What happens to the other 50 or 70 prospective claimants who feel that they have a case but who are not as lucky as RTZ? Will they lose out?
      Mr. Lilley: If my hon. Friend will contain himself, he may find that there is good news in store for them.
      It is desirable that there is no unnatural inhibition of transfers at the exploration stage, not only because we want licences to be in the hands of those who have the greatest interest in developing them and the greatest ability so to do, but so that companies can spread the risk where appropriate.
      My hon. Friends pointed out that, typically in these cases, no cash gain arises when a company farms-out in return for the farmer-in agreeing to undertake a programme of work on the block.
      Having listened carefully to what hon. Members and the industry have said in the consultations that we have had recently, I am persuaded that a distinction could be made. However, it is not one that can sensibly be sorted out in the compass of this Finance Bill. Accordingly, while we believe that clause 80 should be enacted unamended, I propose to discuss further with the industry over the coming months the possibility of introducing some form of roll-over relief for gains, past and present, on work programme farm-outs at the exploration phase where no cash profit is realised. If those discussions are fruitful, and I cannot guarantee that they will be, the legislation could not be introduced until the spring 1988 Finance Bill.
      I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon. South, Bedfordshire, North, Northampton, South and Erewash (Mr. Rost), as well as Opposition Members, will find that this goes some way towards meeting the points that they have made, and 'that it will reflect not only the work that they have done on the clause this year, but the efforts that they have made in previous years to obtain such relief. I hope that in the light of that my two hon. Friends who have tabled amendments will feel inclined not to press them.
      Before I sit down I shall respond to some of the points that have arisen in the debate. It was suggested that the oil industry is not entitled to roll-over relief, but that is not the case. Roll-over relief is available for plant and equipment in the North sea. It is only in regard to oil licences that there has been a general understanding that it was not available.
      Another point was whether the RTZ case that was before the special commissioners was a test case. It was not in any sense a test case. The other parties that had been involved in the earlier case as to whether a gain arose had settled, accepted that it did and had not pursued the question whether they were entitled to roll-over relief. As far as I know, there are no outstanding claims for roll-over relief from any company in the North sea, other than the company that is protected by a subsection of the clause.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North suggested that as a result of the main provisions of clause 80 the law would be affected as far back as 1965. Because

      1325
      there is normally only a six-year period during which back claims can be made, it merely alters the situation for the past six years. If the potential concession that I have announced is satisfactorily agreed, that would apply only to roll-over relief on developed fields.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North also mentioned that gains at the exploration stage were guesswork. There is an element of estimation, but, as a result of the change in the process of estimating gains that has recently been announced by the Inland Revenue, partly following the settlement relating to whether gains arose, the measured gain will be smaller than was previously thought to be the case.
      6.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked whether UKOOA's statement that oil companies would have to pay the full £10 million was correct. Under the recently revised method of valuing farm-out concessions, that is not correct. It may become hypothetical or academic, but they will be liable only for a fraction of the £10 million, which reflects the probability of success.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned the Select Committee report, in which he played a distinguished part. The Treasury has found that valuable and we have read it with care. He will note that the representations that were made to him confirm the general point that I was making, that the industry did not have any doubts about the existence of the law on roll-over relief and that it did not express any doubts about the uncertainty attached to it. That reinforces the general point that I was making with regard to retrospection.
      I hope that that covers most of the specific points that have been made.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: The concession that my hon. Friend has given is helpful and practical. In view of that, I do not intend to pursue my amendment. It has been a useful debate and the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said.
      Sir William Clark: We have had an interesting debate and it has shown the advantage and value of such debates.
      As the House knows, I am a consultant to Texaco. These debates are valuable because they demonstrate how the implications, technicalities and fiscal changes that harm the industry are sometimes overlooked by the Inland Revenue. I say that with the greatest respect to the Revenue and I am not trying to denigrate it in any way.
      With regard to retrospection, the assurances that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has given go a long way. In view of the unequivocal assurance that in next year's Budget we will have a clause that gives roll-over relief to the exploration element of the industry and that it will not only apply from 1988, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 81

      COMMODITY AND FINANCIAL FUTURES AND OPTIONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Blair: I have a brief question on clause 81. It concerns the gains that are made on over-the-counter
      1326
      options and on the futures exchange. As I understand it, over-the-counter options mean the grey market in these options or in futures. The Economic Secretary will tell me whether that is right or wrong. Whereas these were previously taxed as income under case VI of schedule ID, they will now be taxed as capital gains, which is a more beneficial tax treatment for the investor. Is the Economic Secretary aware of the cost of that tax change? Will he tell us why this has been brought forward now, bringing the over-the-counter options in line with the law on other options, and why it was not done before?
      Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was not intending to cast aspersions on the over-the-counter market by suggesting that it was grey. The distinction is between options carried out on a recognised exchange and those that are usually tailor-made and not regularly traded on an exchange but worked out for particular customers. There has been a distinction in the tax treatment between the two, partly because the tax treatment of traded options was related to the fact that they were traded on an exchange.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost. I understand that the cost of the change will be negligible. None the less, it will be beneficial to those who produce the tailor-made options. The reason for introducing this clause now is that it is possible to follow the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 in regulating these sorts of options and to use that framework to extend the tax treatment presently accorded only to those on exchanges to the tailor-made options as well. For that reason, the clause will not come into effect until the Financial Services Act regulatory framework is in force.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 83

      FAILURE TO MAKE RETURN FOR CORPORATION TAX
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Blair: It may be helpful if I say one or two words about this part of the Bill, which will introduce a system of automatic penalties in relation to corporation tax and the pay-and-file system in an attempt to introduce sonic of the recommendations of the Keith committee. In essence, we support the structure of the scheme and have no objection to it. It will mean that the payment of corporation tax is speeded up and, therefore, that the tax system will work more efficiently.
      I want to return to something that we raised on several occasions when we were debating value added tax and the proposals of the Keith committee in relation to that, the absence of any power of mitigation in relation to the fines that will be imposed. There may be amendments to clause 84 that raise a similar point, so perhaps I can speak about that later.
      One of the great dangers of introducing a system of automatic penalties without mitigation is that the justice that we are introducing is a little rough. We have had the experience of the value added tax system of automatic penalties being applied without any process of mitigation being allowed. It is fair to say that that has caused widespread concern. The Opposition have made several

      1327
      attempts to secure some provision for mitigation of those penalties. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far. I should be grateful if the Minister can tell us whether similar representations have been made in relation to the penalties to be introduced for corporation tax. Will he explain exactly why we cannot allow some system of mitigation when, especially with corporation tax, we could be dealing with large sums of money? There is a basic principle that if penalties are to be imposed there should be some attempt to allow a board of commissioners to consider mitigation in circumstances where it is clear that the offence was the result of inadvertence. The difficulty now is that businesses may be subject to considerable fines without mitigation being available. That cannot be in the interests of anybody. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that.
      As I said, we are generally in favour of the structure of the implementation of the proposals, but the absence of a power of mitigation is a grave drawback to the corporation tax proposals in the same way as it was for value added tax.
      Mr. Bruce Millan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in all that he said. It is convenient for the Revenue or, in the case of VAT the Customs and Excise, to have these standard penalties inserted into the legislation. However, as my hon. Friend has said, they can sometimes operate unfairly where there is no demonstrable offence or negligence on the part of the taxpayer but where there may simply be inadvertent neglect, if one can use that expression.
      The absence of mitigation is a fault in the legislation. What my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said about VAT is true. The fixed penalties have given rise to considerable concern. I hope that we shall have some indication from the Minister this evening that the question will be looked at again and not only in relation to this clause.
      Mr. Lilley: I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for the general structure of pay and file which will be a considerable advance for taxpayers when it is introduced, although that will not be until April 1992. It is intended to overcome the incredibly complex problems in the existing system where there is no direct obligation on companies to file their accounts. About two thirds of companies go to appeal before accounts are extracted from them by the Inland Revenue. It is possible to make an assessment only then.
      We have decided to simplify that by introducing pay and file, the essential principles of which are that companies will have an obligation to file their accounts within 12 months of the end of the accounting period. After nine months they will have an obligation to pay their self-assessment of tax due. Interest will be earned if they overpay when the final assessment is made and interest will be incurred if they have underpaid in their original assessment.
      It is important that we move to automatic filing of accounts so that the Revenue can reach an agreed assessment of the tax due. To achieve that, it is necessary to have fixed penalties. A phased system of penalties is proposed. After a delay of between 12 and 15 months the penalty will be £100 flat rate. After a delay of between 15 and 18 months the penalty will be £200, after 18 months
      1328
      and up to two years it will be £200, plus 10 per cent. of the underpayment of tax when eventually worked out, and after two years it is 20 per cent. of the underpayment of tax.
      We have avoided mitigation for three reasons.
      Mr. Blair: Is it not the case that there can be automatic filing and automatic penalties and that that can still lie easily with a system of mitigation? Is it not the case that, if a small company were to make a tax return incorrectly, it could still be subject to stringent and draconian penalties?
      Mr. Lilley: These clauses deal solely with the filing, not the payment. Any penalties that arise out of the clauses are due to late filing. The system of penalties relates to that. There is not so much of a problem with over and under assessment because that is dealt with by the automatic interest payments. In any case, that is dealt with in later clauses of the Bill. Therefore, we are dealing with penalties for late filing of accounts to the Revenue.
      Powers of mitigation have been avoided for three reasons. First, companies have the right to plead a reasonable excuse for not filing their accounts. If that is proved, there will be no penalty, assuming that they eventually get round to filing accounts. Secondly, we have set the maximum penalty below that suggested by the Keith committee. Thirdly, the penalty is lower than that which is theoretically available under the present system, which could be as high as 100 per cent. of the tax underpaid.
      6.30 pm
      Because we wish to avoid a situation in which everyone goes to appeal, we cannot have a system of mitigation. If it were open to the special commissioners to mitigate the penalty, there would be nothing to stop everyone lodging an appeal on the offchance and we should be back in the present situation in which 430,000 appeals are lodged every year.
      Mr. Blair: The argument that if mitigation is allowed everyone will wish to mitigate is the classic argument of bureaucracy, and we should be extremely cautious about accepting it without challenge. The same could be applied to the "reasonable excuse" get-out. On the whole, people do not seek to use such provisions if they have no argument to put. It is argued that the way to deter appeals is to have a system of automatic penalties without the power of mitigation, but one must balance the interests of the Exchequer in getting the tax in properly with those of the taxpayer.
      In relation to VAT, there have undoubtedly been cases of real and substantial injustice, to the extent that the president of the VAT tribunal has said that the law should be changed to allow for a power of mitigation. That tribunal does not expect to be flooded with unnecessary appeals as a result. I wish to put down a marker about this as we have raised the matter many times before and will doubtless do so many times again. We must be careful of moving to a situation in which bodies have power to levy substantial penalties but in which there is no power to graduate the amount of penalty according to the turpitude to the offence.
      Mr. Lilley: As I said, the penalty is automatically graduated in terms of the delay in filing the accounts. As delay is the essence of the offence, there is an element of automatic graduation.

      1329
      The experience with VAT has given rise to the hon. Gentleman's concern. He will know that a review of that system has been promised in advance of the 1988 Finance Bill. Doubtless any lessons which come out of that review will be taken into account in a wider context.
      Mr. Milan: The Minister says that the taxpayer could plead reasonable excuse, but I do not see that in the clause. Could the Minister say where it appears?
      Mr. Lilley: It is a feature of the Taxes Management Act and is automatically incorporated in this.
      Mr. Blair: The Minister referred to the review in relation to VAT. Was he implying that the lessons of that review would be applied to automatic penalties in relation to corporation tax?
      Mr. Lilley: They would not be applied unless there were a logical relationship leading us to do so, but clearly we take all reasonable matters into account all the time.
      Sir William Clark: The taxpayer may plead reasonable excuse, but the Inland Revenue will be judge and jury in deciding whether the excuse is reasonable. I shall deal with mitigation on a subsequent amendment. Under this clause the penalty is imposed for failure to file accounts, but there is no pressure on the Inland Revenue to agree the computation within a certain period. Given the current backlog of work, is my hon. Friend satisfied that when these provisions become operative the Inland Revenue will be able to deal expeditiously with the accounts?
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. In the first instance, the Inland Revenue will decide whether an excuse is reasonable. However, if a company objects to that ruling, it can appeal to the commissioners. It can take the matter to appeal on the question of reasonable excuse.
      Under the pay-and-file system, there will be an incentive for the Inland Revenue to deal with matters expeditiously because if a company has overpaid the Inland Revenue will have to pay interest on the money that turns out to have been paid in excess of the due assessment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 84

      ASSESSMENT OF AMOUNTS DUE BY WAY OF PENALTY
      Sir William Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 53, line 1, leave out from 'assessment' to the end of line 7 and insert—
      `or may reduce it to such an amount as they consider appropriate having regard to the provisions of that section and all the circumstances of the case; and
      (b) if it appears to them having regard to all the circumstances of the case that no penalty ought to be awarded, may set the assessment aside.'.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James Lamond): With this it will convenient to take amendment No. 61, in page 53, line 7, at end insert—
      '(6A) In any appeal against an assessment by way of penalty under section 94 of the Management Act unless the Commissioners are satisfied on the basis of lawful evidence provided by the inspector or any representative of the Board and by or on behalf of the taxpayer that a penalty has been incurred they shall set the assessment aside.'.
      Sir William Clark: The amendments need not delay us for long, because much of the ground was covered by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in the previous debate.
      There is no power for anyone to mitigate the various fines, although I appreciate that there is some scaling of the fines in relation to the delay in filing accounts. In the recent VAT tribunal case of Gailey, Jackson and Pook, the chairman of the tribunal described section 15 of the Finance Act 1985, which contains the automatic penalty provisions, as follows:
      "The section is draconian in that it imposes a penalty of 30 per cent. without power to any authority to mitigate, without reference to the amount of tax lost to the state and, indeed, without reference to the justice of the matter".
      That is a severe indictment of fixed penalties, because all cases are not the same. I accept that interest will be payable in the event of overpayment or underpayment, but I do not accept the argument that thousands of people would appeal if mitigation were possible. They do not do so in the normal course of events when assessments are made under the present system. People do not automatically appeal in relation to ordinary computations. They may appeal to protect their position, but very few cases go to the special commissioners or to the general commissioners. The matter is settled before the appeal comes up. A case goes to the commissioners only if the taxpayer appeals against an assessment but does not provide accounts and cannot prove that the assessment is wrong.
      In all justice, it is a bit much for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that there is to be no mitigation of penalties simply because the Government or the Revenue believe that everyone would appeal. That has not happened in practice, and I see no reason why it should now.
      On amendment No. 61, if one appeals against an assessment in the normal course of events, it is up to the taxpayer to prove why that assessment is wrong. If the Revenue, under the penalty procedure, says that there is a penalty and makes an assessment of that penalty, does the Revenue have to prove it, or does the taxpayer have to disprove it?
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend referred to a criticism that applied to the original Keith committee recommendations, rather than to the modified version incorporated in these provisions. We have responded to that criticism by reducing the maximum proposed penalty from 30 to 20 per cent. of outstanding tax and by increasing the time before it becomes applicable. Therefore, a longer delay is allowed before any penalty comes into force for the non-filing of accounts, and the penalty is less than it was. Theoretically, the present maximum penalty is up to 100 per cent. of tax and obviously that is much more liable to require some degree of mitigation.
      Sir William Clark: The chairman of the tribunal said that 30 per cent. was draconian. My hon. Friend says that it has been reduced to 20 per cent., but that is still draconian.
      Mr. Lilley: Clearly it is less so, and it becomes applicable much later. This problem of appeal which my hon. Friend suggests is unlikely to be serious could become important and there could be widespread appeals. The practice of going to appeal already stands at about 400,000 cases a year, so we are not talking about small numbers

      1331
      of people who are in the habit of appealing. We cannot be sure that they would not continue this habit even under a regime where it was less appropriate.
      Mr. Blair: We must he a little careful. The Economic Secretary talks about people in the unfortunate habit of appealing, but they are perfectly entitled to appeal if they feel that their interests have not been properly considered. We should not necessarily think that everyone who appeals is attempting to abuse the procedures.
      The two amendments deal with the question of litigation and we have substantially dealt with that, but I wish to pursue a matter arising from amendment No. 61. I thought that in effect the commissioners, on appeal, would have to be satisfied that a penalty should have been incurred. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether that is the case. Or is it the case that at present the duty is on the taxpayer to show that a penalty should not be incurred?
      Mr. Lilley: When the hon. Gentleman said "at present", did he mean in the clause as it stands, or under the present regime?
      Mr. Blair: Under the amendment.
      Mr. Lilley: I am not criticising the practice of appealing. It is almost built into the present structure of corporation tax and it has become established practice. However, I would regret its continuing under the new system, because it is partly to avoid the necessity of that that we are introducing pay and file. It would be sad to create a new system under which appealing was legitimate and so people did it. If mitigation was built in, obviously it would be open to people to lodge an appeal, because they would stand some chance of having their penalty mitigated. They stand to lose nothing, except in trivial cases where the cost of lodging an appeal may not be worth it.
      In answer to the question about the onus of proof, the Revenue must prove that a penalty is applicable. It must demonstrate that the filing had not been made by the relevant time. In that regard, the amendment probably has no effect. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) that the onus of proof remains where it is now and the Inland Revenue will have to prove that it has gone through the relevant processes of showing that a penalty is applicable.
      The amendment could require the Inland Revenue—it would depend on how the amendments were interpreted by the courts—to prove, for example in the event of a plea of reasonable excuse, that the company had no reasonable excuse: that is, not that a specific excuse was not reasonable, but that it had gone through all reasonable conceivable excuses and could prove that the company did not have one. Obviously, that would be extremely unsatisfactory, and I am sure that it is not the intended consequence of my hon. Friend's amendment.
      6.45 pm
      Sir William Clark: In view of the current investigation and review, which will be completed before the next Budget, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 85 and 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 87

      INTEREST ON TAX OVERPAID
      Sir William Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 56, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      'In relation to a repayment of income tax falling within subsection (1)(b) above the material date is the 15th day following the end of the period specified in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 20 Finance Act 1972 in which the corresponding payments referred to in subsection (1)(b) above fell to be received.'.
      The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 26, in page 56, line 49, at end add—
      '(9) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, where income tax is set-off against corporation tax under section 240(5) Taxes Act 1970, it shall be treated as a repayment of income tax made on the material date for payment of that corporation tax'.
      No. 27, in clause 90, page 60, line 6, after 'assessment' insert
      'For the purpose of this subsection, income tax deducted at source from income received shall be deemed to be corporation tax paid on the material date in section 87(3)'.
      No. 28, in clause 90, page 60, line 17, at end insert
      'this subsection shall take precedence over section 240(5) Taxes Act 1970'.
      No. 29, in clause 95, page 62, line 25, leave out subsection 3 and insert—
      '(3) Except in relation to sections 87 and 90(5) for which the appointed day shall be 6th April 1988, no day may be appointed by virtue of subsection (2) above which falls earlier than 31st March 1992'.
      Sir William Clark: These are probing amendments. The effect of amendment No. 25 is to ensure that the early payment of tax by companies through the deduction of income tax at source from the receipts of interest is fully recognised by the new interest on tax overpaid regime. Amendment No. 26 is necessary to give effect to that.
      Amendment No. 27 is to give corporate taxpayers the same right to recover an excess of tax paid by deducation of tax at source as they would enjoy if that pre-payment had arisen through an excess of corporation tax paid.
      Amendment No. 29 accelerates the date to after 1 April 1987 instead of the existing words.
      If my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary can answer those points, I am sure that we can proceed with the rest of the Bill without further delay.
      Mr. Lilley: These amendments would fundamentally alter the structure of the existing tax system, virtually abolishing the system of deducation of tax at source for companies. This would have serious effects. In the first year it would cost the Exchequer more than £1,500 million, more than £1,000 million of which would go to the chief beneficiary—the insurance industry. Naturally, this is a cash flow effect and I am not suggesting that it would permanently increase the cost to the Revenue by that amount.
      I can see the analogy that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) draws between the interest charges on pay and file and the delays in payment inherent in the position particularly of the life insurance industry which can claim back tax paid at source on income that it has received. However, I do not think that the analogy is sufficiently close. Certainly it would not be appropriate to pursue the change in this Bill.

      1333
      Our proposed interest charge under pay and file is viewed as a commercial restitution in the circumstances where a company accidentally overpays tax against what is eventually assessed. Likewise, if it underpays tax, it will have to pay a measure of restitution for underpayment. That is different from the sort of timing difference which is inherent in taxation at source, which my hon. Friend wants to seek compensation for or alter altogether. I understand his point, but I do not think that it would be appropriate in this Bill to consider changes that would affect the Revenue so substantially.
      Sir William Clark: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 89

      PRESCRIBED RATE OF INTEREST
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Blair: Clause 89 enables the Treasury to fix the rate of interest from time to time as it wishes. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary would tell me what practice the Treasury intends to pursue. Will it be the same as it is at present?
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. We intend to consult widely on the appropriate structure of interest rates within pay and file, and that consultation will begin shortly. The Government have no fixed view. It will, of course, be important to ensure that the system is both workable and fair, and is as widely agreed within the industry as possible, while at the same time meeting the needs of the Revenue, but we do not approach it with a fixed idea in our mind.
      Sir William Clark: After consultation, let us suppose that it is agreed that the interest chargeable is one, two or three points above base rate, or whatever is thought reasonable. If we hypothesise a charge of two points above base rate, which today would give a rate of 11 per cent, would it. not be unfair to keep the rate at the previous level—particularly if the base rate came down'? I think that a month or two after the base rate comes down the interest charge should come down by the same amount.
      Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly bear that in mind. If there were too great a difference between the rate applied and that prevailing in the market, problems would indeed arise. We should have to take such considerations into account when reaching a decision.
      Mr. Blair: I should like to pursue the point a little further. Presumably at present interest is simply loaded on to whatever corporation tax is unpaid, and that is fixed by the commissioners in some way. How is it done? I am a little concerned about the Treasury fixing the interest rate. We are told that there will be consultation on the proper basis on which that is to be done. However, the whole structure of the provisions in the Bill is to put considerable power into the hands of the Inland Revenue or the Treasury, which will be making the assessments. There will be automatic penalties, and the prescribed rate of interest will be fixed by the Treasury from time to time.
      1334
      What concerns me is that there will probably be very little opportunity for us to debate the outcome of the change in structure. When the Treasury decides the prescribed rate of interest, will we have an opportunity to decide whether it is correct? The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has raised a fair point. Will the rate be one, two or three points above the base rate? The difference between those figures could he millions or even hundreds of millions of pounds. It is important that we obtain clarification and are given some assurance that any Treasury decision on the prescribed rate of interest will be made only after the widest possible consultation, and that we shall have an opportunity to comment after that decision.
      Mr. Lilley: At present the interest rate is determined by statutory instrument placed by the Treasury. In theory, the House could object every time that the interest rate is changed. I understand—although I will correct this if I am wrong—that we will be able to establish a system that must be agreed by the House rather than the present pattern in which rates are altered by statutory instrurnent. However, that point may have to be clarified.
      Mr. Blair: It would be helpful and worthwhile if we were given some opportunity to assess the mechanism that the Treasury intends to use. The Economic Secretary has put his finger on a significant change. At present, through statutory instrument, we can vote against the Treasury's decisions. Presumably that will change when we have agreed to the new method of assessment. The Treasury will then be able simply to change the rate of interest, and there will be no opportunity to dispute it after we have agreed that method.
      Mr. Lilley: One option that will have to be considered is a differential between interest rates. At present the differential relates to the time when interest becomes payable. It is payable after six months if the company underpays, and after 12 months if it overpays. Although there is currently the same rate of interest, there is no symmetry between the two. If there were symmetry, there might be a possibility of round tripping, and so forth. I do not wish to mislead the Committee by suggesting that just one rate of interest will necessarily result.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 90 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 6 agreed to.

    Clause 96

      INTERESTS IN POSSESSION
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Blair: We have debated the principle of inheritance tax and the Government's reduction in it before, and I do not wish to rehearse old arguments. Last year the Government abolished inheritance tax on lifetime gifts between individuals. Clause 96 will extend that abolition to lifetime transfers into and out of interest in possession trusts—effectively, any trust that is not discretionary. I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary would tell me how much the abolition will cost, and whether I am right in thinking that it is primarily the better off who will gain.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The cost of the new relief is negligible. Although it may be affected by behavioural changes, we do not believe that it would be significant.
      Mr. Blair: Am I right in thinking that when the Treasury says "negligible" it is referring to the same principle as it uses in the Red Book, which is less than £5 million on an annual basis?
      Mr. Lamont: I am not sure that that is the same principle as that which is used in the Red Book, but it would fall within the definition of "negligible". If I can add to the definition of "negligible", I shall let the hon. Gentleman know. I do not know whether he wants me to confirm his understanding of the clause. As always, he interpreted it perfectly correctly.
      7 pm
      We are extending to transfers into interest in possession trusts the principle of potentially exempt transfers. That is because we recognise that many businesses and a great deal of the heritage are held in interest in possession trusts. This change was urged on us by various professional bodies. Having looked at it, I came to the conclusion that it was justified. I know that my hon. Friends are very much in favour of it, too. However, it is necessary for the change to be carefully buttressed with anti-avoidance provisions. It is emphatically not our intention to extend the principle of the exempt transfer to other trusts, such as discretionary trusts. We have stopped here. We were subjected to a great deal of pressure to extend exempt transfers into all sorts of trusts, but we have said that there are special features about interest in possession trusts. We have included the anti-avoidance provisions in the schedule so that it stops here.
      Mr. Blair: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. I am happy to have the assurance that the abolition of inheritance tax will stop here. If the Treasury were to exempt transfers into discretionary trusts it would open up a huge loophole for avoidance.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    SCHEDULE 7

      INHERITANCE TAX: INTERESTS IN POSSFESSION
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 93, line 14, at end insert
      `and
      (d) that, within six months of the coming to an end of the relevant interest, any of the property in which that interest subsisted has neither—

      (i) become settled property in which a qualifying interest in possession subsists or to which section 71 below applies, nor

      (ii) become property to which an individual is beneficially entitled.'.

      As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out a moment ago, clause 96 and schedule 7 seek to restore the parity of treatment between life interest trusts and outright gifts made by individuals—an essential element of the old capital transfer tax legislation that was lost on the introduction of inheritance tax in 1984.
      I warmly welcome the changes that the Government have introduced in the Finance Bill. My right hon. Friend pointed out that had he gone further there would have
      1336
      been the prospect of considerable avoidance, and schedule 7 seeks, in a complex way, to prevent that from taking place. Were it not for schedule 7, property could be routed through life interest trusts to discretionary trusts. That could be misused in a variety of ways, two of which I shall mention by way of example and for the edification of the Opposition. The first is the so-called Chelsea pensioner scheme, whereby property is settled on somebody who is not expected to live for very long. The second example is the so-called man of straw scheme, under which property is settled on a person for life; but the trustees are given wide powers to appoint the property into a discretionary trust and thereby get around the limitations of life interest schemes.
      Schedule 7 is targeted accurately at these avoidance devices. My small amendment does not seek to disturb the safeguards against abuse in schedule 7. Many people, however, have come to the conclusion that, as drafted, schedule 7 is too wide and does not conform with the practice of trusts, particularly in relation to heritage property where life interests in possession are the normal way of passing on such property and of safeguarding it for the future.
      When property is settled on somebody for life, the terms of the trust often allow for some flexibility for appointment in the trustees, in case the life tenant dies prematurely. The trustees are allowed a short period—conventionally six months—in which to decide whether to appoint to a further life interest or to transfer property into absolute ownership.
      My amendment would allow the trustees a short breathing space before making the appointment without fear of being caught by the complexities of schedule 7. If my right hon. Friend wants a precedent, there is one in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. Section 92 provides for the case where property is not treated as transferred on death until the beneficiary has survived for a given period that cannot exceed six months. The costs involved for the section and the schedule are negligible. If my small amendment were to be accepted, the cost would be even less. I commend it to my right hon. Friend and hope that he will accept it.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: My hon. Friend referred to the principle of parity between lifetime giving and giving to trusts that existed under the previous regime before the introduction of inheritance tax. He has called in aid that principle for this amendment. I am prepared to respond favourably to it.
      Although the principle of parity applied under the old regime, we do not feel that that principle should be incorporated into all trusts. We have made lifetime giving tax-free, provided the donor survives for seven years. Therefore, we did not feel that it was right to make that provision for all trusts. We have conceded that principle for interest in possession trusts, but we do not intend to extend it to discretionary trusts. Last year we made it possible for accumulation and maintenance trusts to be included in the potentially exempt transfers. The basic reasoning behind this, and my hon. Friend's amendment, is that the trust has a function as an instrument that is independent of any tax advantage. We do not wish to destroy the trust as an instrument. That is very important in relation to interest in possession trusts.
      My hon. Friend's amendment provides an opportunity for trustees who are caught by the anti-avoidance provisions in schedule 7 to rearrange matters so as to avoid

      1337
      the special rate of charge. If an interest in possession that was created by a potentially exempt transfer comes to an end within seven years of the exempted transfer and the property then becomes subject to discretionary trusts, which would be the normal route that might be used for avoidance, the termination may be subject to a special rate of charge instead of the normal rate, if the settlor is still alive. The amendment would prevent the special rate from applying on that termination if, within the following six months, the property is made subject to another interest in possession trust, or passed to outright individual ownership or to an accumulation and maintenance trust that already qualifies for exempt transfers. The normal rate charge will, however, remain.
      My hon. Friend's proposal has the merit that it would prevent people who have made perfectly proper trust provisions, with no avoidance motive, from being inadvertently caught by the special rate of charge. Without that a trust which provides for successive interests in possession at the trustees' discretion would be caught if an interest in possession ended prematurely, perhaps on the death of the life tenant, before the trustees appointed a successor. The amendment will allow trustees to make the appointment within six months after the life tenant's death without incurring a penalty.
      I am content to accept my hon. Friend's amendment. My hon. Friend alluded to men of straw, bed and breakfasting and other contrivances. We have built substantial anti-avoidance provisions into schedule 7. We will monitor the operation of my hon. Friend's amendment very carefully for signs of abuse. I do not believe that counter-measures will be necessary. However, if they were, we would not hesitate to bring them in.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 97

      ACCEPTANCE IN LIEU: CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX AND ESTATE DUTY
      Mr. Milian: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 63, line 22, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      We are dealing with a case where property is transferred in settlement of capital transfer tax and the property has a value attributed to it at a date earlier than the date that the property is actually accepted. At present, the clause nevertheless provides that interest may be charged from that earlier date. It does not make that mandatory, but it allows the Revenue presumably to determine or argue that the interest should he payable although the value of the property is as determined at the earlier date.
      This is a case of the Revenue in certain instances trying to have it both ways. The logical position would be that if the value of the property was determined on a particular date, no interest should be payable from that date. The effect of my amendment would simply make that the position rather than allow what seems to be the present case in the drafting where there is an element of discretion on the part of the Revenue.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: In the Budget and the Finance Act 1987, before the election, we enacted provisions whereby property could be offered in lieu of tax—that provision already existed—but we said that the interest calculation could be from the point at which the property
      1338
      was offered or the point at which it was accepted. Previously, it had been from the time when the property was accepted and interest ran to that point.
      The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we gave the person offering the property the opportunity of having interest stopped at the point when the property was offered and he would have that choice. He would have the choice of a longer period of interest or the benefit of a possible higher value on the property over a longer period of time. That provision was enacted in respect of inheritance tax and it already exists in legislation. That legislation uses the word "may" to which the right hon. Gentleman objects. Clause 97 has only a minor function in that it mirrors the provisions to which I have referred, but in respect of pre-1985 capital transfer tax and estate duty. It has only a very narrow provision. If we simply alter the word "may", the right hon. Gentleman's amendment will not alter the provision with respect to the new tax. That is a minor reason against the amendment.
      7.15 pm
      I am not violently opposed to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. It is born of a little distrust of the Revenue which seems to inspire some of these debates, I do not believe that substituting the word "may" for the word "shall" will mean that the Inland Revenue will not operate the policy announced in the statement of practice which was announced to the House. The question is being deliberately left open so that it will be negotiable along with other terms for the acceptance. The acceptance transaction represents a purchase by the Government at a negotiated price, and the interest terms are part of that price.
      In general, the offerer's options will remain open until the item is formally accepted, but I agree with those who have said that interest relief should be available only for bona fide offers. I do not think it would be right to allow the "offer date" basis to remain open indefinitely. That might encourage people to procrastinate in order to exploit the new arrangements—for example. by continuing to enjoy income from the property. We envisage that after two years have elapsed from the date of an offer without the terms being settled the Inland Revenue may give the parties six months notice that it will no longer be prepared to accept the item on the "offer date" basis. This was announced in a Revenue press release on 8 April.
      However, we do not want to rule out the possibility of a property being accepted on the basis of its value as at a date earlier than that of the acceptance even when waiver of interest is not appropriate because the two-year period has been passed. That is the only reason why the word "may" rather than "shall" has been used. We might seek to negotiate and be generous to the taxpaper who may wish to negotiate on the basis of the "offer date" value because the current value is less. That is why the word "may" has been used. We have a statement of practice. The policy was announced, and that is the only way in which the Revenue intends to exercise its discretion. I hope that my words in this debate will have some effect. I am not violently opposed to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
      Mr. Milian: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I appreciate the points that he has made about this being a matter for negotiation. On the basis of what

      1339
      the Minister has said and in the hope that the Inland Revenue will in practice apply the provisions in that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 98 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 8 agreed to.
      Clauses 102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 18

      OPTION TO COMMUTE ANNUITY RIGHTS FOR A LUMP SUM
      'It shall be permissible for the trustees or managers of a scheme which is an approved scheme under the provisions of Section 18 of this Act or which is an exempt approved scheme under the provisions of Section 21 of the Finance Act 1970 to amend the rules of the scheme so that a member of the scheme may after the completion of not fewer than ten years as a member commute up to one-quarter of his rights under the provisions of the scheme for the immediate payment of a lump sum which shall be liable for taxation in the same way and to the same extent as a lump sum payable at the normal date of award of benefit under the scheme:—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Some time ago when the concept of personal pension schemes was under general discussion it was suggested in some quarters that it would be a good idea if this facility could be made available as a build-up of a personal identifiable asset available for discretionary use at any time during the beneficiary's lifetime. The idea did not find favour because it was not thought acceptable that the beneficiary could perhaps lose what was intended primarily as a retirement benefit through taking advantage of the right to draw the capital out at any time. The Bill does not, as I understand it, give any facility for the lump sum in a personal pension scheme to be drawn out before the normal age of retirement.
      The object of my new clause is to give a partial option—a one quarter option—to the member if he requires his capital after a period of 10 years in the scheme. I think that it would be quite appropriate to allow this in the case of personal pension schemes and I can see no particular reason why it should not be permissible in all occupational pension schemes where the amount of money standing to the account of the member can be identified.
      The clause would permit the extension of the facility to make a part commutation of the entitlement to annuity at the time of retirement so that the ability to draw a lump sum becomes available to the member after 10 years' membership of the scheme. If the lump sum is taken early in this way, it will reduce the amount of the eventual retirement annuity, but no more than if the lump sum were taken at the normal date. The clause partially changes the nature of a pension scheme so as to turn it into a savings scheme with a potential somewhat wider objective than a pure retirement benefit scheme. I can see no objection to that.
      It is right to encourage savings and provision for emergencies as well as for retirement. If a man in middle life sees an opportunity to embark on a new venture or needs to have access to capital because of some emergency,
      1340
      is it not natural that he should be permitted to withdraw the money immediately from the fund which is accumulating for his benefit? My 10-year limit would prevent the abuse of the tax-haven status that we are offering to the schemes, which is founded on the principle of save now and pay tax later.
      I am not suggesting that withdrawing a lump sum in the way that the clause would permit should have any special tax advantage for the beneficiary. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends know that I personally believe that the withdrawing of a lump sum, in so far as it is acquired through contributions made in future years, should be taxable at the standard rate. The clause does not make any special provision in regard to taxation. The object is to widen the facilities available to savers through occupational pension schemes, and I believe that it should commend itself to the Committee.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: As has happened on many other occasions during our consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has come forward with a new idea. We have been running hard to keep up with all his other ideas. Although we are digesting many of them and will talk to him about some of them, I cannot accept the new clause. I have no doubt, however, that as with his other ideas the drip, drip process will continue, and that in years to come we shall find ourselves wondering why we did not accept his ideas earlier.
      As my hon. Friend has said openly, the new clause would, in essence, convert pension schemes into the form of a tax-sheltered savings medium. My hon. Friend has emphasied that pension arrangements take the form of a tax haven, but the rules governing them, especially when Finance Bill proposals are in place, are designed to ensure that a pension scheme is used for its intended purpose, which is to provide a replacement income in retirement when paid employment ceases.
      The objection to the new clause is that it would allow any individual, no matter what his age, to withdraw a lump sum. He could take a part of his benefit at any time after completing 10 years' membership of the scheme. A person who joined a scheme at the age of 20 years could have a sum equal to one quarter of his benefits to date at any time after the age of 30. Although my hon. Friend expressed his reservation about the tax status of the lump sum, as he has done in all our debates, there would be benefit from the tax privileges even if we changed the taxation of the lump sum in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. I do not need to repeat what has been said about that and how that would be a radical change.
      The new clause would turn occupational pensions and personal pensions into highly tax efficient savings vehicles that in many ways would compete with other forms of savings and investment. I do not think that that is a role that pension schemes, which benefit from generous tax reliefs, should fill. I always think about my hon. Friend's ideas and, as I have said, we shall have discussions with him about some of them, but I cannot commend this one to the Committee and I do not expect my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept it.
      Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I recognise the force of some of my right hon. Friend's arguments. On the other hand, there is an urgent need to encourage the savings motive as far as we possibly can. The country is not saving

      1341
      nearly enough, and we should not turn down any opportunity that is likely to be popular of encouraging people to save. Nevertheless, I have not put enough work into the drafting of the new clause to seek to insist that the Committee should accept it. I understand fully the arguments that my right hon. Friend has used. In the circumstances, I am glad that I planted the idea—I do not think that it is a new one—and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 9 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered.

  British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Order for Third Reading read.
  7.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As the House will appreciate, we debated the Bill at some length a week ago. I think that it would be inappropriate and unnecessary for me to speak at length now. With the permission of the House and of yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that at the end of the debate I shall be able to answer any comments or contributions that hon. Members may make.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Bruce Milian: I wish to raise one matter that follows on from the contribution which I made to the debate on Second Reading. I had hoped—I think that the Government did as well—that the Brittany Ferries order would come to Govan Shipbuilders. I do not wish to rehearse all that I said on Second Reading, but I wish to emphasise my wish that the Government pursue the matter with the greatest vigour. The Government took the issue to the European Commission on the basis that an unfair subsidy had been granted by the French Government to enable this important order to go to a French yard. On the basis of free and fair competition, it had been the intention of the prospective owner of the vessel, Brittany Ferries, to place an order with Govan Shipbuilders.
  There has been a development since Second Reading, so I am intervening to ask for clarification from the Minister. The Commissioner responsible for these matters, Mr. Sutherland, yesterday announced that he had found both the French and British Governments in breach of the sixth directive on the maximum permissible amount of aid. There has been some rather misleading comment about this. It suggests that there was a deliberate intention on the part of British Shipbuilders and Govan Shipbuilders to put in a subsidised tender that was in breach of the directive so recently agreed within the Community, and operative only from the beginning of this year.
  The reality is rather different. The tender submitted by Govan Shipbuilders was within the directive's maximum limit, and what has placed it above these limits is the later intervention by the French Government. They offered an additional subsidy of 10 per cent. to the operator of the vessel and the ship owner, Brittany Ferries. It is the addition of the two subsidies that has brought the British tender outside the limits laid down in the directive.
  The French tender is an entirely different proposition, because this is a matter between the French ship owner, the French operator and the French Government. The French Government, having intervened in this matter—in my opinion quite improperly—have not only brought the French tender outside the limits, but have coincidentally brought the British tender outside the limits. They made, I suspect, a completely false promise that, no matter where the order went, the 10 per cent. subsidy would be payable. I do not believe that if Brittany

  1343
  Ferries had persisted in putting the order into Govan the 10 per cent. subsidy would have been paid. I would have been astonished if that had happened.
  The French Government have behaved deviously and cunningly in this matter, and have put us in the dock alongside them. I hope that the Minister will clear up the matter, because some newspaper reports today have suggested that we have been as much at fault as the French. I do not often defend the British Government, but in this case we are the injured party, not the culprit. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify the situation. I think that my understanding of this matter is correct, but it is important that this should be put on the record at this convenient opportunity.
  I hope that the Minister will also take on board the point I made on Second Reading, and which I now repeat, that I hope that we will pursue this issue with the utmost vigour. It is my hope that we can start again the whole business of the placing of the order. However, being realistic, I am not hopeful that that can be achieved. The order has been placed with a French yard—I deplore that—but if there is any way to save the order for Govan I hope that the Government will attempt to do it. At the least, the position should be clarified. We should have an undertaking that the Government will continue to pursue this through the Commission in every possible way open to them.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Ted Garrett: Because of the pressure of time I was unable to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Second Reading. As I have said many times, I welcome any amount of public intervention in shipbuilding borrowing facilities. Therefore, I have no shame in saying that I support the Government in their decision to increase British Shipbuilders' borrowing powers.
  This is the first time that I have had to speak about Swan Hunter, which is in my constituency, when it will have no opportunity to benefit from such an order, because it has been privatised. However, that is not to say that the people in the north-east of England, particularly those connected with the long tradition of shipbuilding in the region, are not interested in what is happening in British Shipbuilders. Nor would it be true to say that they are not interested in the future of British Shipbuilders. I am pleased in one respect. The Government are still determined to keep this industry alive, in spite of world competition and in spite of the fact that they have faced the criticism of not being interested in this industry.
  I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) is waiting to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gather that my hon. Friend is still a Member of the European Parliament. As such, she has played an active part in directing attention to what the European Commission is doing to help in the crisis facing the European shipbuilding industry. I am sure that she will have something to say about that.
  The people on Tyneside, especially those employed at Swan Hunter, are fully aware that now that the company is privatised they have to face the harsh realities of private and allegedly free competition, but in the big wide world they cannot hope to compete with other nations, particularly those in the far east. I should like the Minister to study the report on the shipbuilding industry produced
  1344
  by the Commission. I ask him to think seriously about how the Government can help in the implementation of the second of the three recommendations, that which concerns the social impact in the less-favoured areas of the EEC where shipbuilding takes place.
  I know that successive Governments have made some social contribution to the economic consequences of the decline in the coal industry. However, as far as I am aware, there has been no political decision in the United Kingdom Parliament about the social consequences of the decline of the shipbuilding industry. It would be helpful if the Minister had some influence on, and consultations with, his colleagues to see whether the Commissioner responsible for shipbuilding policies in the EEC can bear in mind that the north-east should be considered a less-favoured area within the Community and therefore have some priority in efforts to meet the crisis in shipbuilding.
  7.38 pm
  Ms. Joyce Quin: The Opposition do not oppose the increase in the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders. However, traditionally Third Reading debates are used to voice some wider concerns about the shipbuilding industry, and I should like to add my voice to some of those concerns.
  I agree with many of those who spoke in the debate last week that a great deal needs to be done to ensure the survival of the shipbuilding industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said, my main interest in the industry arises from my experience as the representative of Tyne and Wear in the European Parliament. In the past, the area had within its boundaries one third of Britain's shipworkers, and even today it accounts for about one third of the very reduced shipbuilding activities in Britain. I have been struck by two things during our debates in the European Assembly. First—this point was made last week—the British decline in shipbuilding has been more dramatic than the reduction in almost any other European shipbuilding industry. The figures certainly bear that out. Secondly, during the past 10 years, there has been a dramatic collective decline in European shipbuilding compared with the expansion in some areas of the far east. We must act to make sure that shipbuilding has a future in Britain and that our capacity will allow us to respond to the range of designs of ships that will be needed in the future. Some of those ships will be very sophisticated vessels.
  The British and the EEC approaches to the industry have been too negative. Our response to the world market seems to have been that, since the market has been contracting, we had better contract twice as fast. Japan and Korea have said, "The market is declining, but we want a larger share of it." The emphasis in EEC policy has been very negative. It simply tries to reduce subsidies to the industry across the board. That was certainly the case in the EEC fifth directive on aids to shipbuilding. The sixth directive which replaced it is better in some respects, and I welcome the improvements, especially the fact that all aids are now included so that the more transparent British aids can be seen more clearly against the hidden aids that have been given in other countries.
  However, it remains true that almost the only shipbuilding policy in the EEC is one of controlling subsidies and trying to even out competition among European countries. That does not deal with the main problem, which is the survival of European shipbuilding

  1345
  in the face of increasingly intense competition from the far east. European shipbuilding policy has not been successful in that sense.
  I and some of my colleagues have argued repeatedly for a more positive and comprehensive strategy towards shipbuilding, including measures to stimulate demand in British and European shipyards and measures to scrap some of the older tonnage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) mentioned last week. We must also spend more European money on research and development in shipbuilding. We need a European commitment to a level of capacity below which we will not go and which we will defend strongly in international negotiations, especially with Japan and Korea.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend mentioned the social and regional aspects of shipbuilding. Here again, British and EEC attitudes and approaches have been very dilatory. Perhaps the Minister remembers that, seven or eight years ago, there were proposals in the EEC to provide money for shipbuilding areas from the so-called non-quota section of the European regional development fund. That small programme took more than two years to negotiate, and when it was finally agreed it provided only 17 million ecu, which was about £10 million, for the whole of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry over five years. That was totally inadequate, given the serious problems of many of our shipbuilding areas.
  The European Commission and the member Governments have still not agreed a new programme on the regional and social consequences of the crisis in the shipbuilding industry. The Commission's proposals are more than a year overdue, and they are still not being properly discussed. We have been told that, because of the financial crisis in the EEC, there will not be enough money in the budget for some time to implement such proposals. That is selling our shipbuilding areas very short.
  The Government and the EEC have treated the industry with insufficient priority. Britain's case has not been argued sufficiently in the EEC, and the European Community as a whole has not argued strongly enough for shipbuilding in its international trade negotiations. Can the Minister tell us when shipbuilding was last on the agenda in international trade negotiations with Japan and Korea? When will it be on the agenda in the future? I understand that it has been discussed far less often than the other areas about which we express concern when considering our trade balance with the far east—motor cars, video tape recorders or the range of consumer electronic goods. Shipbuilding is an important aspect of the unfavourable trade balance between Britain and the far east and it should be considered with more urgency than has been the case until now.
  Looking around the Chamber, one would think that shipbuilding was not a great priority for the majority of hon. Members. But many hon. Members have within their constituencies industries which supply goods and essential parts for shipbuilding. The health or sickness of the industry cannot be seen in isolation. It has serious ramifications for many constituencies in Britain. The industry uses the products of the new technologies. They include CAI)CAM facilities, which are important to the survival of shipbuilding and to the survival of our new technology industries and the important new technological sector.
  1346
  I plead with the Government to do all that they can to ensure the survival of shipbuilding for the long term, not just the short term, and to act in such a way as to give our shipbuilding areas and our shipyard workers real hope for the future.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown; This has been a short debate, but we have heard wide-ranging and extensive contributions about the problems of shipbuilding. Our willingness to allow the Bill to go through quickly has nothing to do with complacency about the crisis in shipbuilding, but is a measure of our concern about the crisis affecting shipbuilding and our determination that measures should be taken as quickly as possible to allow the existing yards to flourish and maintain a merchant shipbuilding capacity.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on her speech. Her eloquence and expertise will be of tremendous benefit in future shipbuilding debates, and I hope that the Minister will answer her main point. If there are problems with the European budget, social fund aid for shipbuilding areas should not be a victim of the disputes that are taking place in Europe. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) for mentioning the problems of Swan Hunter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) did the same last week. Although warship orders are not the Minister's direct responsibility, I hope that he will bear in mind the problems of that yard.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) mentioned a problem which we read about in the newspapers this week and which arose in last week's debate. Those of us who have followed the amazing saga of the Brittany Ferries order during the past few months will find it extraordinary that the victims in the matter—Govan Shipbuilders and British Shipbuilders generally—have been found guilty by the Commission. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what appears to be at best sharp practices by the French, and at worst a dangerous deception that caused Govan to lose the order. I hope that he will assure us tonight that, not only he will keep watch on what is happening in the Commission. but that he will press the Commission to a swift conclusion on this matter. This is the first case that has arisen since the new directive. There is no point in having an intervention fund and debating the future of that fund if we are unable to draw on it for major orders that we are capable of winning.
  Last week much was said about the British Shipbuilders' order book. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to other hon. Members and myself giving us specific answers to the problems facing North-East Shipbuilders and Govan Shipbuilders as well as some of the other yards outside British Shipbuilders. I trust that the enthusiasm that the Minister has already brought to his job as Minister with responsibility for shipbuilding, evident in the debate of last week and from his written answers of the past few days, will be matched by the enthusiasm of his Department and British Shipbuilders, backed up by his Department, to win the orders necessary to sustain the industry.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East and for Wallsend mentioned the draft European Commission report—it was mentioned in the press on 30 June—

  1347
  about the state of the shipbuildng industry in Europe and the world. I know the Minister agrees with me that it makes extremely gloomy reading. It suggests that even after a third cut in production capacity—it is estimated that it is likely to happen over the next two years—the yards in Europe will still run at 70 per cent. capacity for the rest of the 1980s and 80 per cent. capacity in the early 1990s. The report suggests that entire production centres will be shut down. It goes on to suggest that 30,000 jobs will be at risk in the European Commission countries. It paints an extremely gloomy picture.
  Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that 30,000 jobs in the industry will be at risk, but the knock-on effect could run to 100,000 jobs. The Commission has concerned itself directly with the industry, but has failed to take account of the wider impact of the closure of production centres.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that. Throughout our debates on shipbuilding we should be concerned that, in the northeast and Scotland in particular, for every production worker affected by cuts and closures there are at least two or three others directly dependent on that production worker. When we discuss the number of jobs that have been lost in the past few years and the numbers still at risk, we are also talking about the effects on entire communities.
  We have suffered more than most of our European competitors. On 7 July the Minister was good enough to give me figures concerning the losses among shipbuilders and they confirm my belief. During comparable periods since 1979 Belgium has lost 2,000 jobs; France 8,000 jobs; Germany 5,000 jobs; Italy 7,000 jobs; and the Netherlands 4,000 jobs. Up to 1986, according to the Minister's figures, the United Kingdom has lost 18,000 jobs. However, according to my figures, based on a more up-to-date calculation, we have lost at least 25,000 jobs. Therefore, not only did we suffer more than our competitors in the past, but we are suffering more now.
  If we consider the current state of order books for the first two months of this year, as they appeared in Lloyd's List a few days ago, it is clear that, given the drastic problems throughout the world, Italy managed to achieve more orders in the first few months of this year than in previous months. West Germany managed to achieve more orders and South Korea has been able to move to the top of the shipbuilders' league. Taiwan has done extremely well, but, despite all the efforts of British Shipbuilders—management and work force—the number of orders that we have won is down on previous months. It is despite the orders won at Govan. Indeed, last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan paid tribute to Mr. Eric Mackie for his efforts that enabled us to win the Chinese order. It is despite the work of North-East Shipbuilders to win Danish orders. Despite all those efforts, our share of the world market has not gone up.
  In the previous debate the Minister spoke of the generosity of the Government towards British Shipbuilders. However, he must bear in mind that, not only have our European competitors done more over a longer period, and still do, to support their industries, but privatisation, by selling profitable yards dependent on public sector orders into the private sector, has done
  1348
  enormous damage and harm. That view is confirmed by two former chairmen of British Shipbuilders who talked about acts of political dogma that put the future of the corporation at risk.
  The Government are still not doing enough to secure orders to guarantee the future of the yards. High wages are not the problem—we pay our workers less than most of our major competitors in Europe. The problem does not lie in the lack of advances in productivity because between 1979 and 1985 there was a 30 per cent. advance in the productivity of British workers. Indeed, since then there have been major improvements because flexibility agreements have been reached. British Shipbuilders is not technologically backward. A great deal of effort has gone into investing in the most modern computer techniques. The industry may be old, but it is no longer old-fashioned. The yards are not inefficient. A few weeks ago, with the completion of the North sea order at Govan, the chairman of P and 0 was so satisfied with the work that he has invited the work force to join one of the sailings of the vessel. Industrial relations are not a problem because the new chairman has expressed his satisfaction with the industrial relations record and has complimented the work force on it.
  The fact is that, given the difficulties of world demand, not enough is being done to safeguard the industry. The Minister should reconsider what he appeared about to investigate last week—he then rejected it—the establishment of a task force to scour the world for available orders.
  The Minister, as one of his first acts as Minister with responsibility for shipbuilding, should conduct a trawl of the various Departments to advance public sector orders. He should take the necessary action to persuade British shipowners to buy British. Large orders have been lost overseas in the opening months of this year.
  I share the faith of the work force of British Shipbuilders in the future of shipbuilding in this country. The Government must now show their faith in that future by investing and protecting the industry and by securing orders. They must support the loyal, efficient, dedicated work force who have made every sacrifice to ensure that the industry is able to win world orders. I hope that the Minister will back up the efforts of the management and the work force.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Atkins: A number of today's points were dealt with at some length last week. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) were not able to be here then and therefore made their points tonight, but if they take the trouble to refer to last week's debate, which they may have done already, they will see that a number of their points were covered then.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) referred to Brittany Ferries. I should like to take this opportunity to put the current position on the record. I think he recognises—there is not much difference of opinion—that we have tried to deal with the matter.
  As I anticipated in last week's debate, the European Commission has now decided to open an article 93 procedure against the French and against ourselves in respect of aid offered for the Brittany Ferries order. There are two reasons for this. First, when British Shipbuilders tendered to Brittany Ferries, the French authorities were

  1349
  robustly maintaining that aid that they grant for ships flagged in France was not state aid for shipbuilding of the kind to be covered by the new sixth directive. It is evident that, as a result of its investigations, the Commission has satisfied itself both that this is aid that it regards as subject to the limits in the new directive and that the aid would apply to a ship purchased from Govan. As further evidence of the pressure applied to Brittany Ferries, I have to say that Brittany Ferries told British Shipbuilders that the French authorities had let it be known that in their case this aid might not be available. It appears that the French authorities, not perhaps for the first time, have now changed their tune in responding to the Commission
  The second reason is that the Commission has confirmed, as a result of its investigations, that the Dutch authorities have offered a lower level of aid than either ourselves or the French and, according to Commission practice, this in itself gives rise to an article 93 procedure in a case where one Community member asks for an investigation under the new directive. We did so, of course, because of the way in which the French have behaved.
  As to what happens next, under Commission rules both the French authorities and ourselves will have a set period in which to respond to formal letters from the Commission. We have nothing to fear in this. We indicated to the Commission in advance of its decision that we had no interest in being in breach of the directive and would adjust our offer of aid once it confirmed that French flagging aid was, indeed, to be counted under the sixth directive and the French authorities had confirmed that it would be available for a Govan ship. We shall decide how far we should adjust our aid once the Commission details its reasons for opening the procedure against us.
  Whereas I applaud the action that the Commission is taking in ensuring that the aid applied to this order is fair and fully in accord with the new directive, it would be wrong of me to suggest—I suspect that the right hon. Member for Govan recognises this—that I thought there was any significant chance in the order coming to Govan. As I explained last week, the French are in a uniquely strong position to ensure that this order remains in France even if, for instance, Brittany Ferries ends up paying a far higher price than it would had it ordered abroad.
  I shall he pleased to let the House know the result of the Commission's procedures in due course. I emphasise again what I said last week. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that the case that needs to be put to the Commission and fought by the Commission on our behalf is made with all the strength that we can muster. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Govan for raising the matter and giving me the opportunity to put the current position on the record. I hope that he will find it helpful.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend speaks with weight and authority on the matters that concern him, and I listened to him with interest, as always. He referred to social consequences, and his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, who is a Member of the European Assembly, will know of that authority's activities. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points are considered. He will know that Tyne and Wear is recognised by the
  1350
  Commission as a shipbuilding closure area. None the less, his points are well taken and I shall ensure that those involved listen to them.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead, East made some thoughtful points and spoke with authority on the problems facing her constituency. As I said, a number of those points were raised last week. I hope she feels that they were dealt with in some detail then, but I recognise that the hon. Lady wanted to get them on the record now. I am glad that she agrees with the Government that the sixth directive is an improvement. There is always room for improvement, but this is at least a better directive than the fifth.
  The hon. Lady suggested that the shipbuilding issues to which she referred were not the subject of as much discussion as they should be. I must disagree and point out that shipbuilding issues generally are constantly raised within the OECD. My ministerial predecessors raised points on behalf of the British shipbuilding industry and I hope that I, too, shall be in a position to do so.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in what was perhaps his vale as a Front-Bench spokesman on the shipbuilding industry, as he moves to higher and more important things in the context of the Treasury—[Interruption.] Well, "different" things; perhaps I should put it like that. The hon. Gentleman brought us back to the arguments that he advanced last week about the task force. I do not wish to bore the House, but I tried to deal with those matters at some length last week. I can do so again, but I think that I would only be emphasising what has already been said.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that many of the problems faced by the shipbuilding industry are the result of changes in customers' ordering specifications and the problems associated with maintaining financial viability and with going into liquidation. Although there have been many improvements, as the chairman of British Shipbuilders and the hon. Gentleman have said, there have been problems with poor performance and delivery. I agree that the work force and management of British Shipbuilders are doing a lot to put matters right.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was a little uncharacteristically churlish about the Government's efforts. We have tried to do a great deal by devoting resources and interest to, and giving support for, export orders, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in terms of the Chinese order. I cannot accept the charge that we have not done enough. However, I should like to end on a reasonably friendly note on a subject on which there are not many differences.
  We believe that the Bill will be passed on the nod, because we recognise its necessity and importance. I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, as he rnoves to different duties, will not forget that the Government have played, and will continue to play, a part in looking to the interests of those involved in the British shipbuilding industry. I pledge that I shall do all that I can to assist the industry to maintain its position and, where there are difficulties, to work hard to try to solve them. I urge the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Coal Industry
  8.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move,
  That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
  This is a technical amending order. I hope that the House will bear with me in what inevitably will be a rather detailed, but short, explanation. The purpose of the order is to make consequential changes to the redundant mineworkers' payments schemes following the introduction of provisions in the Social Security Act 1986.
  The redundant mineworkers' payments schemes provide for lump sum and weekly payments to mineworkers made redundant on or before 28 March 1987. Since 29 March 1987, British Coal has been responsible for its own redundancy terms, as announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) on 24 March last year.
  There are five schemes still in operation. They are set out in orders made in 1973, 1978, 1983, 1984 and 1986, as amended. They provide for deductions to be made from RMPS basic weekly benefit paid to people who also receive special hardship allowance under section 60 of the Social Security Act 1975. The deductions are made so that a person does not simultaneously receive both special hardship allowance in compensation for reduced earnings through sickness or injury and RMPS benefit based on his full earnings before the sickness or injury reduced them.
  The Social Security Act 1986 replaced special hardship allowance from 1 October 1986 with reduced earnings allowance, which is payable in similar circumstances but subject to different detailed provisions.
  The reasons for making deductions of reduced earnings allowance from basic weekly RMPS benefit are exactly the same as those for making deductions for special hardship allowance. Our initial view was that in this context reduced earnings allowance could be treated as special hardship allowance under another name. On that view no changes to the schemes were necessary. However, further consideration has led us to the view that the differences between the detailed provisions of reduced earnings allowance and special hardship allowance require consequential legislation.
  An important difference is that, whereas special hardship allowance was an increase in disablement benefit, reduced earnings allowance is an allowance in its own right. A change made by the 1986 Act was to increase the threshold level of disablement for receipt of disablement benefit from 1 per cent. to 14 per cent. As a result, special hardship allowance, if it still existed, would no longer be payable to those with disablements of 1 to 13 per cent., whereas reduced earnings allowance is available to anyone with a disablement of at least 1 per cent.
  I am therefore advised that for those who receive reduced earnings allowance and have disablements of between 1 and 13 per cent., it is likely that deductions of reduced earnings allowance from RMPS basic benefit are not provided for by existing schemes. It is arguable that the existing rules of the RMPS allow deductions to be made in respect of those with disablements of 14 per cent. or more. Indeed, in substance it is clear that for such people reduced earnings allowance and special hardship
  1352
  allowance are equivalent. However, rather than leave this question to be tested in the courts, the Government have decided to make full refunds of all deductions of reduced earnings allowance from RMPS basic benefit since 1 October 1986. Those refunds will be made as soon as possible and should be complete by the first half of September.
  At the same time it is necessary to amend the redundant mineworkers' payment schemes to provide for the deduction of reduced earnings allowance from basic weekly benefit in the circumstances that I have described. That is the main purpose of the order before the House tonight. The draft order also makes minor amendments to the 1978, 1983, 1984 and 1986 schemes to anticipate the introduction of income support and housing benefit schemes under the Social Security Act 1986.
  I invite the House to approve the order.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: I may take up the last comment that the Minister made because I believe that it is pertinent to the brief remarks that I shall make.
  It would be churlish of the House not to welcome the Minister on his debut in a debate on the coal industry. I have had the privilege of welcoming Ministers for the past 15 years. That is a long time and I am sure that many of the Ministers' hon. Friends may be sick of me standing at the Dispatch Box. Nevertheless, time goes on and we must deal with the issues before us.
  To some extent, I accept that a case could be made for saying that these are technical amendments that had to be made to conform with legislation that has already been passed by the House. However, we notice that there is a tendency nowadays to hold few consultations with interested parties. I make no apology for stating that I believe in consultation and conciliation. I know of no other way to further decision-making in industry. That is how I was brought up and that is what I believe.
  My inquiries have revealed that there was no consultation or discussion with the mining unions by the gentlemen in the Minister's Department or by British Coal. Of course, we can say that all this is a shift in the policy of British Coal. I remember when British Coal voluntarily briefed hon. Members about legislation that affected the industry. I am sorry to say that it does so no longer. I raised the matter with British Coal during the previous Parliament, and the only response that we had was its press releases. Of course, there has been a great deterioration in industrial relations in the coal industry. British Coal last year had its industrial relations named as among the worst in Britain.
  Whenever housing and concessionary coal are mentioned in any order that is associated with British Coal a raw nerve is touched not only among redundant miners but throughout the whole work force. In previous debates we have given a good airing to the policy of British Coal and to some of the scandalous cases that arose from its jumble sale approach to selling off its housing stock. Dubious, speculative figures, as far from the coalfield as London, appeared to be the new owners. It would have tested the powers of a modern-day Philip Marlowe or Micky Spillane to trace them.
  We are aware that British Coal had to make some changes in its plans. They may have been minor, but they owed much to some hon. Members, and to the Coal

  1353
  Communities Council, in particular. Much of what we are debating was discussed during the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill last year.
  As regards concessionary coal for redundant mine workers and other miners, the many unfair anomalies that have been before us have never really been given proper consideration. One case especially angers all redundant mine workers and all those who work in the mining industry. It relates to what is called a material change in circumstances, and it concerns the case of a widow and what happened following the death of her husband, who had enjoyed cash in lieu under a former agreement. It is surely harsh to classify the death of a husband as a material change, thereby disqualifying the widow from receiving cash in lieu. I am certain that hon. Members will find that absolutely incredible.
  British Coal's policy on industrial relations is costing the country dear. I estimate that it is costing us not millions but billions of pounds. Today we learn that there is a danger of the whole of Yorkshire being locked into strike action because British Coal has introduced a new code of industrial practice without consultation or conciliation with any of the mining unions. This order affords us the opportunity to say that it is time the Government looked into the matter, because the unions are having a national ballot on the issue.
  I confirm what the Minister has said about the order. As I understand it, weekly benefit under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme can be reduced or extinguished if beneficiaries are receiving a special hardship allowance, supplementary benefit, or workmen's compensation. Moreover, the rent addition payable with RMPS to some tenants of British Coal houses is not paid to claimants who are receiving housing benefit, rent or rate rebates.
  The Social Security Act 1986 makes substantial changes to the social security benefit system. Among the changes is the fact that the special hardship allowance has been replaced, as the Minister said, by reduced earnings allowance from 6 April 1987. We shall need to examine the Minister's comment about not wanting to test the matter in the courts. A further change is that supplementary benefit will be replaced by income support from April 1988; and housing benefit, although still called housing benefit, will be completely different from April 1988 onwards.
  As far as I can see, all that the draft order does is to substitute the new statutory references for the old. Thus, section 59A of the Social Security Act 1975, inserted by paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1986, replaces special hardship allowance by reduced earnings allowance as the benefit for people whose earning capacity is reduced by an industrial accident or disease.
  Section 21 of the Social Security Act 1986 gives the Secretary of State power to set up the new income support and housing benefit schemes by regulation. Income support replaces supplementary benefit as a means-tested benefit for people who are not in work. Housing benefit is means-tested help for rent and rates and is available to low-income families that are in and out of work.
  The Minister apologised to the House for the rather technical nature of his speech. I have spent a minute or two illustrating how, although it could be argued that these are technical changes, the propositions put forward by the Government affect people in the industry. They affect members of all the mining unions. There should have been
  1354
  consultation and conciliation on this order. The order is about people. If the Government do not think that people are important, they should change their attitude. There should have been discussion about the order because it will affect members in the scheme, and those people are entitled to know the impact that the order will have upon them.
  The Minister is making his debut. I hope that he will consider some of the matters that I have raised because they are important. The Opposition do not oppose the proposition put forward by the Minister.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: This is a slender order and I shall be brief.
  It is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his first coal debate. He has a hard act to follow, hut, given his formidable reputation, I am sure that he will rise to the task.
  The order is a postcript to a scheme that saw the dramatic transformation and restructuring of the coal industry. Those things were an extraordinary achievement because they were done without a single forced redundancy. The order is a technical postscript bringing the scheme into line with current legislation. My hon. Friend's speech was technical, albeit brief. I and my constituents would like to be assured that none of the people who accepted voluntary redundancy under the terms of the scheme as it then stood will be any worse off as a result of this order. If that assurance can be given, I am sure that the House will give a general welcome to the order.
  The scheme as a whole has enabled the coal industry to face the future with optimism and with a promise of success. It has provided funds for a variety of important measures. British Coal Enterprise has brought hundreds of millions of pounds of investment into coalfield communities. The new realism that this has engendered has ensured that for the second time, following the last general election, there are now more mining constituencies represented by Tory Members of Parliament than ever before. Miners understand where their real interests lie. They lie with a Government who have resolutely shown——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the order before the House. I have clear recollections of the difficulties that he has created for me in the past.
  Mr. Batiste: I am aware of your strictures in the past, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not seek to strain your patience on this occasion. I was responding to the point made by the hon Member for Midlothian (Mr Eadie) who talked about consultation and the importance of good industrial relations in the industry. He spoke about the strike that erupted in south Yorkshire this morning. The continuing progress that has been made under the scheme depends upon all who are in the industry ensuring that it can take advantage of opportunities that are open to it. They must produce the right product at the right price and at the right time. Industrial action of the sort that we heard being urged today by the Opposition is the one thing that can cast a blight upon the future of an industry that is otherwise very rosy.
  I hope that on mature reflection the hon. Member for Midlothian will reconsider his words and join

  1355
  Conservative Members in urging members of the National Union of Mineworkers and constituents of his not to take part in such action. We should tell them that Britain needs coal and if the industry can continue to supply that need at the right price and free from disruption there is no limit to the progress than can be made or to the prosperity that will be created. Such success in the mining industry will spread prosperity throughout the mining communities. That is what we all seek to achieve.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. John Cummings: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for affording me the time to address the House for the first time. As I was walking through St. Stephen's entrance shortly after the election it reminded me of going underground for the first time. I follow now the advice that I was given then. It was, "If you do not know, ask." I have followed the advice tendered by officers and staff of the Palace of Westminster and I am truly grateful for their support and help. I am also grateful for the help and advice tendered by hon. Members from all parts of the House.
  I am mindful of the fact that I represent a constituency with a very rich Labour and trade union history. I am also mindful of the fact that I follow in the wake of Sydney Webb, Ramsay MacDonald, Manny Shinwell and, more recently, Jack Dormand who was respected by all hon. Members. Like me, Jack Dormand was born and bred in the Easington constituency. He was educated and worked in the constituency and served as a parish councillor, district councillor and district education officer. In 1970 he was elected as the Member for Easington. He served in the Whips' Office and finally was elected chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. I wish Jack Dormand and his wife every happiness and health for a long and happy retirement.
  Easington is one of the eight districts in County Durham and it has a rich culture and history. We have fine Saxon and Norman churches, beautiful denes and woodlands and, of course, a delightful coast. Those are the areas that have not been despoiled by mining activities.
  Perhaps the most precious assets in Easington are its people. They are a very special breed. The people who populate the area came from Cornwall, following the closure of the tin mines in the 1860s. There are also people who emigrated from Ireland, following the potato famine in the 1840s. Many of those people were called industrial gipsies at the time, and now in 1987 they are again being called industrial gipsies. History has turned full circle. People who moved into the area looking for a future and security mined the coal that was necessary for the nation's wealth and well-being. They made Great Britain great, but now those people are virtually being turned out of house and home and are having to travel or move out of the area to make a living elsewhere. That is a disgrace of tremendous proportions.
  According to academics, Easington is a deprived area. It is a deprived area, but we should not confuse deprivation with squalor, for squalor we have not, but deprivation we have. We have been deprived of our pits and of our jobs. We have been deprived of our hospitals. We have been deprived of our beautiful coastline by an uncaring industry and by successive uncaring Governments, who have ignored the problems of
  1356
  deprivation in the Easington district. I believe that the Minister is the only junior Minister who has not been to Easington. We have had 16 Ministers in the past 10 years. They come with their tea and sympathy, but with no money, and the problem gets worse. I extend an invitation to the only Minister who has not been there to come along, follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and see the shocking conditions that prevail on our beautiful coastline. The polluter must pay. Must we ask Lord Londonderry to cough up? Must we ask the directors of the South Hetton coal company to pay up? It is no longer with us. British Coal must pay, because the price falls on the pit. As the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said, we must produce at the right price, but I fail to see how it can be done if the polluter has to pay.
  We have been deprived and robbed—over over the past eight years, in particular—of the necessary funds to improve a decaying housing stock. We have been deprived of our housing investment programme and our rate support grant. We are losing population. Some 12,000 people have left the area in the past 10 years. We have an abundance of council houses, but we have an ageing population and a chronic shortage of aged persons' and special purpose accommodation, which is necessary to accommodate the aged, who, after a lifetime of work in the mines, are chronically sick and disabled.
  The tide must be stemmed, and that can only be done by an injection of funds into the area to enable us to help ourselves and to prime the pump. We do not bellyache or whinge, but we want the Government to help us to help ourselves.
  The only job-getting agency that has had any success in the area is to be wound up in 1988. The Government are depriving us of the Peterlee Development Corporation, which has been the only success story in the area. The only direct tap that we have into the central Exchequer is being taken away. Someone has nailed his political dogma to the mast and decided that it should be wound up in 1988.
  Feelings in the Easington constituency are of hopelessness and helplessness. We want to be able to help ourselves, but we require the funds to do it. We have the will, the people and the skills, but we require the Government to help us to help ourselves.
  We do not want redundancy pay; we want the dignity of a job. I am a sixth generation child of the coal industry. We have had six generations at Murton colliery who have been born and bred for the pit. We went to school at the age of five years and left school at the age of 15 years.
  My plea to the Minister—we should not have to plead; it should he our right—is for the Government to return a small proportion of what has been taken out of the area. Give us the opportunity, the funds, prime the pump, and we will get the area back to work.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I have had many honours in this Chamber in the past, but none has given me greater pleasure than to congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on his maiden speech. It has been my pleasure not only to know the hon. Gentleman since he was elected but prior to that when we worked together in the Coalfields Communities Campaign. He was the vice-chairman of that august organisation, which is doing such marvellous work for the coalfields.

  1357
  The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about his predecessor, Jack Dormand, who was respected on both sides of the House. I know no one who is more suitable to replace Mr. Dormand than the hon. Gentleman who, as he rightly told the House, was born into the coal industry and during his lifetime has given everything to it. He must have been so busy working in the coal industry that he omitted to notice that my hon. Friend the Minister was the Conservative candidate in Easington for 10 years. The hon. Gentleman described his constituency beautifully and made us all wish that we had a beautiful coastline to share with our constituents. If the price had been right, I might have been farming in his constituency rather than in Sherwood.
  I listened with great respect to what the hon. Gentleman said about the coal industry. We represent different parts of the United Kingdom, but we are both concerned for this great industry which creates so much wealth for our constituents. I hope that for many years the hon. Gentleman will ensure that future generations have an industry in Easington in which to participate.
  Some eight months ago in the debate on the coal industry I told the House that it was recognised that the major reconstruction of the industry would come to an end and that the generous redundancy payments would be phased out. During that debate the new scheme, which was to be funded by British Coal, was introduced. At that time I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider the position of the Nottinghamshire miners over the age of 50 years who were unable to participate earlier in the redundancy scheme because of the coal dispute. As a result of the co-operation between the management and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, I am pleased to inform the House that all those over the age of 50 years who wished to take part in the generous scheme that was implemented by the Government were able to do so.
  In Nottinghamshire there is a very bright future for British Coal. We have a democratic union that accepts the wishes of its members rather than forces them to do what it feels is best. That arrangement provides a strong foundation for a prosperous environment. I am proud to say that Nottinghamshire has set the pace for the rest of the country. Productivity levels are at a record high without endangering the safety of the workers. That has brought about a reduction in unit costs that will guarantee the future for our industry, even after the Central Electricity Generating Board has been privatised. I must remind the House that the CEGB already has the power to buy coal from overseas but does not do so because we do not have the facilities to import large amounts of coal nor the long-term contract prices attractive enough to do so. Those who tell us that that might happen do not seem to understand the system that operates. To deliver the coal from the colliery——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is widening the debate way beyond the terms of the order. He must speak to the order.
  Mr. Stewart: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am just coming to the bit for which you were waiting. I was explaining how the productivity and the means of getting the coal from the pit to the power stations on the merry-go-round would protect jobs from overseas competition. The idea of importing coal and putting ships on the merry-go-round is beyond belief.
  1358
  Today the Government hope to integrate the redundant mineworker's payments schemes with the social services benefits. That has been the aim of every Government since 1967. The scheme itself is no longer available, but, in my opinion, its replacement emphasises how successful British Coal has become. Like the majority of employers, British Coal has taken on the responsibility for its redundancy payments. It is a sign that the coal industry is no longer the liability that it once was. British Coal aims to break even next year—an aim that I hope and believe will be achieved. The Govenment have pledged £2,000 million investment over the next two years, and new attitudes and new optimism within the industry have made that possible. Because of that, the need for large scale redundancy payments no longer exists.
  The coal industry is no longer the poor relation of Europe and its plans for expansion highlight that. It is no surprise that it is the workers who understand the need for six-day coaling. I am sure that I have no need to tell the House that British Coal's proposals do not require the miners to work one day——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is nothing about that in the order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to the order. I hope he realises that if I allow him to pursue this course I shall have to widen the debate for everybody else.
  Mr. Stewart: Because of the prosperity of British Coal, about which we should all hear, we will protect those who work in the industry and we will not need to participate in debates on redundancy schemes.
  I am sure that I have no need to tell the House that British Coal's proposals do not require miners to work one day, one shift or one hour longer. It is only the machinery that will be working for six days. The potential for an increased work force is a logical result as is its financial benefit to the workers. It was stated this week in the press that Sir Robert Haslam has indicated to Arthur Scargill that miners would receive up to £20 a week more, ensuring the future of the industry. In Nottinghamshire——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is opening the way for a debate on the working hours of the coal mining industry. That has nothing to do with the order. I hope that he will stick to the order.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would have been thrown out before now.
  Mr. Stewart: It is significant that most of the coal industry is following the Nottinghamshire miners and their optimism. How gratifying it is to see that new optimism in the coal industry and I hope——
  Mr. Graham Allen: Does that new optimism extend to the Linby colliery, which is now under threat of closure? Will it be a further extension of the generosity of the scheme, as we have seen it on the borders of my constituency, with the recent closure of Hucknall and Baffington pit since the hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate last year?
  Mr. Stewart: The Linby colliery is in my constituency. If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer my honourable colleague, I will explain that four years ago it was expected that Linby colliery would have a life of seven years. As I understand it, it is being looked at by the management and the trade unions, and I would hate to prejudice the outcome of those discussions.

  1359
  The miners are entitled to have a redundancy scheme. That safety net is the right of every miner and it should be supplied and secured by British Coal. Alternatively, there has been the expansion of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. which provides alternative employment to those miners who have had to take redundancy, and I hope that this order——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can stick to redundant mineworkers and concessionary coal and not move on to the subject of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
  Mr. Stewart: I hope that the order will be accepted by the House.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am pleased to have the opportunity of following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). It was an exciting and relevant speech. It is significant that a new Member gave us a clear instruction on the rules of relevancy by the way in which he kept talking about the coal industry and its contribution to the constituency of Easington. I know that we wish him well in every sense, in the same way as he wished his predecessor, our good friend Jack Dormand, well. He was a much-loved figure among Labour Members. We know that the new hon. Member for Easington comes to the House with Jack's good wishes, and we wish him every success. I am sure that his maiden speech helped to give him the confidence that he will no longer require in order to address the House.
  I should like to speak about the two issues that relate to the order. One relates to a group of my constituents who will continue to, benefit from concessionary coal, and another group who will benefit from the order because their colliery is, sadly, being closed. I am talking about Polmaise colliery.
  I want to refer to those miners and former miners who are at present in receipt of concessionary coal but whose support under the scheme may not be sustained because of the policy of the Scottish Special Housing Association. That policy is changing the nature of the fuel source in their homes from electricity, which attracts payments in lieu of coal, to gas. Many miners and former miners in my constituency living in Scottish Special Housing Association homes in the villages of Tullibody and Sauchie in Clackmannan are losing their benefit under the concessionary coal scheme because of the change in energy source.
  Although the Minister may not be able to address himself to that problem at the end of the debate, I hope that he will take that matter up. It is a pressing issue which other Scottish colleagues will want to raise with him. It beggars understanding. The connivance of British Coal in Scotland with the Scottish Special Housing Association is denying people benefits which they have come to believe to be their right, and that has serious affects on the financial circumstances of many of the households in my constituency.
  The next issue relates to Polmaise colliery. I intervened in a similar debate in the summer of 1983 when the work force at that colliery was locked out because of a disagreement with the then director of the Scottish area, Albert Wheeler. That walkout soured industrial relations at the colliery. It was subsequently shown to be the fault
  1360
  of management and the work force had to be reimbursed, at considerable cost to the taxpayer, for the period when they were out on the streets. Very shortly after that the miners strike began, again at a time when the colliery was under threat.
  The miners today decided reluctantly to accept the closure of the colliery. It is not for us today to discuss the closure—that is for union and management discussion—but it is clear that the redundancy payments of some of those miners will be affected by the order. This is the third time that Polmaise colliery has been given the death sentence and it looks as though this time British Coal will succeed in closing the pit. The village of Fallin, where the colliery is located, has been devastated by the news. Youth unemployment there is more than 50 per cent. and it had been hoped that the development plan for the colliery, which had been such a great success, would provide opportunities for many of the young males at present out of work.
  The dreams of that community have been dashed by the closure. The men at Polmaise fought hard during the miners' strike to save their pit. The strike had 100 per cent. support and pickets were not required because no one went to work. On one occasion, the close co-operation between the police and the striking miners resulted in the coal board being blamed for fomenting trouble at the pit gates.
  That colliery contributed a great deal to the colour, verve and life of the Scottish coalfield, and it would be remiss of me not to mention one man now benefiting from the redundancy scheme—John McCormack, who was the delegate at the pit and led the miners throughout the strike and for many years before. The men involved, who may well have to benefit from the order before us, have broken all productivity records in recent weeks and months working on the £18 million development programme which the board brought in after the strike. Having spent £4 million of that sum wisely and well, the board now seems more interested in providing money through the redundancy scheme than in continuing the life of the colliery.
  If more and more Scottish mineworkers are not to face the reality of the redundancy scheme, we must have far greater assurances about the long-term future of the coalburn in Scotland and of coal-fired power stations such as those at Longannet, which is just outside my constituency, but which is served by the mines at Solsgirth and Castlebridge. We need to know the Government's intentions in respect of the CEGB. Scotland has the capacity to produce very cheap coal-fired electricity which could be used in England if the Government would convince the CEGB of the desirability of installing switch gear to allow cheap Scottish electricity to be properly integrated into the national grid. If those guarantees are not forthcoming very soon, the order will apply to far more people.
  With regard to the tragedy of Polmaise, the last thing that I wanted was to participate in this debate and to have to talk about redundancy for men who fought so hard to save their pit and to save the coal industry in their area. I hope that we can be told something about the board's proposals, and the Government's views on those proposals, for the heating of houses by means other than coal and the effect of that on the concessionary coal scheme as it applies to my constituents.

  1361
  We shall be coming to the Minister very soon to see what assistance can be afforded to a village which has been devastated by the closure of its pit and which no longer has any industrial employment, where male unemployment is 30 per cent. and youth unemployment 50 per cent. We expect the Government to do for that village what that village has done for the country, to provide it with the sustenance required to create employment for the future. The people of that village have worked hard to make Britain prosperous through the coal that they have dug in the past 100 years. They are entitled to support, not just from British Coal, but from the other arms of the Government which have resources—the Scottish Office and the Scottish Development Agency—to remove that monument to the coal mining industry, the bing which so dominates the village. The village is entitled to something better.
  I hope that today's debate will give the Minister the opportunity to appreciate what the cost of hewing coal and the consequences of closure mean for the people of that village. We need far more than the tuppeny-ha'penny order before us today to satisfy their needs and to give them hope and faith for the future.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on a most eloquent speech, which will surely have marked him out in the eyes of those on the Opposition Front Bench at the time. It was well within the spirit set by his predecessor, whose presence was valued and respected by Members on both sides of the House.
  I am delighted that the hon. Member for Easington has such attractive Saxon and Norman churches in his constituency. My constituency used to have an attractive Victorian church. Sadly, it was undermined by mining subsidence and no longer exists. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's churches do not suffer a similar fate. I also share the hon. Gentleman's view about entering this place, although I had not thought of it in quite that way. He likened entering the portals of this wonderful parliamentary building to going underground for the first time. I remember when I went underground for the first time—I have been down three times now—and I understand what the hon. Gentleman means. I think that we work as much in the dark here as some of those in the mining industry.
  Mr. Skinner: I have seen the hon. Gentleman poke his nose in the Bar.
  Mr. Howarth: I do not frequent the hon. Gentleman's Bar. He just gives the impression occasionally of having been in there. That is what is so charming about him.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) so rightly said, this scheme was fundamental to the restructuring of the industry that has taken place and led to the great progress that has been made in recent years. It is worth putting on record the incredible generosity of the redundant mineworkers' payment scheme. It was one of the most generous schemes, not just in the United Kingdom, but in Europe, and was unquestionably much envied by others in my constituency who found that they did not have the benefit of such a generous scheme when they were faced with redundancy.
  1362
  It is also worth bearing in mind that the painful transition that has been made by the industry has been achieved without any compulsory redundancies, because of the generosity of the scheme. No other British industries can claim that they have been able to make painful adjustments to improve modern international trading conditions.
  This scheme has come at a time when the outlook for the industry has never been better, as my hon. Friends have said this evening. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate, not only the miners in my constituency, but those throughout the industry, particularly those in the western area, on their productivity record. It is absolutely essential to ensure that the sort of scheme that was concluded at the end of March this year will not need to be reintroduced.
  Littleton pit outside my constituency has reached a productivity level of more than 4 tonnes per man shift and Florence colliery further north in Staffordshire has achieved more than 5 tonnes per man shift. Such output is in line with what is being achieved throughout the country. Productivity is at an all-time high. Last year no fewer than 15 national productivity records were broken, which is evidence that the miners are playing their part in strengthening the industry. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to them for all that they are doing.
  It is also important to bear in mind the Government's role. Opposition Members often accuse the Government of having a hands-off policy and of having no interest in the essential industries. I hope that, as they usually do in these debates, to be fair, they will pay tribute to the Government's efforts, especially in respect of investment since 1979. We hear a great deal from the Opposition about what they call a lack of investment in manufacturing industry. I dispute that. I think that no Government since the war can hold a candle to this Government's record of investment in the coal industry. I saw it at first hand at Littleton colliery only a few weeks ago, when I saw the new skip winder introduced at a cost of £4 million. Indeed, the hon. Member for Clackmannan mentioned an £18 million investment programme at Polmaise in his constituency. It is important to recognise that these are substantial sums of taxpayer's money.
  Mr. O'Neill: I was explaining that the £18 million programme has been cancelled after £4 million of it has been spent. The money must now be used for other purposes in the Scottish coalfield because of the constraints under which British Coal is forcing the Scottish coalfield to operate. Therefore, the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman was claiming for his coalfield is happening in the one in which my constituents are employed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers that, may I warn him that I have the impression that we are going rather wide of the order. We are dealing, not with investment in the coal industry, but with the redundant mineworkers payments schemes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted by the intervention or continue with some of his earlier remarks, but will return to the order before us.
  Mr. Howarth: I most certainly would not wish to be tempted down the road that the hon. Member for

  1363
  Clackmannan wishes to lead me. I would merely say that I am sorry if I misunderstood what he said. Nevertheless, I think that £4 million is a large sum.
  This debate is the first and will be the last on the coal industry in this new Parliament before the House rises for the long summer recess. Therefore, it is important to set the redundant mineworkers payment scheme in the context in which it was introduced. I shall say nothing more about the productivity record or about the Government's generous capital programme, because I believe that those things are now firmly on the record, not only because of what I have said tonight, but because of what has been said on previous occasions. However, I am bound to say that the industry's future, and the opportunity of avoiding the need for Opposition Members to press my hon. Friend and his colleagues to introduce a further redundant mineworkers scheme, can be secured only if the industry itself takes the necessary action.
  It has come as a great disappointment to me, and to many others, that the National Union of Mineworkers has rejected six-day working. I believe that the Margam pit will be launched only if six-day working is introduced. Let me quote from a constituent's letter in Coal News:
  "Yes, I would like to work four days a week instead of five. It would do very nicely. The extra two hours down the pit is only like working over."
  I think that Mr. Saunders has made my point for me.
  I welcome the efforts made by my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in our debates on the coal industry, which are always very friendly, if sometimes rather energetic. He has sought to tackle some of the problems that arise from the workings of the social security system as they affect schemes such as this. I believe that the long-term future of the coal industry looks extremely good. However, no Government can guarantee the job of anyone in the country, and the future security of the industry is largely in the hands of the people who run and work in it.
  9.6 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: I am grateful for this chance to make my maiden speech on a subject that is close to the hearts of so many of my constituents, the mining industry. I ask for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if, as is customary on these occasions, what I say is somewhat wider than the narrow scope of tonight's debate.
  I am privileged to have been chosen by the people of Kirkcaldy and the surrounding villages and towns of Buckhaven, Wemyss, Thornton, Dysart, Kinghorn, Burntisland and Auchtertool, to represent them in the House.
  My predecessor, Harry Gourlay, should need no introduction from me. He served the constituency with distinction from 1959 until his untimely death in April this year, when he was denied the long and happy retirement that he and his wife Peg so richly deserved. He was well liked and respected in the House, both for his knowledge of its procedures and history and for his quiet, dry sense of humour. He served as Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and a Scottish Whip. He chaired important Committees of this House impartially and fairly. In short, I am sure that he will be missed by friend and foe alike.
  1364
  Before I turn to the subject of tonight's debate, I should like to give some background to my constituency—historical rather than tourist—which may be helpful to hon. Members. It has hosted some important events in Scottish history. Lying in the south of Fife, opposite Edinburgh, the constituency houses in the Wemyss caves some of the oldest cave drawings in Europe, most of them sadly lost through the ravages of time and the failure of the owners of the land and of local and Government authorities to agree on a programme for their safe keeping. That same area is the ancestral home of the Thanes of Fife, immortalised by the Macduff family in "Macbeth"—not very accurately, I may say, but immortalised none the less.
  Further along the coast, at Kinghorn, Alexander III fell to his death, precipitating 25 years of struggle that culminated with the victory at Bannockburn and the declaration of Arbroath in 1320.
  More recently, the most famous son of the town was undoubtedly Adam Smith, the author of "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", to whom so many hon. Members adhere and pay tribute, in particular the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) with whom I share a university if not the same political ideology. I shall quote two short passages from Adam Smith which may give hon. Members some cause for reflection. Early in the section on labour he says:
  "No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
  He also said:
  "Poverty … is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil, and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies."
  Those lines could equally have been penned by somebody with a more Left-wing reputation. They certainly reflect my views on the ills that affect an unfair and unjust society. In my work in health care day after day, I see the results of poverty, unemployment and inequality. I see the full effects of what has tritely been labelled the north-south divide.
  The Kirkcaldy constituency has been associated with coal mining for centuries. Prior to the nationalisation of the industry the pits were owned by the Wemyss Coal Company, renowned, as others, for its rapacity and selfishness. Its inheritor, the Wemyss estate, still owns a large chunk of my constituency. The decayed and derelict properties, the run-down houses that are still lived in by so many of my constituents and the overgrown gap sites in the potentially lovely villages of East Wemyss, West Wemyss and Coaltown of Wemyss pay a stark tribute to the estate's commitment to social change and its regard for
  the community.
  What about mining nowadays in my constituency? Kirkcaldy lies on the northern edge of the Dysart main seam. The coal seam is 12ft thick and runs under the Firth of Forth for many miles, and is one of the richest in Europe. On our side of the Forth it is now worked from only one coal face, the Seafield colliery. Formerly, on the north side of the town, the Frances colliery also operated, but the face was lost during the 1984–85 strike.
  The only other working pit, the Michael colliery at East Wemyss, was closed in 1967 due to the tragic loss of life after an underground fire. The seam is sadly prone to spontaneous combustion—hence the problems that we have with it. It has to be operated at the horrendous gradient of almost one in two. Anybody with any knowledge of mining technology knows that it is very

  1365
  difficult for modern machinery to work effectively on such a gradient. One of the most impressive sights in mining is to watch a machine come down the face at that angle, cutting 12ft of coal at a time. If frightened me when I was down there two or three months ago.
  Only sterling work by miners and management saved that seam earlier this year, as well as the introduction of new technology, with gas injection around the face to maintain a reasonable working temperature. Spontaneous combustion is still a real danger, and with it would come the total loss of deep mining in the area. Seafield is a tribute to the hard work of its work force. They have secured their future by increased productivity, and in the Scottish coalfields that is not easy. They have increased their productivity to the magical figure of 4 tonnes per man shift. Therefore, the pit's future should be secure.
  But faces do not last for ever. There is to be investment in one new face. That will retain the existing jobs and add further years to the life of the mine, but we need more investment in coal seams such as this. Seafield's coal is low in sulphur. Therefore, it can be burnt with very little environmental damage. The rate of extraction could be increased by the development of at least one other face, either at Seafield or at the Frances colliery, which is still maintained on a care and maintenance basis. That investment will depend on the development of a secure market for the coal that we produce both here and abroad.
  We need Government support to develop outlets for our coal, perhaps for the new generation of coal-fired power stations that we all know we need so desperately rather than the monument to nuclear technology rising across the Forth from my constituency at Torness which I can only just see on a clear day from my house but which no doubt on a clear night will be much more visible as it comes into production.
  I am not just speaking tonight in support of coal mining in Fife. We need to preserve workshops in Cowdenbeath in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Those are vital for the future of mining in my area. With the loss of Polmaise colliery, the future of the workshops must be in doubt.
  The miners' strike in 1984–85 left a legacy of bitterness in my constituency which must be overcome if the industry is to thrive again. I want to see justice done to the men who were sacked unfairly during the dispute and those who have still not been reinstated two years later. The goodwill built up over the past few years must be encouraged and fostered, not neglected.
  The subject of tonight's debate concerns concessionary coal and that subject is frequently raised in my constituency. Unfortunately, I have more ex-miners than miners now in my constituency and the concessions are important to them. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the difficult situation in which many of my constituents are currently placed. Those who live in what are euphemistically described as "non-standard" houses with non-standard flues have been told that, due to the dangerous condition of the chimneys, they can no longer burn coal for heating and the houses will therefore have to be converted. The houses could be converted to a safer system of coal burning, but unfortunately the Scottish Special Housing Association claims that it cannot afford to do that because of restrictions on money. Many elderly people and pensioners depend on concessionary coal as it is part of their income. It is not a freebie or a free gift that they have been given by a grateful industry. Part of their
  1366
  earnings was committed to that year after year while they were working and they are entitled to it now in their retirement to keep them warm in winter. They will lose that concession and be converted to more expensive forms of heating such as gas.
  I am sure that the Minister shares my sympathy for the plight of those people and I want him to do what he can on their behalf. I acknowledge that the difficulty is largely due to the current agreement between the National Coal Board and the unions and there are also problems with the Scottish Special Housing Association. Nevertheless, if the Minister could do something I would be grateful.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this debate and for your forebearance as I have rather wandered from the subject. My constituency shows the stigma of years of unemployment, poverty and ill health. Coal mining offers many presently employed in the industry, those who are unemployed and the apprentices who could he working a chance of a decent productive future. I will fight to see that they get it.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: It is a great pleasure to congratulate a fellow Scot on making his maiden speech in the House. Both sides of the House will agree that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) spoke eloquently and knowledgeably about his constituency and the problems facing his constituents. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on his maiden speech. Having heard the hon. Member for Easington refer to some of his political predecessors, I wondered whether the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would refer to the most famous political son to come from Kirkcaldy, and indeed he did. He rightly quoted from Adam Smith to show that perhaps all the propaganda that is sometimes associated with Adam Smith tends to be one-sided. If we read his writings as a whole, we find that parts of his writings could be learned and read by Conservative Members to great advantage. I forgive the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy for omitting to mention one of the other important sons of Kirkcaldy—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). I understand that he was born in Kirkcaldy.
  We all look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy speak again. No doubt those of us who are privileged to be members of the Scottish Grand Committee will hear the hon. Gentleman speak in that Committee. We all share in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to the late Harry Gourlay who for many years gave great service not only to his constituents and party but to this House.
  The order is detailed and limited in its scope, but the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) rightly expressed some concern about the lack of consultation that took place before it was laid. The order might be technical and its purpose may be limited to clarifying that which might give rise to a challenge in the courts, but it is important generally for industrial relations that people are not taken for granted. When that happens, resentment tends to build up in an industry which has had considerable industrial relations difficulties over recent years. I hope that that point will be taken up by the Minister.

  1367
  The Minister has talked about the need to avoid court action. Even as a lawyer, I would agree with him about that. If court action can be avoided, it is desirable that it should be. It has been argued that payments have been withheld since the introduction of the new social security legislation. I ask the Minister to confirm, when he replies, that the payments have been reduced, not withheld, and that they will be repaid in full over the coming months.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to the closure of the Polmaise pit. That is of concern to him as a constituency Member, and over the past 24 hours it has concerned the whole of Scotland. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy put his finger on the problem when he said that there are more ex-miners than miners in his constituency. I understand that 12 years ago there were 1,000 miners employed at the Polmaise pit, and we are now told that the closure will affect 112. That is a measure of the decline that we have seen in the industry. Many of the 1,000 who were employed at Polmaise 12 years ago will be in receipt of the benefits that stem from the scheme that we are debating. British Coal has said that it hopes to find jobs in other parts of the Scottish coalfield for the 112 who will be affected by the closure, but press reports say that many of the 112 are somewhat sceptical about whether they will all find jobs. There is the feeling that there will be redundancies.
  However generous redundancy and concessionary schemes may be, they cannot be any substitute for real jobs. We are talking of a community in which over 50 per cent. of the young people are unemployed. Four years ago hope was engendered by an £80 million investment plan. A community can be devastated when that which it thought was within its grasp is taken from it.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions which have been asked about Polmaise, even though it may mean you stretching a point. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when deciding whether the hon. Gentleman is in order. I hope that he will be able to say whether those who find themselves out of work at Polmaise will have a real chance of re-employment elsewhere in the Scottish coalfield. The devastation that is brought to villages as a result of closures can be compensated only in small measure by redundancy payments. The various divisions of British Coal, the Scottish Office and the Scottish Development Agency must make every effort to ensure that new hope is brought to an area that tonight must be suffering great depression.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The connection between the reduced earnings allowance and the redundant miners payments scheme, which is the basis of the order, highlights the fact that the Social Security Act 1986 was an ill-thought-out piece of legislation. The Government have neglected to tie up the loose ends by means of consequential amendments, and that is the reason for the order.
  It is interesting to learn that the Government intend to make repayments to miners who are affected by the terms of the order without there being a need for court action. That is an interesting departure from the situation in 1984. A number of my constituents, and literally hundreds of mineworkers in Yorkshire, accepted redundancy slightly before the 1984 strike, but even now they have not received
  1368
  redundancy payment or the unemployment benefit that they should have received as a result of the redundant mineworkers payment scheme.
  The redundancy scheme was voluntary and we have heard from Conservative Members on at least two occasions that no worker in the mining industry was forced to accept redundancy. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Quite a number of workers have been faced with unreasonable transfers or redundancy. In the circumstances, they have been made compulsorily redundant. It is wrong to talk about the redundancy scheme as being wholly voluntary, particularly now.
  Many men were faced with redundancy either at a time when they did not want to accept it, because it would not benefit them, or when they were faced with a transfer to a colliery 30 to 40 miles away, which would involve too much travel-to-work time. These are the compulsory redundancies that have occurred throughout the industry.
  We must look to the future to see what problems will arise with redundancy payments. The average age of miners is about 35 years. These are men of my own age and slightly older who want not redundancy but jobs within their industry—something to which they are entitled. The Government should expand rather than contract the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has already made that point about the closure of Polmaise. In the Yorkshire area, the South Kirby, Woolley Wath, Kilnhurst, Treeton and Manders collieries this year have suffered either partial or total closure. It is obvious that the smaller number of collieries and the increase in technology mean fewer job opportunities or transfers within the industry. Therefore, there must be redundancies if British Coal is to pursue its present policies. How is it to achieve redundancies without some compulsion, which is the next step?
  With the problems facing the industry, compulsory redundancy is compounded by a number of issues that are being debated. We heard from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that the NUM has rejected six-day working and flexible working. Had he been at the NUM conference last week he would have heard a decision to hold a ballot on the issue, so the members of the NUM have not yet made their decision on that issue. As to four-day working, that is within a seven-day cycle or a continental shift. The four-day period could be over a Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday nightshift. Would Conservative Members relish such a prospect? The industry is facing flexible working practices.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said about the ballot. However, what is his view? What recommendation will he be making to his constituents on how they should vote?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted by an experienced Member into straying out of order.
  Mr. Illsley: I shall not be tempted into replying to that question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obviously a question for the members of the National Union of Mineworkers, according to the advice that they receive from their leadership. It is not connected with this order.
  To return to redundancies and the problems facing the industry, British Coal will be hard pressed to find the collieries and the job opportunities for future transfers. There will be thousands of job losses and colliery closures

  1369
  because of increased opencast mining, increased imports—especially from South Africa and Colombia—and the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, which will be a forerunner to the privatisation of British Coal.
  Earlier in the debate, we heard that there has been a total lack of negotiation and consultation about this order. Since the end of the strike, there has been no negotiation or consultation on any issue between British Coal and the NUM. That includes flexible working, the wage increases that have been imposed during the past two or three years, the conciliation machinery and the disciplinary code of practice.
  The dispute over the latter during the past few days has resulted in about 18 collieries in my area taking strike action. Unless British Coal returns to the negotiating table with a genuine and sincere desire to negotiate on these issues, including redundancy, flexible working and a disciplinary code, there will be no peace in the industry and no prospect of achieving the future of which Conservative Members have talked. The industry does not have a rosy future. There will be more decline, more job losses and more pit closures. The problem will be eradicated only if British Coal has a genuine desire to negotiate.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, partly because I was able to listen to two maiden speeches by Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) is a doctor. He has a doctor's voice. I can imagine a decent Socialist going into his surgery and coming out feeling better. I look forward to hearing a lot more from my hon. Friend.
  The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings)—a different voice fashioned in a different way. He is not here now, but no doubt he will tell me later that I am right in thinking that his voice was fashioned in the canteen, when it is crowded in the morning, when there is fag smoke—unlike the doctor's surgery—when people have a problem, when the miners are a bit unsure and when there has been no consultation, as with this document. People have to raise their voices and appeal for solidarity. We have all done it—well, nearly all. The Liberals have been doing a bit of that lately. There has been some shouting and bawling going on with them. I do not know whether it has been in the SDP canteen. Of course, they do not have a canteen; it is a telephone box.
  Mr. Wallace: That is an old one.
  Mr. Skinner: It is an old one, but the old ones are very good. They keep coming back.
  It was delightful to hear the Liberals talking about a merger. It was a little gem to hear a Liberal standing up here and condemning the Tories and British Coal because there had been no consultation, after what their leader has been doing these past few weeks. I know that that has nothing to do with this order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to make it clear——
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will be talking about nothing else for months.
  Mr. Skinner: I think it is a good subject. The hon. Gentleman keeps intervening. He is heckling me and just encouraging me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a delightful side show and there is no doubt about that.
  1370
  When all the other things have gone off the front page of the newspapers, the editors can always turn back to the SDP and Liberal merger. The headlines will read "Is it on, or is it off?" That ballot will take longer than our ballot.
  I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington is now back in the Chamber. I had just referred to the way in which he was able to deliver a wonderful maiden speech and capture the attention of the House. I said that my hon. Friend's voice, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, was probably fashioned in the canteen, early in the morning, when it is necessary to raise one's voice to get the message of solidarity across. I look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friend.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned churches. It gives me the opportunity to put on record—it does want putting on record—that I have enabled the coal board, or British Coal as it is now called, to start negotiations with Bolsover parish church over subsidence. Negotiations had reached a deadlock, and I was called in. The parish council said that British Coal would not pay subsidence costs. I said, "I will start the negotiations. I will have a debate in Bolsover parish church between me and Haslam." It was not long before British Coal went to its lawyers and started negotiating again.
  I am pleased to take part in this debate because a new Minister is on the Front Bench. I shall not welcome him, because I do not know how long he will be here and I am not into that anyway. However, I hope that he will make a better fist of this than he did the Tory party computer.[Interruption.] Well, we judge people by what they do, not what they say. The Minister got involved in running this outfit, the Tory party computer. The computer was to link up with every constituency in Britain, but what happened? The firm went bankrupt. There were 150,000 other bankruptcies in Britain, but there was only one computer firm involved. The Minister picked the wrong one. When we come to think of it, the Minister could have been in easy street now.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is going back a bit and scraping the barrel about my past. The Tory party purchased about 200 of those computers. My constituency purchased one and it is still working. I believe that the others are as well. I believe that that computer was rather successful, and we won the election as a result.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The whole House is enjoying the preamble of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I hope that he will now come to the order.
  Mr. Skinner: May I just say that the Minister's reply sounded a bit defensive. The truth is that the Prime Minister and the rest of them in Tory party central office said, "Get it out and start afresh."
  This order is important because we believe that debating redundancy payments is not something that we should welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said earlier, this is all about more people being chucked on the Thatcher scrap heap. Every time we get one of these orders before us, however technical it might be, it is about people being thrown on to unemployment benefit and going to the Department of Health and Social Security. It is about people going for additional payments to Sheffield as contained in this

  1371
  order. It means that more and more taxpayers have to pay more money to keep people idle. The Opposition want people back in work. If people were back in work we would not have to import coal from about 30 different countries, some of it subsidised up to the hilt by those countries. We would sooner not have these dates on redundancy payments.
  One of the reasons for this debate is the special hardship allowance. One of the reasons why the Government have changed from special hardship allowance to income support is that they have decided to get rid of that special hardship allowance. That allowance has been part of our welfare state since 1948. The miners needed that allowance because many injuries occurred in the industry. The result was that the Government changed the system in the Social Security Act 1986. Many miners and others will finish up with less on "special hardship", with its new title, and some will not receive any special hardship-type allowance at all, No doubt there will be a favoured few, but it is worth remembering that that is why the order has been introduced.
  The same is true of rent allowances. The adjustment has been made because the Government ensured in the Social Security Act 1986 that people would get less on rent allowance and rent rebate. The result is that people have to make up the money from another source—in our case, the Sheffield headquarters of British Coal, which pays the money out.
  The debate is not about sacked miners, as you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we could get those 350 sacked miners back to work, that would be 350 people who could contribute to the nation's wealth, pay taxes and national insurance and reduce the mammoth bill of £21 billion paid out for those who are out of work. Although this debate is not about them, we cannot talk about redundancy without referring to them.
  The same is true of the new problem in the coalfields. British Coal thinks that it has the whip hand. It thinks that it can put the boot in, assisted by Tory Members, many of them moonlighters who come into this building only two days a week, yet want miners to work six days a week. I heard them say that the other day. It is a scandal. They are trotting off for a three-month holiday, yet telling miners to work six days a week.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Withdraw.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is a farmer. He is getting subsidies from the taxpayers, the miners, yet he wants them to work six days a week.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Skinner: I shall give way to jackboot.
  Mr. Howarth: I shall ignore that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has to do so. I shall not withdraw it.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has just said that miners will have to work six days a week. He knows that that is a total untruth and that the British Coal Corporation has made it clear that no miner will be required to work six days a week. What will be required to work six days a week is the machinery.
  Mr. Skinner: I have to say as quickly as possible, because I know that it is not quite within the realms of the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman cannot find written evidence from British Coal that is being reported to the NUM or any other union in the industry.
  Mr. Howarth rose——
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is holding a press release. I have seen it. It means nothing. There have been no consultations with any of the trade unions concerned. That is just a bit of sky writing for people like the hon. Gentleman to pick up to try to confuse people in his coalfield. They will not accept six-day working. There will be a majority against it in every area—[HON. MEMBERS: "In South Wales?"] And in South Wales.
  The debate is also about coal allowances—it says so in the title. What has been happening lately to the miners' widows of 75 or 80 is a scandal. The Government are taking away the cash in lieu and the coal allowance. They have even introduced a new scheme under which people are put into little flats and bungalows and receive an allowance of 3 tonnes of coal a year instead of 5 tonnes. The Government have introduced other schemes under which people who have gone to live with in-laws, their daughter or son for a short period and then returned home have had their money or allowance taken from them. This is going back to Victorian days.
  I make a final plea to the Minister, if he wants to make a name for himself. I have said about a dozens times in the House—perhaps more—in the past 17 years that there is a small group of people who are part of redundancy schemes introduced before 1968 and who do not receive any allowance coal. It is time that they were allowed that coal. There are a few hundred in Lancashire, Derbyshire and elsewhere.
  The order is part and parcel of the whole jigsaw which, if the Tory Government remain in office, is a prelude to privatisation of certain parts of the British coalfield. That is why the Government like redundancy payments and coal imports coming in and taking away the jobs of miners. That is why they want to create a rat race and introduce flexible working and a six-day week. It is all part of that same pattern, and that is why we can understand that redundancy payments orders and coal allowance orders are all part of that same Tory creed.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I welcome the maiden speeches that have been made tonight and since the general election, particularly those by my hon. Friends. I find that we have much quality on our Benches, as demonstrated by the contributions of our new hon. Members.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I questioned him on Monday during questions on energy. He said that he was going to help me and my constituents who are in difficulty with claims for mining subsidence. I only hope that he will keep his word and kick over the traces of the raw deals that my constituents, and those of other hon. Members who serve in mining constituencies, have suffered on the issue of subsidence. We want some straightening up and some management of the board from this House.
  Under its new name, British Coal is running away with things. I remember the Prime Minister saying fairly

  1373
  regularly that management is there to manage and the workers are there to work. The order speaks of what I experienced as a lad in the pit when managers managed and workers worked—and we were trampled on and pushed around and had to put up with it. If we did not, we got our cards. That is what we are going back to, and the order is encouraging it.
  The Minister comes from a different job. I regularly saw him on the television news. More often than not he was standing in an airport somewhere, so he has obviously been involved with aircraft and flying about all over the place. I am asking him to put his feet firmly on the floor——
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Underground.
  Mr. Haynes: I was going to say that, but my hon. Friend beat me to it. He should put his feet underground, too. I hope that he will make the necessary visits to talk to the men in the industry, and that he will do something else that British Coal is not doing. I refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said about non-consultation between British Coal and the trade unions. That is a shocking state of affairs. It is now up to the Minister—the ball is at his feet—to put this right, because it is wrong. The machinery for consultation should exist and there should be consultation with the trade unions on this order, and on other measures too.
  To hear Conservative Members talk, one would think that they were ex-colliers. They have never seen underground workings and do not know what mining is about. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover about moonlighting. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) had the nerve to talk about the subsidy and the investment in the mining industry. The Government pour money into his pocket because he is a farmer. He is doing two jobs.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: It is not illegal.
  Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman tried to patronise us in his speech. He should be honest about the matter, because he knows full well that the policy underlying this order is linked to the problems in the mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) talked about more pit closures and about more people being made redundant. More money will have to be found to provide redundancy pay for those people. There are no jobs for the youngsters in the towns and villages where the pits are situated. There is no work elsewhere either, so the Government put them on a phoney training course that takes them off the dole queue. The hon. Member for Sherwood can grin and scratch his head, but we know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept but he knows full well that the unemployment figures are fiddled. Unemployed lads can no longer get jobs at the pits as lads used to do in years gone by.
  The order mentions concessionary fuel. The more pit closures we have, the fewer men will be working in the pits. I worked underground for 35 years and made my contribution from my fuel every month to a pool for widows and retired miners. Where has that coal gone? What happened to it? I think that there has been a fiddle. The Government talk about what they will do with concessionary fuel, but they do not realise that, with fewer miners, fewer contributions are being made to the pool.
  Retired miners nowadays are living far longer than they used to. There is an army of retired miners who have to
  1374
  be provided with concessionary fuel. The Government keep closing pits and reducing manpower, and the remaining work force is making fewer contributions to the pool for the people who have given a lifetime of service to the industry and to the nation.
  Conservative Members are looking at me in a way that shows that they understand what I am saying but that they did not understand it before. This is a real problem and. the Government are not grappling with it. Most of the problems stem from non-consultation. I have many years of experience in the industry and I know what is going on today. I shall not wander to the subject of flexible hours, but even that will have a serious effect on redundancy pay and concessionary fuel.
  Many years ago, the management managed. They kicked us around all over the place. The hon. Member for Sherwood may grin, but he is only a lad and he does not understand.
  Mr. Andy Stewart rose——
  Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. He has made his contribution.
  Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman is so informed about the mining industry, why was it that at the recent election his majority went down and mine went up?
  Mr. Haynes: I cannot explain that. You should tell me" Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to answer that question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe in being fair. The hon. Gentleman should answer the question briefly, but. we must get back to the order.
  Mr. Haynes: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the first time that you have said that to me and I shall take it on board.
  How can I know why people voted as they did in Sherwood? I tell the hon. Member for Sherwood that I do not represent only the UDM. I represent all the miners in my constituency, which is more than can be said for the hon. Gentleman. He has been yawping about the UDM, but he never mentioned the NUM. He has NUM members in his constituency, but I represent all my constituents, not just one section. The hon. Gentleman might not get a 5,000 majority next time.
  Mr. Stewart: It will be 10,000 next time.
  Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman might have to return to farming, which would be welcome.
  The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues think that they know about the mining industry, but they have never seen a No. 10 shovel. It is as big as a table top. Conservative Members may laugh, but this is a serious matter. I had a No. 10 shovel in my hands for donkey's years. I know what it is like to work underground in a mine. In this order we are talking about people who have given a lifetime's service to the industry but who have been put out of work by the Government because of their policies with regard to the mining industry.
  My final plea is that we must return to the way that things were before I came to this place, when the National Coal Board, the trade unions and the men worked as one. That is how it used to be, but it is no longer like that.
  Mr. Ray Powell: When my hon. Friend mentioned returning to the way that things were, there were sniggers from the Conservative Benches. However, if we returned to the way that things were in Ogmore in 1979

  1375
  we would have seven collieries employing 5,500 miners. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to comment on that.
  Mr. Haynes: I shall comment on that, and I hope that Conservative Members will wipe the grins off their faces, because this is a serious matter. Conservative Members have a job, and some of them have as many as seven. One has only to look at the Register of Members' Interests to see the moonlighting that occurs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said.
  I used to have nine pits in my constituency, but there are now only four. That is all that is left under this Administration. The young lads who are leaving school cannot get a job at the pit. There are a lot more men who are not making a contribution because of those five pit closures. Therefore, money has to be found from somewhere else and the Government keep coming back with orders such as the one that we are discussing tonight.
  I saw a list, not from British Coal to a Member of Parliament, or from British Coal to the trade unions, but in the Today newspaper only this week. It showed a list of pits that are uneconomic and ready for closure. All four of the pits in my constituency were on the list. If British Coal continues in that way, we will not know what is going on until Energy Question Time, when, if we are lucky enough to be called, we can ask the Minister what British Coal is doing and what is going on. It is not telling us anything.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) held up a copy of a press release from British Coal. It means nothing. We are not talking about that; we are talking about the real things taking place in the industry, such as non-consultation. We have to keep emphasising that, and I hope that the Minister will do something about it. There is no consultation, either with the trade unions or with the men themselves.
  The industry cannot work without the men. The results of the men are fantastic, they really are. The Minister knows that each week output records are being broken. I agree that the machines are doing the job, and they will be doing a bit more in the future if an agreement can be struck between the coal board and the union. That is where it must happen, not in here, not by talking to Tory Members of Parliament who represent mining constituencies. It has to be done in a proper way, like it used to be done before I came to this place. It is only since 1979 that it has all gone wrong. We have told the Government time after time, but they are not prepared to listen. They do not want to know. All they want to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, is to let British Coal keep putting the boot in. That is all that is happening. It is high time it stopped, and I hope that the Minister will do something about it.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I intend to speak briefly, but I must say to the House, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), that Conservative Members view the anger of Opposition Members as the anger of people who find that they no longer exclusively represent coal-mining areas. That is largely the reason for the invective imposed upon my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who—I shall be
  1376
  corrected if I am wrong—looks after the interests of more pits than any other hon. Member, and Labour Members do not like that.
  I thought that the invective coming from Labour Members was a bit rich. It was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. The fact that he may be a farmer has nothing to do with this debate. We are debating an order. Snide remarks about people such as my hon. Friend, who happens to do a good job as a farmer as well as an excellent job as a coal-mining constituency Member of Parliament, are wrong. He did not deserve the abuse that he received this evening.
  I wish to make two points in connection with the order, and they have both been raised in the previous two contributions. They were raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). One would imagine that since the Tory Government took office, and only because the Tory Government took office, we have seen mass redundancies, on an enormous scale. What we never hear from the Labour party spokesmen is that none of them has been compulsory. Those concerned have taken redundancy on very generous terms. It is wrong for the Labour party to suggest otherwise.
  It is a smear on the Coal Board, and Sir Robert Haslam in particular, to say that it is asking for six-day working. The hon. Member for Bolsover said that it is all sky writing. I do not think that that is fair either. Sir Robert Haslam has made it perfectly clear. In a press release dated 9 July 1987—sent not just to Tory Members, but to all Members—British Coal states:
  "There is no intention to introduce six-day working for miners. British Coal are proposing to introduce six-day coal production at a limited number of less than a dozen new or extended pits."
  To hear the invective from some Opposition Members, one would not think that that had been stated publicly and in writing. Unfair party political smears are not to the benefit of hon. Members' constituents or of the industry; the order is.
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: As usual, the debate has been extremely lively, as it always has been and always will be because there are so many differences of opinion about this great industry.
  The Minister says that this is a technical order which makes technical changes. Rather than seeking to explain the details at the Dispatch Box, perhaps the Minister will put explanatory notes in the Library about the technical changes, how and why they have come about, why they are needed and the effects that they will have. When the Government talk about technical changes, it usually means that someone will lose. It does not mean that everyone will win or even stay the same. Under the cover of technical changes, people lose money. I hope that the Minister will place explanatory notes in the Library so that we can advise our constituents.
  I was surprised and annoyed that such a measure should be introduced without consultation with the trade unions concerned—any trade unions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said. It is important that there should he consultation. The six-day week proposal is not new. It has been mentioned many times in the past. There have been changes, because restructuring did not begin in 1979. It began on vesting day

  1377
  and has been a continuing process ever since, and it will continue for some while yet. That is why there must be consultation before we debate orders of this kind.
  When people consider the six-day week, they forget what has happened in the past. Output used to be calculated as output per man shift. Collieries with a high output per man shift were regarded as economic and fairly safe. That no longer applies because profitability is now calculated not in output per man shift but in cost per gigajoule. Miners have never been fools and they realise what six-day working will mean. The coal already on the floor will increase because six days' output will flow from six days' production. If we cannot cope with five days' output, what will happen to the increase? Without a shadow of doubt, it will mean colliery closures.
  Lack of consultation shows lack of trust, and trust is very important in the mining industry. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, we had the Fleck report which said that there was too much academic experience in management and not enough practical experience, especially in industrial relations. Colliery closures have made this order necessary and not only miners, but administrative staff have become unemployed. The old, long-in-the-tooth managers and industrial relations officers have gone and we are left with a lot of whizz kids who have no practical experience and do not understand our history.
  Before the strike we warned the House in a similar debate what would happen. In Yorkshire 19 collieries are on strike and the warning bells are ringing again. It is no use the Government saying that that is no responsibility of theirs. It is a nationalised industry with a chairman appointed by the Government. The Government must say to that chairman, "Let's bring back consultations. Let's get round the table and talk about these problems and measures." If they do not, they will again force the miners into a corner and the reaction will be exactly the same because that is the mining industry as it is, always has been and always will be.
  The problem is that we have Ministers and bosses who do not understand the history or future of the mining industry. A future is there providing the Government take the men along with them. Without the men, the Government will fail. That was my first lesson in industrial relations. However good the idea is, it is no good unless the men accept it.
  Let us have more explanation of the order and let us now have an assurance from the Minister that no one affected by it will lose either now or in future.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Eadie: I am proud to refer to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). He said that he was a sixth generation miner and was a child of the mining industry. He has mining skills and experience of the coal industry, and he has worked in local government and for his trade union. The whole House will agree that his maiden speech showed that he will make a good contribution to this House as Member of Parliament. I am particularly proud because my hon. Friend is now a member of the largest industrial group in this House, the miners' parliamentary group, and on another occasion we had the opportunity to welcome him warmly.
  I should also like to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). He has special significance for me because he happens to be my Member
  1378
  of Parliament. When he described the seams of coal and the gradients of one and two in the Wemyss area where I worked for 30 years at the coal face, man and boy, I began to feel a little sore. He showed in his speech, as he has already shown in the constituency, that he will make a worthy Member and successor to the late Harry Gout-lay. I am pleased to welcome him to the House.
  The most depressing aspect of the debate is that only Opposition Members have talked about conciliation and consultation. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) completely distorted everything that I said. I made a plea for consultation and conciliation. We heard nothing about that from Conservative Members.
  It is wrong to impose, for instance, a code of conduct without any consultation or conciliation taking place with the mining unions. As a consequence, the whole Yorkshire coalfield is now alight. That should be a lesson to us. There must be a fresh attitude. We must get down to talking. discussing and arguing with British Coal as an employer. The Government must assist in that, because they are being accused of conspiring with British Coal to destroy industrial relations. This great industry of ours will never work without proper industrial relations.
  There have been no negotiations about the six-day week. It is not good enough to quote a press release. Sending out press releases and saying, "This is what we are going to do" is no way to bring about good industrial relations. New proposals must be discussed with the representatives of the industry. Unless British Coal gets down to consultation and conciliation, when the miners' union decides to hold the ballot vote, I am afraid that. British Coal will get the result that it does not want. Now is the time for talk; now is the time for consultation; now is the time for conciliation. That should be our message, and only the Opposition have tried to convey it throughout the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) talked about the closure of Polmaise. I am very sorry to hear about that, because I was an agent in the area over 20 years ago, and I know the village of Fallin well. The villagers are a proud people, and they were proud of their pit. They had supplied generations of miners to that pit, and I know that they are suffering terribly from the staggering blow that the news of the closure has deak them. Incidentally, as a consequence of that closure, a £4 million investment will be wiped out. I feel for my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan.
  We shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: It is understandable that the debate, as was anticipated at the outset by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), has ranged somewhat wide of the terms of the order. Concessionary coal, the code of conduct, Conservative party computers and many other issues have been raised. I hope that the House will forgive me if, on this occasion at least, I address my few remarks to points relating directly to the order. No doubt there will be many opportunities to debate some of the other extremely important points that have been raised.
  I begin by adding my warmest congratulations to those already given to the two hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) spoke movingly of his

  1379
  constituency and of his eminent predecessors. By coincidence, as has already been mentioned, I found myself opposing two of them—Manny Shinwell in 1966 and Jack Dormand in 1970. I can now say, without harming either Jack Dormand's career or mine, that he was a very close friend of mine, and I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about him.
  I think that the hon. Member for Easington said that I was the only Minister not to have visited Easington. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman in all humility that I am probably the only Member of either Front Bench who has ever lived there. Be that as it may, I congratulate the hon. Member on a model maiden speech.
  I congratulate also the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who spoke movingly about the Seafield colliery. I know that the House will wish to join him unreservedly in paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of the Seafield miners who in January fought that underground fire.
  One of the main themes of the debate has been consultation. The word has been used many times, in particular by the hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I recognise the great experience on both sides of the House concerning this industry. Therefore, I have listened carefully to what has been said about consultation. I do not necessarily agree with all that has been said about consultation, but I shall read carefully what has been said about it.
  As for consultation on this order, there has been no change in the policy relating to or the substance of the redundant mineworkers payments scheme. It would not have been reasonable, therefore, to engage in a long period of consultation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) asked for an assurance that nobody would be worse off as a result of the order. I can go further than that. I explained in my opening speech that the recipients of RMPS basic benefit who have also been in receipt of the reduced earnings allowance since 1 October 1986 will receive a refund of the reduced earnings allowance deductions that have been made since that date. Apart from that, there will be no significant change to the payment of basic benefit as a result of the order.
  The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to Polmaise. There will be no compulsory redundancies at Polmaise. Transfers will be available for those who do not wish to accept voluntary redundancy. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that payments that are due under the RMPS have not been made in certain cases. I was surprised to hear about that, and if he will write to me I shall look carefully into it.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made an important point that is a cause of concern to both sides of the House. It relates to payments that should have been made to men who accepted voluntary redundancy before the strike was announced, who became redundant during the strike and who have been unable since then to obtain unemployment benefit. The matter has gone to the social security commissioners. If my hon. Friend could find time to
  1380
  introduce an order to help those people, he would be doing a great service to the constituents of many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Spicer: That is an interesting point. As the case is with the commissioners, I imagine that it is being looked at very carefully. However, I shall certainly look into the matter.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said that this is such a technical order that further details, if any, should be placed in the Library. I will certainly consider whether there is any further information that I can sensibly publish. If so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and put a copy of that letter in the Library. However, I will consider whether there is anything further that can usefully be said of a technical nature.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander) made the theme of their speeches the fact that the industry has a great future if it can continue on its present path of producing coal more and more efficiently. I agree with them. I also agree with those who have said that the greatest challenge of all is to take those who work in the industry with us.
  Mr. Barron: At the moment, Colombian coal is shipped into the Thames estuary and delivered at 80p a gigajoule. How can the British deep-mine coal industry compete with that? We are competing with very low production costs because children are being used to produce that coal. This House, more than 100 years ago, said that it was illegal to employ children in that way in this country.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman, who is extremely knowledgeable on this matter, knows that the vast majority of coal that is currently imported is specialist coal for coking purposes. That is why we want to see the Margam pit developed and coming into production. Coal from that pit would be import-substituting. That is why we want that pit to be open and working efficiently. That meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
  Mr. Barron: The Minister has not answered my question.
  Mr. Spicer: I have the perfect answer. British coal of the right type must be produced so efficiently that we do not need to import coal in the way described by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Batiste: Does my hon Friend agree that the greatest incentive for importing coal is industrial action in the coalfields, which makes customers for coal concerned about the security of their supplies?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point which I hope will be heard outside this Chamber.
  I have had only a short time to look at this industry. However, the more that I look at it, the more I think that it has a great future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

  Coal Industry
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, ETC.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, ETC.
      EDUCATION
      That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

      VALUE ADDED TAX
      That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) (No. 2) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1072), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]
      Question agreed to.

  University Funding
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am very glad to have the opportunity at last to debate the issue of the funding of universities. This matter has caused me considerable concern. It has also caused many hon. Members concern and was a major issue in the general election in Scotland. It probably cost one Conservative Member his seat and nearly cost a then Government Minister his seat also, a fact that he has acknowledged.
  Dealing with the body responsible for the universities—the University Grants Committee—is rather like grappling with warm blancmange. Nevertheless, the more we get involved with the funding of universities the clearer it becomes that the funding provided by the Government for any real constructive future for the universities is woefully inadequate. The universities are not merely being pressurised to change direction in ways about which they are unconvinced—as the Government would have us believe; they are effectively being asked whether they want to cut off their hands or their feet. Whatever decision they take, they will be crippled.
  Matters get worse. When the universities appeal to Minsters or when I appeal on their behalf—and I hope that tonight will be the exception that tests this rule—for clarification whether the Government are aware that decisions are leading to wholesale destruction of areas of value and achievement, devastation of morale and quite definite brain drain, the standard response is that these matters are delegated to the University Grants Committee to which it appears that there is no appeal.
  There are some general matters of importance that I wish to raise before I turn to examples from the Scottish universities, for which I have most concern and which, in my view, seem to demonstrate the inadequacy and inconsistency of the present system of funding universities. First, I shall quote the Prime Minister, or, as she was at the time of the letter to a prospective constituent, the parliamentary candidate for Finchley. She wrote:
  "One of the main tasks of the universities in London, as elsewhere, is to carry out research. It is therefore important to ensure that university staff do not bear too great a load of teaching. Recognising this, the Government have taken action to ensure that the contraction in the numbers of academics has been matched by a comparable contraction in student numbers."
  I suppose that that is clear and that we should be grateful for that, but that is not something that is appreciated widely outside the House. If it were, I think that it would be challenged.
  I am concerned about the Government's determination to put a measurable price tag on everything. In the context of university education, that means that we are looking for the cheapest degrees rather than the best, even though British universities by any independent standard are already extremely cost effective. It means also that pure research will be sacrificed in favour of applied research by contract. The consequent underfunding of research will drive away the brightest and the best, not because they are badly paid but because they cannot get the support and the facilities that they need and that other countries are likely to offer them. That is already the experience. The overseas

  1383
  staff that we are getting in exchange, without denigrating the value that they contribute, are not of the same level of achievement or record.
  There is widespread concern at the latest suggestion that universities should be divided into three tiers, with only the top 10 being designated as full-blown research centres. If the suggestion is implemented, it will be a devastating blow to many fine, well-established centres of learning and research. It will be bitterly resented in Scotland, which had four established universities when England had only two. I ask the Minister to tell us whether the proposal is supported by his Department. Or will he state clearly that, whatever changes may be made, Britain needs at leat approximatley its present number of universities, and that to be universities they must offer a mixture of research, undergraduate and postgraduate learning?
  Will the Minister explain also why Government policy is to see the number of university students declining over the next few years and into the next decade instead of increasing as the lower birth rate offers the opportunity to a larger proportion of the population to secure access to a university education? When we read the glossy publication that masquerades as a White Paper, it is difficult to get at the facts. There are many pretty charts, but the figures that are needed to make a fair analysis are not spelt out clearly. Perhaps that is because the Government are not proud of them.
  The system of finance that is applied by the UGC is having an effect in the sense that it is diverting energy, effort, time and academic brain power to the drafting and redrafting of academic plans, which most of those involved know savage the best of our university system and lead to the worst kind of academic infighting. Hon. Members who have been involved in university politics know that they are capable of reaching depths that we only play at in this institution. The worry is that that diverts the attention of the dons, the students and the public from the fundamental philistinism of the Government's attack on university education, which is substantially going by default.
  I do not think that anyone denies that universities need to change, and nor is it denied that outside bodies need to apply pressure to bring about that change. I have been critical of my local university of Aberdeen for its failure to respond in a sufficiently ambitious way to the oil industry.
  However, the proposal to replace the inadequate UGC, which has been dominated too much by academics, with a new body that will be dominated by business men leaves many open but important questions. The fundamental point to which the Minister should address himself is that universities have to be more than short-term responders to commercial pressures. Scottish universities are suffering much more from the system of funding and from a committee that does not seem to understand the Scottish tradition and system and the pivotal role that education and the universities play in the life of Scotland.
  Examples from my experience reinforce the arguments that I have been making. I do not normally quote my direct connections, but in this case they are relevant and may even amount to a declaration of interest. I am a graduate of both St. Andrew's university and Strathclyde university. I am the elected rector of the University of
  1384
  Dundee, and co-chairman of the university defence committee for Aberdeen, along with three parliamentary colleagues representing the National, Conservative and Labour parties.
  Dundee is a small university which gained its independence from St. Andrew's just 20 years ago. It has fought hard and successfully to build up a reputation and attract students. It has done well and gained a well-earned reputation. I spoke to the university finance officer today. With the threatened removal of the safety net, the university faces nothing less than insolvency in about two to three years time. To avoid that, it would have to make devastating cuts, which would restrict its ability to attract students and leave it open to further cuts.
  Already, the proposal to move the modern languages department to St. Andrew's—it was to be Exeter, so that is an improvement—has caused an understandable outcry. How can a university which can justifiably say that it is responding positively to the UGC's constraints, in expanding its already successful business department, do that in a modern European Community when it does not have the facility to teach modern languages such as German and French? It is an absurd situation. I know that the response is that there will be some residual teaching outside the modern languages department, but the university will lose the staff that built up that reputation for teaching French and German. That will be damaging to the future of the university.
  The Minister will not be surprised to hear me come closer to home. The situation in Aberdeen is becoming a cause célèbre. The Minister may say that he is not here to reply on behalf of a specific university, but what I shall say about Aberdeen is a criticism of the whole system of funding universities. I have had first-hand and detailed experience of this, and I do not like what I see.
  What is happening at Aberdeen is an abuse of the system. As many people will know, the principal of the university, Professor George McNicol, produced what he described as a radical plan to end the four-year honours degree course in favour of what I would describe as a crammer approach for a 40-week year, three-year course. Many of us would agree that such an approach may benefit some students in some subjects, but it will undoubtedly damage and undermine others, many of whom would not be able to take that intensity of study. They would not get the full benefit of the new course, which would change the character of the honours degree course and have implications for schools.
  The Government have asked universities and others to listen and respond to the market. Market research in this case has shown that, far from attracting more students to the University, the new course would put off many who would seek to go elsewhere where they could get a more traditional degree. The chairman of the UGC, Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, said early on that he would fund the plan, in spite of the subsequent representations. The principal, having seen his plan pasted by almost everyone within the university, described it as being "in intensive care" and said that he would not the one to resuscitate it. But Sir Peter, in collusion with the principal, is trying to be the one who does. It is no less than a conspiracy, because every alternative plan that has been put forward is being rejected out of hand without any consideration—by return of post so far—by the chairman of the UGC. It is clear that he is trying to put pressure on the university to accept something which the university has

  1385
  discussed in detail and has decided is very damaging to its interests. It is a devastatingly destructive plan, and the university is right to resist it.
  It goes further than that, because the collusion has been watched closely by other Scottish universities, which know perfectly well that this is not just an argument over one academic plan. It is a matter of picking one university and leaning on it so heavily that it will capitulate. If that happens, the dam will have been breached for the crammer degree to have been imposed on the other seven Scottish universities. It will not be acceptable for the Minister to say tonight that this is a matter entirely for the UGC. I think that it is a matter of deep concern and a matter for all those concerned with Scottish universities. I have no doubt that similar practices are being applied in different directions to English universities, but of that I have no direct experience.
  There is little understanding of the Scottish system or the Scottish tradition or the implications of such changes. There is a total refusal to recognise Aberdeen"s role, which I remind the Minister has been carried out for 500 years, as the university for the north of Scotland—an area covering about one fifth of Britain. They fail to recognise that students have come to expect a fair range of subject choices within their regional university. They know that they cannot get everything; they know that there should be change; but they do not believe that if we lose research and too many of the options, the university will offer enough attractions to continue as the regional university. Worse, it will be even harder for the university to attract students from further south. It is, after all, the northernmost university in Britain. All of these matters could seriously undermine its viability in the future. The system of university finance is not changing our universities; it is potentially destroying them.
  Can the Minister give me an assurance that Aberdeen university will celebrate its quincentennial in seven years' time as a full-status university carrying out research and offering postgraduate and undergraduate courses fully comparable to the best available anywhere in Scotland? If he cannot or will not do that, my case is made; and I do not believe that saying that it is a matter for the UGC is good enough. When every other country is expanding its universities, the vandals in his Department are trying to contract and destroy our universities. That is unacceptable.
  I conclude by quoting from a partisan article that forcefully expresses my point written by Michael Dummett in The Tablet. The point that he makes summarises what many people feel about what is being done. If the Minister does not believe that that is the case, or believes that it is unfair, his Department must do a great deal to change people's view. He says:
  "The three relevant Thatcherite dogmas are: people do things only in response to financial incentives; human beings are commodities like other commodities; what matters is not quality but cost-effectiveness."
  Crammer degrees are not what the Scottish system wants, and cut-price degrees are no substitute for the best degrees available. The course that the UGC is adopting is taking us downhill in every sense of the word. Change is welcome; destruction is not acceptable.
  10.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I
  1386
  congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on his luck in the draw, and on the cogency and commitment with which he put his case. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is unable to be here tonight but who telephoned me today to discuss the important issues that are the subject of this debate.
  I begin with a few remarks on the broad theme of the hon. Gentleman's debate, which concerns the general question of the funding of universities. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—and his quotation from my good friend, Professor Michael Dummett—about Philistinism, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that one of the books that I have re-read in preparation for my present job is Matthew Arnold's "Culture and Anarchy". Arnold would have seen the question raised by the hon. Gentleman as a mere matter of machinery. But in this he would have been wrong. Indeed, it is striking that Arnold failed altogether to understand the bearing of machinery on values. But in my first speech from the Dispatch Box on educational matters I should like to make a profession of Arnoldian faith; I hope that no one standing in this place will ever lose sight of the wider and higher purposes which all the machinery and all the apparatus of the universities are intended, if not designed, to serve.
  Before I plunge straight into these questions of machinery I shall recite a few facts—that should never be lost to sight in the welter of polemic and special-pleading that tends to surround these matters.
  Between 1979 and 1985 the number of students in higher education increased by 160,000. The share of the 18 to 21 age group that graduates in Britain is one of the highest in the Western world and the highest in the European Community. And in answer to a direct question from the hon. Member for Gordon let me remind him of the Government's clear commitment to a further increase of 50,000 in the numbers of them in higher education by 1990.
  University funding has increased by more than 10 per cent. in 1987–88. The very substantial increases in public expenditure that were announced last November were accompanied by letters from the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals outlining a forward-looking and ambitious programme of action for maintaining and improving academic standards and strengthening management. The first fruits of that programme are beginning to appear. By this autumn we shall have, for example, comparative information about university costs in the form of a range of performance indicators. The universities are to be congratulated on the progress that they have already made in this and other areas. As they know, the additional funds that we have undertaken to provide will remain conditional upon continued progress.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Minister aware that in the three years 1986–87 to 1989–90 there has been a 10·6 per cent. increase in terms of the average to English universities from UGC distribution grant? However, in terms of the average to Scottish universities there has been an increase of 6·1 per cent. Surely those figures support the argument of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the UGC simply does not understand the Scottish university system.
  Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is being impatient. Later in my speech I shall be dealing with the question of the allocation of resources between universities, especially with regard to the Scottish universities.
  I should like to highlight two points relating to the broad theme of this debate. First, management. It is now over two years since the Jarratt committee reported. It concluded that throughout the university system there was scope for improvements in management to ensure that full value could be obtained from the large sums of public money that are expended. It also reommended that there was scope for improvements to make the university system more flexible and responsive; above all, I would say, to realise more effectively the ideas and values for which it stands. The Jarratt committee made important recommendations about the need for management structures that would clearly define the levels of decision making and responsibility. There is encouraging evidence that many universities have taken the Jarratt recommendations to heart and introduced important and far-reaching reforms. I look forward to receiving shortly the UGC's report and commentary on what has been achieved.
  Secondly, there is the matter of teaching quality. I recognise that judgments in that area are both controversial and technically complex. However, we cannot get away from the central importance of the quality of teaching for the success of higher education. Our universities must hold fast, some would say recover, their teaching vocation. As Newman reminds us, that vocation is at the heart of the idea of a university. The committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has undertaken to produce two pieces of work—a report on university practices in maintaining and monitoring academic standards, and guidelines on the appraisal of the performance of academic and academically-related staff. Those reports will be of key importance.
  I have made it clear that, over the past year, the Government have shown their commitment to make increased resources available to the universities. I have also emphasised the areas in which we are looking for progress. Let me now consider the distribution of resources between individual universities.
  It is, of course, central to our philosophy of academic self-government that this is a matter in which Government should not be too directly involved—hence, the importance of the UGC. In 1986–87 the UGC introduced new machinery for resource allocation. This has two distinctive features. It distributes the teaching component of grant on the basis of a standard cost per student per subject; and it introduces into the allocation of that part of the grant attributable to research a new element of explicit selectivity, based on universities' success in attracting outside income for research and on judgments about quality. The Government welcome the UGC's new approach. It has a somewhat egalitarian cast, but it is more rational and objective, and it rewards success—which is how it should be in these matters.
  The Government believe that in particular the UGC was right to introduce measures to provide more support for high-quality research. Much academic discourse turns on the judgment of quality. I cannot see why it should ever have been thought that such an approach was inappropriate. Public funding for research is not a matter of entitlement; it has to be merited.
  Of course, there is debate about particular ratings—it would be surprising if that were not so. But the UGC has
  1388
  begun well and it is, of course, clear that no rating is cast in stone for all time. There will be continuing review, which will have to take account of shifts in the quality of research performance, both improvement and, dare I say, deterioration.
  Selectivity in research will inevitably and rightly lead to increased concentration on areas of strength. It means giving extra support to high-quality work and taking a hard look at what is below par. In institutions with a vocation for excellence none of this should be controversial. The UGC is encouraging the rationalisation of small departments. Its grounds for doing so are maximum academic effectiveness as well as the best use of resources. It has the Government's full support. Aspirations to universality, perhaps never very realistic, may have to be abated. But, without becoming too narrowly focused, universities which concentrate on building on their strengths will be healthier in the long run.
  The position in Scotland is the special concern of the hon. Member for Gordon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside. I do not think that I need say that the UGC's funding formula is blind to geography. Standard criteria are applied to all universities on a national basis. At the same time, the special and valued characteristics of university provision in Scotland have not gone unrecognised. The UGC's grants fully reflect the fact that most honours degree courses in Scotland last for four years. Consequently, the universities north of the border receive roughly 30 per cent. more funding per honours graduate than do their English and Welsh counterparts. Meanwhile, however, the impact of the UGC's new and more rational approach to funding inevitably differs in individual cases, depending on the institution's previous level of funding and on the quality of its research efforts. On that basis, in 1987–88 three of the eight Scottish universities received above average increase of basic recurrent grant.
  The hon. Member for Gordon referred specifically to Aberdeen university. Its initial allocation of basic recurrent grant in 1987–88 was no more than 0·7 per cent. higher than the comparable figure for the previous year. That was a consequence of the application in this case of the UGC's general policy of supporting research strength and external research income. At Aberdeen, these were both some way below the national average. That is not to say that there is no high-quality research at Aberdeen. On the contrary, the UGC assessed research in three subject areas of that university as being of above average quality in United Kingdom terms, and geography and French were considered to be outstanding by international standards. But those judgments, I am afraid, were counterbalanced by below average ratings in 10 other subject groupings.
  The university is in discussion with the UGC about the careful planning which is needed for a transition to a new funding level, and I must obviously not comment on the delicate negotiations which are going on. I wish merely to stress that there is no question of any discrimination against Aberdeen or of any conspiracy—such as the hon. Member for Gordon has fancifully alleged—and that, with regard to the future of the four-year degree course, the UGC has deliberately stated that it has no view either way upon the academic aspects of this matter.
  Returning to the future of the university funding system, the Government have announced their intention to legislate to reform the UGC along the lines

  1389
  recommended by the Croham committee. This will give a firm legal foundation for the universities' funding and it will clarify responsibilities for the large sums of public money that they receive. The new university funding council will be smaller than the present UGC and will have a stronger non-academic element. I noted what the hon. Member for Gordon had to say about that.
  With regard to the general position of Scotland within the new arrangements, the Government consider that the university system should be planned on a United Kingdom-wide basis, and I believe that that is the view of most Scottish academics.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jackson: I am coming to the end of my time.
  We accept that there is a need to improve the planning of higher education in Scotland generally. The intended Scottish committee of the Universities Funding Council will provide an appropriate means of achieving that. Precisely how that committee operates will be a matter for
  1390
  the new council. The Government see their primary task as being that of advising the UFC on the needs of the Scottish universities in relation to their particular circumstances—including, I would expect, their special history, their special ethos, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and, of course, their geographical distribution.
  To conclude, I do not think that it is necessary to stress that the Government attach great importance to our universities. They are institutions that embody and transmit values that are central to our civilisation, and they are critical centres for the development and creation of new values. In addition, they continue to make a vital contribution to the nation's economic development. The thrust of all our policies can be simply summed up; it is to strengthen the ability of Britain's universities to fulfil their historic vocations with increasing rigour, drive arid effectiveness.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scottish Parliamentary Business
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Prime Minister what plans she has to reconsider the present basis for treatment of Scottish business in the House.

  The Lord Privy Seal
  I have been asked to reply.

  The arrangements for Scottish business are being handled in the usual way.

  Foreign Policy (Office Staff)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister how many officials in No. 10 Downing street had responsibility for foreign policy issues in (a) May 1979, (b) June 1983 and (c) June 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  On each of the dates there was one official in No. 10 Downing street with responsibility for foreign policy issues. In addition, there was one special adviser in June 1983 and June 1987 with responsibility for advising on foreign policy issues.

  Isle of Thanet
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Prime Minister when she expects to receive the report of the joint committee studying the economic development of the Isle of Thanet.

  The Prime Minister
  The joint committee is due to report by the end of September.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister if she plans to take any steps to seek to ascertain the extent of demand for devolution in Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Bradford, South
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Bradford, South.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Social background

  All

  Non-Manual

  Manual

  Unclassified1

  Professional

  Other

  Skilled

  Semi-skilled

  Unskilled

  Percentage from each social background

  100

  15

  14

  41

  12

  3

  15

  Percentage within each social background who in Spring 1986 were:

  in full-time education

  39

  62

  54

  33

  29

  26

  27

  in full-time employment

  22

  19

  18

  25

  24

  21

  20

  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces.

  The Prime Minister
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has submitted to me a supplementary report on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. It recommends increases of between 5·5 and 7·6 per cent. according to rank with effect from 1 April 1987.

  These awards are derived as usual from those to civilian doctors and dentists that I announced in the House on 23 April 1987, at column 655, and the Government have decided to accept them in full.

  The report has been published as Command 176 and copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Engagements
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, before departing for Washington this evening.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Post-School) Activity
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the post-school activity, by social class, in terms of full-time employment, unemployment or YTS, full-time further education and other activities by number and percentage for each social class, in the latest available year; and what were the corresponding figures for 1980.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information from the youth cohort study, a series of longitudinal surveys of young people aged 16 to 18, jointly sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment, is shown in the table. The percentages are of a sample of 14,000 young people in spring 1986 who had reached school leaving age in maintained schools in England and Wales in the academic year 1984–85.
  563

  Social background

  All

  Non-Manual

  Manual

  Unclassified (1)

  Professional

  Other

  Skilled

  Semi-skilled

  Unskilled

  in YTS

  28

  15

  21

  32

  33

  34

  33

  out of work

  10

  3

  5

  9

  12

  15

  19

  other

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  1

  TOTAL

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 The unclassified category includes those reporting a miscellaneous group of occupations, and those who did not state their parental background or who gave an incomplete response.

  Corresponding information of the participation of young people analysed by social class is not available for 1980. Estimates of the numbers of young people in 1986 in the categories shown above could be derived from the percentages quoted but the sampling and other errors would give rise to large margins of uncertainty.

  Schools (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will publish details of the scheme for schools opting out of their local authority education system.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government intend to issue shortly a consultative document which will give details of the possible shape and nature of the scheme.

  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the scheme for schools to opt out of their local education authority system will be applicable to primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government intend that initially the scheme should apply to secondary schools and to primary schools with more than 300 pupils. We shall be prepared to consider its possible extension to smaller primary schools at a later date.

  School Defects
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which Ministers have visited Bradford to examine school defects; if he will list the schools and the dates of the visits since 1983; whether officials have submitted reports on the state of Bradford schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The previous holder of my right hon. Friend's office visited Bradford on 20 and 21 September 1984 as part of his general programme of visits to local education authorities. In the course of that engagement he visited the following schools on 21 September 1984:

  Waverley Middle School

  Grange Upper School—Skills Foundation Centre

  Tong and Yorkshire Martyrs comprehensive Schools—TVEI Unit

  Whetley First School

  Expenditure supported through Education Support Grants

  (a) in 1986–87

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  St. Helens

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Total

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  Teaching of Mathematics in Schools

  37·5

  91·0

  40·6

  52·7

  53·9

  275·7

  Teaching of Science in Primary Schools

  53·2

  42·2

  13·1

  31·0

  65·7

  205·2

  Micros for Children with Special Needs

  —

  —

  0·7

  —

  0·4

  1·1

  Urban Primary Schools

  59·1

  105·2

  —

  —

  —

  164·3

  Needs of Ethnic Minorities

  —

  16·4

  —

  —

  —

  16·4

  Updating Courses for Adults

  —

  —

  19·0

  15·7

  32·0

  66·7

  Educational Needs of Unemployed

  —

  39·4

  21·4

  —

  75·8

  136·6

  Midday Supervision

  149·5

  370·1

  114·7

  —

  187·3

  821·6

  564
  In addition, I visited the following Bradford schools on 16 October 1986 at the invitation of the constituency Member:

  Wellington First School

  Pollard Park Middle School

  Thornbury First School

  Bradford Moor First School

  Lapage Middle School

  Records of those visits, of visits by officials and material submitted by the Bradford local education authority are available to my right hon. Friend.

  Welsh Language Teaching
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library a copy of the University Grants Committee's formula and the special recognition made therein for Welsh medium teaching referred to by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) on 30 April, Official Report, column 469.

  Mr. Jackson
  The UGC's current resources allocation process is described in circular letters of 19 November 1985 and 20 May 1986. Copies of both are in the Library. The UGC takes account of the cost of Welsh-medium teaching as a special factor but does not identify this as a separate element in the block grant for each relevant university institution. In addition, a separate block grant allocation is made for the University of Wales registry.

  Merseyside
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the sums allocated under each education support grant heading to the local education authorities on Merseyside for 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is given in the following tables:
  565

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  St. Helens

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Total

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  Information Technology in Non-Advanced FE

  6·3

  12·5

  26·2

  88·7

  3·1

  136·8

  Data Processing Equipment in FE

  —

  12·5

  10·5

  —

  —

  23·0

  Initial Training for School Governors

  10·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·5

  Teaching of Under 5s with Special Needs

  29·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29·3

  Computers for FE Students with Special Needs

  11·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11·0

  College Employer Link Projects

  20·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20·9

  Action to Combat Drug Misuse

  12·2

  23·0

  20·9

  21·7

  16·4

  94·2

  GCSE

  57·2

  157·6

  65·0

  91·6

  102·7

  474·1

  Total

  446·7

  869·9

  332·1

  301·4

  537·3

  2,487·4

  (b) in 1987–88

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  St. Helens

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Total

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  Teaching of Mathematics in Schools

  41·1

  99·8

  37·5

  57·8

  59·1

  295·3

  Teaching of Science in Primary Schools

  59·7

  46·7

  20·7

  61·3

  86·3

  274·7

  Urban Primary Schools

  64·8

  118·9

  —

  —

  —

  183·7

  Updating Courses for Adults

  25·9

  23·9

  7·8

  13·0

  21·7

  92·3

  Educational Needs of Unemployed

  —

  51·9

  43·0

  —

  61·6

  156·5

  Midday Supervision

  147·8

  438·7

  169·3

  —

  248·9

  1,004·7

  Information Technology in Non-Advanced FE

  2·1

  4·2

  37·6

  —

  44·6

  88·5

  Initial Training for School Governors

  15·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15·7

  Teaching of Under 5s with Special Needs

  31·6

  —

  33·5

  —

  —

  65·1

  College Employer Link Projects

  21·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21·4

  Action to Combat Drug Misuse

  25·3

  28·6

  23·0

  23·8

  31·0

  131·7

  GCSE

  40·6

  111·9

  46·1

  65·0

  72·8

  336·4

  Promoting Social Responsibility

  57·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57·8

  FE Management Information Systems

  —

  20·0

  40·0

  —

  —

  60·0

  Micros for FE Handicapped

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·4

  10·4

  Total

  533·8

  944·6

  458·5

  220·9

  636·4

  2,794·2

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Social Security Commissioner (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor intends to appoint a successor to Mr. Roderic Browne QC as social security commissioner for Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  On 22 July 1986 the Lord Chancellor announced, at columns 120–23, the closure of the Cardiff office of the social security commissioners. I understand from my noble and learned Friend that between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 1987 commissioners sat only 17 days on oral hearings of appeals in Cardiff, and that he has no plans at present to appoint a social security commissioner resident in Wales. Oral hearings will continue to take place in Cardiff.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McWilliam
  asked the Attorney-General if he will list the total sum expended on legal aid from each of the area offices over the last five years, together with the figure this represents per 10,000 of population for each area.

  The Attorney-General
  The total sums expended on legal advice and assistance (the green form scheme), "Assistance by Way of Representation", criminal legal aid in the magistrates' courts, the court duty solicitor scheme and the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme are as follows, by area office, together with the figure this represents per 10,000 of the population for each area. The magistrates' court duty solicitor scheme started in October 1983 and sums expended on it are included from 1984–85 onwards. The 24-hour duty solicitor scheme started in January 1986 566
  and sums expended on it are included from 1985–86 onwards. Information is not obtainable without disproportionate cost for civil legal aid or for criminal legal aid in the higher courts.

  1982–83

  Area

  Total expenditure

  Population 10,000's

  £ per 10,000

  1. London (South)

  6,155,322

  313

  19,666

  2. South Eastern

  4,816,028

  384

  12,542

  3. Southern

  7,008,055

  404

  17,347

  4. South Western

  6,848,133

  379

  18,069

  5. South Wales

  5,164,321

  213

  24,246

  6. West Midland

  9,306,032

  412

  22,587

  7. North Western

  8,096,845

  351

  23,068

  8. Northern

  5,626,708

  324

  17,366

  9. North Eastern

  8,335,960

  431

  19,341

  10. East Midland

  7,548,279

  414

  18,233

  11. Eastern

  7,537,509

  488

  15,446

  12. Chester and Wales

  4,047,655

  267

  15,160

  13. London (East)

  5,448,183

  172

  31,675

  14. London (West)

  5,267,325

  192

  27,434

  15. Merseyside

  5,291,838

  216

  24,499

  1983–84

  Area

  Total expenditure

  Population 10,000's

  £ per 10,000

  1. London (South)

  7,145,498

  312

  22,902

  2. South Eastern

  5,447,269

  385

  14,149

  3. Southern

  7,637,113

  407

  18,764

  4. South Western

  8,138,771

  382

  21,306

  5. South Wales

  5,259,322

  213

  24,692

  6. West Midland

  11,218,821

  412

  27,230

  7. North Western

  8,519,963

  350

  24,343

  8. Northern

  6,222,006

  324

  19,204

  9. North Eastern

  9,747,036

  431

  22,615

  10. East Midland

  9,082,353

  415

  21,885

  567

  Area

  Total expenditure

  Population 10,000s

  £ per 10,000

  11. Eastern

  8,368,420

  490

  17,078

  12. Chester and Wales

  4,862,813

  269

  18,077

  13. London (East)

  6,135,012

  172

  35,669

  14. London (West)

  5,836,403

  192

  30,398

  15. Merseyside

  6,030,819

  215

  28,050

  1984–85

  Area

  Total expenditure

  Population 10,000's

  £ per 10,000

  1. London (South)

  9,268,138

  312

  29,706

  2. South Eastern

  6,181,541

  387

  15,973

  3. Southern

  8,209,863

  411

  19,975

  4. South Western

  8,994,899

  384

  23,424

  5. South Wales

  5,788,089

  213

  27,174

  6. West Midland

  12,546,811

  411

  30,528

  7. North Western

  9,664,731

  349

  27,693

  8. Northern

  8,070,291

  324

  24,908

  9. North Eastern

  11,378,987

  430

  26,463

  10. East Midland

  11,114,030

  417

  26,652

  11. Eastern

  10,409,640

  493

  21,115

  12. Chester and Wales

  5,191,835

  268

  19,373

  13. London (East)

  6,508,194

  172

  37,838

  14. London (West)

  6,201,744

  192

  32,301

  15. Merseyside

  7,222,111

  214

  33,748

  1985–86

  Area

  Total expenditure

  Population 10,000's

  £ per 10,000

  1. London (South)

  10,495,305

  312

  33,639

  2. South Eastern

  7,492,869

  388

  19,312

  3. Southern

  10,195,141

  417

  24,449

  4. South Western

  10,935,382

  387

  28,257

  5. South Wales

  7,254,871

  213

  34,060

  6. West Midland

  15,314,359

  412

  37,171

  7. North Western

  11,782,510

  349

  33,761

  8. Northern

  10,313,757

  323

  31,931

  9. North Eastern

  13,300,473

  430

  30,931

  10. East Midland

  11,104,972

  419

  26,504

  11. Eastern

  10,957,240

  497

  22,047

  12. Chester and Wales

  6,664,018

  269

  24,773

  13. London (East)

  8,565,114

  173

  49,509

  14. London (West)

  8,902,115

  192

  46,365

  15. Merseyside

  7,930,809

  213

  37,236

  1986–87

  Area

  Total expenditure

  Population 10,000's

  £ per 10,000

  1. London (South)

  12,388,629

  312

  39,707

  2. South Eastern

  8,880,938

  390

  22,772

  3. Southern

  11,486,445

  421

  27,284

  4. South Western

  12,821,069

  390

  32,875

  5. South Wales

  7,941,202

  214

  37,108

  6. West Midland

  17,376,655

  412

  42,176

  7. North Western

  14,508,296

  348

  41,691

  8. Northern

  11,037,238

  322

  34,277

  9. North Eastern

  14,035,028

  429

  32,716

  10. East Midland

  14,348,671

  421

  34,082

  11. Eastern

  13,020,061

  501

  25,988

  12. Chester and Wales

  8,028,926

  270

  29,737

  13. London (East)

  8,486,941

  173

  49,057

  14. London (West)

  8,792,853

  192

  45,796

  15. Merseyside

  9,315,996

  212

  43,943

WALES

  Museums and Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the expenditure since 1976–77 (a) on museums and
  568
  galleries in Wales, (b) on the Council for Museums in Wales and (c) any other expenditure on museums in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure on the Council of Museums in Wales from 1976–77 to 1986–87 was £1,403,000. Information about expenditure on museums and galleries in Wales (other than the National Museum of Wales) is not held centrally.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been made since 1976–77 on (a) the national museum of Wales, and (b) the national library of Wales, in respect of capital expenditure, revenue costs and purchase grants.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure on the National Museum of Wales and the National Library of Wales between 1976–77 and 1986–87 was as follows:

  National Museum

  National Library

  £

  £

  Net salaries/general administrative expenditure

  44,030,000

  17,000,000

  Purchase grants

  7,109,000

  3,267,000

  Capital

  7,347,000

  5,215,000

  Total

  58,486,000

  25,482,000

  Note:

  Outturn in 1986–87 is provisional.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the present membership and period of office of the committee of the Welsh advisory body for local authority higher education.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The committee of the Wales advisory body for local authority higher education consists of four members nominated by the Welsh Counties Committee and four members nominated by the Welsh joint education committee. It is chaired by myself. Members are not appointed for a specific period of office. The current membership is as follows:

  Nominated by the Welsh Counties Committee:

  Councillor E. Currie Jones CBE

  Councillor J. Griffiths

  Councillor J. A. Harries

  CBE Councillor J. E. Roberts

  Nominated by the Welsh Joint Education Committee:

  Councillor G. Jenkins

  Councillor W. A. Jones

  Councillor F. J. Kingdom

  Councillor P. Squire CBE

  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates for 1987 of the proposed meetings of the committee of the Welsh advisory body for local authority higher education.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The committee is due to meet on 6 November 1987 and 11 December 1987.

  Milk
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider exempting the first 200,000

  569
  litres per annum of themilk for milk producers in Wales from controls on production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. The problems of small producers have already been recognised by restoring them to their base year production levels.

SCOTLAND

  Charities (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make provision for preserving the existing rate relief for charities in the form of a discount from collective community charges; what estimates he has of the effects of the community charge proposals on churches and charities in Scotland; and what representations he has received on this matter.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 July to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Etrrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) at columns 28–29.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no estimate of the effects of the community charge proposals on churches and charities in Scotland. He has received 32 representations from church organisations and individual churches, and some 50 further representations from other charities, about the implications for them of the community charge proposals.

  Police (Lothian and Borders)
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Lothian and Borders police board on the level of the establishment of the Lothian and Borders police force.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The board wrote to my Department on 1 June indicating that it had in mind to submit an application for an increase in the force establishment in due course. The application has not yet been received.

  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of establishment of the Lothian and Borders police force in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The establishment of the Lothian and Borders police force since 1975 is as follows:

  31 March

  Police Establishment

  19751

  2,368

  1976

  2,368

  1977

  2,368

  1978

  2,361

  1979

  2,361

  1980

  2,361

  1981

  2,362

  1982

  2,362

  1983

  2,362

  1984

  2,386

  1985

  2,395

  1986

  2,395

  1987

  2,393

  1 The 1975 figure is at 30 June, following reorganisation.

  Although the police establishment has increased by only 25 officers since 1975, a civilisation programme has released a further 85 officers for operational duties.

  Forestry Commission
  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 tree-planting policy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the Forestry Commission from time to time, but he has no plans at present to meet him to discuss this subject.

  Cold Water Fibrosis
  Mr. Charles Morrison
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the threat to Scottish rivers from the salmon disease cold water fibrosis in the light of damage already caused to Norwegian rivers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My information is that although this disease has led to mortalities in farmed salmon in Norway it has not affected wild stocks.

  Although there have been two outbreaks in Scotland affecting farmed salmon the disease is very restricted and there is no immediate cause for concern to wild or farmed stocks. The marine laboratory at the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is continuing. however, to monitor the situation.

  The Diseases of Fish Act 1937 prohibits the import into Great Britain of live salmon and trout and this safeguards against the more obvious risks of disease being introduced to native stocks.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what statistical information he has, on an annual basis, covering the number of drivers and passengers killed in motor vehicle accidents where consumption of alcohol by one or more of the drivers is shown to be a significant factor;

  (2) what statistical information he has, on an annual basis, regarding the number of pedestrians killed or injured by motor vehicles where consumption of alcohol by a driver is shown to be a significant factor;

  (3) what statistical information he has, on an annual basis, regarding the number of cyclists killed or injured by motor vehicles where consumption of alcohol by a driver is shown to be a significant factor;

  (4) what information he has regarding the periods of the day in Scotland when road accidents in which alcohol is a contributory factor are most likely to occur.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics of road users killed or injured in accidents in which alcohol was a significant factor are not available. However, the results of breath tests which motor vehicle drivers or riders may be required to undertake after being involved in an injury road accident are included in standard statistical returns held centrally. The table shows casualties associated with accidents in which at least one driver or rider failed a breath test in 1986:

  Severity of Injury

  Casualties

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Motor vehicle drivers/riders

  7

  250

  594

  851

  Motor vehicle passengers

  16

  221

  421

  658

  571

  Severity of Injury

  Casualties

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Pedestrians

  11

  63

  74

  148

  Pedal cyclists

  0

  1

  3

  4

  TOTAL

  34

  535

  1,092

  1,661

  The number of drivers and riders involved in injury road accidents, the number breath-tested, and the number of failures at different times of the day are given in table 15 of "Road Accidents, Scotland 1986", published today by the Government Statistical Service.

  Information about the blood alcohol concentrations of a limited number of road users aged 16 or more who died within 12 hours of involvement in a road accident is also available: and inferences from these statistics as regards the numbers of deaths of car travellers and pedestrians in which alcohol was a factor are to be found in paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of "Road Accidents, Scotland 1986".

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures showing unemployment by age group in Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  On 9 April 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) the number of unemployed claimants by age group in the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency was as shown in the table.

  Age Group

  Unemployed Claimants

  Under 17

  154

  Aged 17

  275

  18

  379

  19

  339

  20–24

  1,703

  25–29

  1,230

  30–34

  932

  35–39

  791

  40–44

  746

  45–49

  714

  50–54

  626

  55–59

  603

  60 and over

  84

  TOTAL

  8,567

  This information is available in the Library.

  Electricity Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Salmond
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the reasons for the deadline for the submission of tenders from merchant banks to handle the privatisation of the Scottish electricity boards and the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board.

  Mr. Lang
  In bringing forward proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland many complex issues arise on which expert financial advice is required at the earliest possible stage.

  Gualin National Nature Reserve
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to whether the agreement between the Nature Conservancy Council and the owners of Gualin national nature reserve permits vehicular access through the reserve for the purposes of letting fishing to third parties.
  572
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that the agreement between the Nature Conservancy Council and the owners of Gualin national nature reserve does not expressly provide for, or on the other hand prohibit, vehicular access through the reserve for fishing purposes.

  AIDS
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government have any plans for the setting up of AIDS units in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have decided to set aside funds within the health programme to enable hospital units to be established in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee to care for AIDS patients. The health boards concerned are being asked to submit detailed plans, including costings, as soon as possible and we shall he making specific allocations to meet additional capital and running costs in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 of 15-bed units in Edinburgh and Glasgow and a 10-bed unit in Dundee.

  In reaching the view that these units should be set up, we have taken account of the recommendations of the working party under the general manager of Lothian health board which we set up last November to examine the health service implications of HIV infection in Scotland. The Government's response to the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is being sent to all health boards asking them to take account of the recommendations in their forward planning for AIDS and HIV infection.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any progress has been made in obtaining the agreement of the European Community to the payment to Scottish crofters and farmers of sheep annual premium on untupped shearlings.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am pleased that the Government's persistence has been rewarded by the agreement at a recent meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Community that crofters and farmers who keep untupped shearlings of specified breeds in certain areas of north and north west Scotland should in future be eligible to claim sheep annual premium on these animals. This decision will come as welcome news to the producers concerned, who farm in a very harsh environment.

  Scottish Development Agency (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total numbers of applications for grant-aid made to the Scottish Development Agency in each year since 1979 and the number and percentage of these which were accepted in each year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1987, c. 33]Applications for grant-aid under the development of rural area workshops, programme for rural initiatives and developments and the local enterprise grants for urban projects (the agency's current recognised schemes of grant assistance), together with development grants to, for example, enterprise trusts, the training and employment grant scheme and better business scheme, are as set out in
  573
  the table. Details of applications before 1983–84, prior to the inception of the grant schemes, are not available, but it is understood these were few in number.

  Approved

  Year

  Applications

  Number

  per cent.

  1983–84

  1,169

  208

  17·8

  1984–85

  1,611

  276

  17·1

  1985–86

  7,857

  2,120

  27·0

  1986–87

  11,671

  3,455

  29·6

  The apparent high percentage rate of applications refused is accounted for by the large number of inquiries for assistance under TEGS which do not result in formal applications because they do not meet the geographical, unemployment or age criteria. A number are also turned down because the firm is unable to provide training of the desired quality or is already in receipt of public sector assistance.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of local government expenditure in England and Wales is represented by spending on education other than the payment of teachers' salaries;

  (2) what percentage of local government expenditure in England and Wales is represented by the payment of teachers' salaries.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1985–86 local government expenditure in England and Wales on teachers' salaries amounted to 22 per cent. of local authority gross spending on the rate fund revenue account. On education other than the payment of teachers' salaries and excluding school meals and milk it amounted to 21 per cent.

  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local government income in England and Wales comprises funds provided by central Government.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1985–86 Government grants and subsidies accounted for 43 per cent. of local government gross income from all accounts, in England and Wales.

  Professional Boxers
  Mr. Hayward
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the British Boxing Board of Control regarding the board's powers over professional boxers licensed by the board.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have drawn to the British Boxing Board of Control's attention my concern over apparent mismatches in bouts involving British boxers. The board shares my concern. All boxers licensed in Britain have to reach very high standards of all round fitness and their licences are subject to annual re-examination. Every effort is made by the board to ensure that opponents are fairly matched. This is a matter for constant review by the board, which is now conducting a survey of the standard of foreign boxers being allowed to compete in Britain.

  British boxers must seek written permission from the board before taking part in a contest overseas. The record of the intended opponent is checked before permission is
  574
  granted and a number of requests by British boxers to compete abroad have been turned down in recent months. In addition, the board has decided that if in the future it is concerned that an intended opponent for a British boxer is not of a sufficiently high standard it will convey that concern to the commission under whose jurisdiction the contest is taking place.

  Every British boxer travelling abroad must have the international licence which has been developed by the World Boxing Council, largely at the instigation of the British board. I share the board's hope that this licence will become accepted worldwide and that all countries will adopt safety standards in line with those applied in Britain.

  Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by classification those projects approved and rejected for the Nottingham inner area programme for 1987–88.

  Mr. Trippier
  A list of newly-approved and rejected projects is as follows, classified by the four main urban programme objectives. In addition, projects deferred for further consideration are listed.

  New Approved Projects Nottingham Inner Area Programme 1987–88

  Project Title

  £(000)

  Economic Regeneration

  CODA

  23·7

  Pathway Hi-Tech

  23·9

  Business Support Fund

  75·0

  Sheltered Employment Scheme

  23·4

  Advance Business Centre: Training Support

  25·0

  Community Accounting Support Unit

  27·2

  City House Business Bureau

  23·9

  Business Development Officer

  5·3

  Nottingham Fashion Centre

  87·3

  Black Business Enterprise Agency

  49·5

  Clothing and Textile Workshops, Phase 2

  187·4

  Palin Court Phase 2

  158·0

  Glaisdale Park Advance Factory Units, Phase 2

  600·0

  Environmental Improvements

  Nottingham and Beeston Canal (Extension)

  20·0

  Lace Market Environmentals (Extension)

  10·0

  Mansfield Road/North Sherwood Street (Extension)

  30·0

  Trent Riverside (Extension)

  20·0

  Forest Fields POS (Extension)

  20·0

  Disabled Persons Conservation Project

  13·0

  Inner City Conservation Project

  38·0

  Goosegate Environment Improvements

  49·5

  Berridge Road Junction Improvements

  36·0

  Sneinton District Plan Revised Costs

  50·0

  Housing Support

  Arboretum Environmental (Extension)

  15·0

  Lenton District Plan (Extension)

  15·0

  Burns Street Area (Extension)

  35·0

  Lenton Sands (Extension)

  25·0

  Retaining Walls Work

  110·0

  Birkin Avenue/Belper Road HAAs

  25·0

  Age Concern Staying Put Scheme

  13·1

  Women's Aid Refuge

  14·6

  Transferable Support Scheme

  14·7

  Social

  Cavaliers

  34·5

  Highbury Vale Community Centre

  190·0

  Veitnamese Community Project

  53·0

  Nottingham Asian Women's Support Group

  16·3

  Forest Fields Playcentre Project

  24·0

  Madni Masjid and Muslim Education Centre

  10·0

  575

  Project Title

  £(000)

  Dial-A-Ride

  30·1

  Lenton Muslim Centre

  20·0

  Bestwood Estate Play Area

  30·0

  Radford Youth and Community Centre

  83·4

  Association of Musicians and Artists

  8·3

  Holiday Projects

  20·0

  Nottingham Furniture Service

  30·4

  New Basford Community Centre

  12·3

  Joint and Extended Use of Community Buildings

  20·0

  African Information, Cultural, Education, & Social Centre

  20·0

  Matsimela

  5·0

  Community Health Promotion Project Extension

  48·4

  Victoria Health Information Assistant

  12·0

  Sickle Cell Anaemia Community Screening

  19·5

  South and West Mental Health Ethnic Minority Worker

  10·7

  Ethnic Minority Diabetic Service

  9·8

  Deprived Sick Children Project

  13·7

  Rosebery House Day Centre Alterations

  18·7

  Community Link Worker Interpretation Scheme

  20·7

  Organisation for Sickle Cell Anaemia Research

  38·7

  Asian Women's Interpreting Scheme

  10·6

  Sherwood Rise Health Centre

  140·0

  Inner Area Programme Management

  74·7

  Nottingham

    Nottingham IAP 1987–88
    DEFERRED

    Economic

    Black Business Enterprise Workshops

    Crocus Place Industrial Units

    Social

    Meadows Muslim Centre

    CHROMA

    AIDS Information Project

    REJECTED

    Economic

    Nottingham Outworkers Support Scheme

    Basford Employment Scheme

    Social

    Inner City Executive

    Afro Caribbean and Asian Forum

    Lesbian Community Centre

    Translation and Interpretation Unit

    Jinnah Neighbourhood Centre

    Supplementary Education

    Patient Council Support Group
    Mr. Allen
    asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the rate support grant for each of the years from 1979 in constant prices for the city of Nottingham.

    Mr. Chope
    The figures requested are provided in the table:

    £ million

    1979–80

    29·157

    1980–81

    27·055

    1981–82

    14·953

    1982–83

    14·805

    1983–84

    16·018

    1984–85

    15·021

    1985–86

    16·404

    1986–87

    15·361

    1987–88

    15·852

    Notes:

    i. For 1979–80 and 1980–81, rate support grant comprised needs and resources elements and domestic rate relief grant, and was not paid on a basis comparable with later years.

    ii. From 1981–82 onwards, rate support grant comprises block grant and domestic rate relief grant.

    iii. The rate support grant figures for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83
    576
    are final entitlements. The domestic rate relief grant elements for 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 are also final entitlements; those for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are first estimates. The block grant elements for 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 are entitlements after holdback based upon provisional outturn; those for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are entitlements based on budgets.

    iv. The figures are expressed in 1987–88 prices using the GDP

  Beechdale Engineering, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in favour of an urban development grant to assist Beechdale Engineering, Nottingham to relocate to the Blenheim industrial estate, Bulwell.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Empty Houses (London)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council-owned houses and flats are vacant in each of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest available information is for 1 April 1986 and was provided by London boroughs in their 1986 housing investment programme returns. The figures for each authority's vacant dwellings within its own area, including any awaiting demolition, appear in columns A99 and A97, respectively, of the "HIP1 (1986) All items print" which is in the Library.

  Rent Arrears (London)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of rent arrears in each of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest information available to this Department on rent arrears is for 1 April 1986 and it was supplied in local authorities housing subsidy claim forms. The figures for individual London boroughs are in the tables of "Local authority rent arrears (England) at April 1986", which were placed in the Library on 10 December 1986.

  Rating Reform
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations the Government have had with local authorities in England and Wales concerning the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  454 local authorities and associated bodies in England responded to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714). There have been discussions with the local authority associations in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and in a working group of officials set up under the auspices of CCLGF. My Department also has frequent contacts with individual local authorities, at both ministerial and official level, about the community charge.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has conducted similar consultations with Welsh local authorities.

  Council House Purchase, Southwark
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the reasons for

  577
  delay in the purchase by Mr. and Mrs. Hunt of their council home at 16 Harfield gardens, Grove lane, S.E.5; and when he now expects Southwark council to complete the transaction.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. and Mrs. Hunt's purchase was originally held up by a dispute over their discount entitlement and then was further delayed while the council obtained counsel's opinion on the terms of the lease. I understand that a completion date of 17 August is now proposed.

  Local Authority Housing (Midlands)
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a list of the number of local authority homes in each local authority in the east and west midlands which were considered to be in need of repair in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of local authority dwellings which are unfit, fit but lacking basic amenities, and others needing major renovation are provided by local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns. Figures appear in columns A31, A41, and A51 of the "HIP All items print" for 1984, 1985, and 1986, which are in the Library. For earlier years the corresponding figures appear in authorities' individual HIP returns, which are also in the Library.

  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government intend to proceed with their proposals for the restructuring and privatisation of the water authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today published, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a policy and consultation paper entitled "The National Rivers Authority—a public regulatory body in a privatised water industry." This paper sets out our revised proposals for the restructuring of the water authorities, under which their utility functions of water supply, sewerage and sewage treatment and disposal, will be transferred to public limited companies, which will be offered for sale to the public; and their regulatory and river management functions will remain in the public sector and be given to a new National Rivers Authority. We consider that creating a regulatory body responsible for these functions and answerable to the Government will provide clear and comprehensible framework for the private sector operation of the utility functions which represent by far the largest part of water authorities' business.

  The proposals set out in the paper published today are the result of much careful consideration, but there are a number of aspects on which we are keen to receive comment from interested parties. These include of course the water authorities themselves, and we shall consult them closely in taking the policy forward. We intend to make rapid progress in our consultations so that we can draw up and introduce the necessary legislation as soon as practicable.

  Meanwhile, we are today introducing a Bill which will clarify the powers of the water authorities to prepare for
  578
  the restructuring and privatisation which we propose for the industry, and also to facilitate the carrying-out of domestic metering trials.

  I have arranged for copies of the policy arid consultation paper to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Live Turtles
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 13 July about the implementation of CITES conferences resolution 2.12, how many live turtles have been imported into Grand Cayman from Nicaragua since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall answer this question shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner City Task Forces
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for the future of the inner city task forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I announced an expansion of the inner cities initiative to 16 task forces on 27 April 1987, at column 31. Leaders and other staff of the task forces are now being appointed and premises found in the city areas they cover. Task forces are intended to promote local initiative and to improve the targeting of Government programmes in the chosen area. We are not committed to 16—task forces will be ended when they have completed their work, and new ones formed in areas which appear promising for this kind of pilot initiative.

  Rolls-Royce and British Airports Authority
  Mr. John David
  Taylor asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the titles of those newspapers in which advertisements for the offers of sale of shares in Rolls-Royce and British Airports Authority were placed.

  Mr. Butcher
  Public application forms for the sale of shares in Rolls-Royce plc were available in the following newspapers:

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Daily Mail

  The Daily Telegraph

  Financial Times Guardian

  The Independent

  The Times

  London Evening Standard

  Glasgow Herald

  The Scotsman

  Mail on Sunday

  Observer

  Sunday Telegraph

  The Sunday Times

  Birmingham Post

  Coventry Evening Telegraph

  Derby Evening Telegraph

  Lancashire Evening Telegraph

  Leicester Mercury

  Liverpool Post

  Manchester Evening News

  Nottingham Evening Post

  Sunderland Echo

  Western Daily Press

  Yorkshire Post

  579
  The sale of shares in BAA plc was the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the comparison of gross domestic product at 1987 prices between (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan, (d) West Germany and (e) France, of the amount allocated by each country to military research.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information relates to Government funding of research and development for defence purposes in 1985 and is given in the table. For countries other than the United Kingdom the information is obtained from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

  Government funding of R and D for defence purposes as a percentage of gross domestic product:

  Sources of funding of expenditure on research and development performed in higher education as a percentage of gross domestic product

  1United Kingdom

  United States of America

  2Japan

  West Germany

  France

  Source:

  Public Finance

  0·21

  0·31

  0·23

  0·38

  0·33

  Business Enterprise Sector

  0·01

  0·01

  0·01

  0·02

  30·00

  1 Relates to 1985, excludes social science and humanities.

  2 Data adjusted by OECD.

  3 Less than 0·005.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the comparisons, as a percentage of gross domestic product by 1987 prices, between (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan, (d) West Germany and (e) France of the total amounts spent by central Government and private industry on research funding.

  Sources of funding of gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  1Japan

  West Germany

  1France

  Sources:

  Public Sector

  1·0

  1·4

  0·6

  1·0

  1·2

  Business Enterprise Sector

  1·1

  1·3

  1·7

  1·6

  0·9

  1 1984.

  Textiles (US Trade Bill)
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has made to the Department of Commerce of the United States of America regarding the threat to the United Kingdom textile industry posed by the Textile and Apparel Trade Bill, currently before the Congress; and what reply he has received.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  When he was in Washington in March, the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear to the United States Administration and to Members of Congress the United Kingdom Government's
  580

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  0·7

  United States of America

  0·9

  Japan1

  0·0

  West Germany

  0·1

  France

  0·5

  1 Less than 0·05 in 1983 the latest available year.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the comparisons, as a percentage of gross domestic product at 1987 prices between (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan, (d) West Germany and (e) France, for research funding in academic institutions by central Government and private industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information for countries other than the United Kingdom relates to 1983 and is obtained from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The data are shown in the table.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information relates to 1985 and is given in the table. For countries other than the United Kingdom it is obtained from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  strong opposition to the Textile and Apparel Trade Bill. The United States Administration are also opposed to the Bill.

  Mr. Rupert Murdoch
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions during the past 12 months the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has met Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and noble Friend has met the proprietors of all the major newspaper publishing companies during the last 12 months. He last
  581
  met Mr. Murdoch on 21 May 1987 at Wapping, when he was Secretary of State for Employment. This was their only meeting during the period.

  News International Ltd.
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions during the past 12 months the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has visited News International Ltd. at Wapping.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and Noble Friend has visited the News International plant at Wapping on only one occasion, when he was Secretary of State for Employment. This was on 21 May 1987.

  Textiles (Statistics)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will publish as a table in the Official Report the United Kingdom imports and exports of textiles and clothing from and to (a) other individual European Community countries, (b) the rest of the world and (c) the European Community for each year since 1970;

  (2) what are the figures for imports and exports of textiles and clothing between the United Kingdom and, separately, the European Community and the rest of the world in real terms for each year since 1975.

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

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has regarding average unit labour costs in the textile and clothing industries of each country involved in the multi-fibre arrangement;

  (2) if he will publish as a table in the Official Report the average hourly labour costs within the textile industries of Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United States of America, Italy, Japan, France, Austria, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Macao and Thailand for the latest year for which figures are available, showing the costs in £ sterling and as an index with the United Kingdom as 100.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information is not collected by the Department and I can not readily identify a published source of the information to which the hon. Gentleman could be referred.

  Toxic Household Goods (Safety)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what regulations control the packaging of bleaches, weedkiller, drain cleaners and other toxic household goods to ensure the safety of children.

  Mr. Maude
  The Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984, which came into operation on 12 December 1984, set out 582
  packaging and labelling requirements for hazardous household chemicals to warn parents to keep them away from small children. The Child Resistant Packaging (Safety) Regulations 1986, which come into force on 1 December this year, prescribe child resistant packaging for the more hazardous household chemicals, including weedkiller, drain cleaner, oven cleaner, white spirit and paint stripper. Whilst ordinary household bleach is only classified as an "irritant" and child resistant containers are not therefore mandatory, I understand that many suppliers are now using them of their own volition. I welcome this responsible action.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Facsimile Machines
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to introduce further facsimile machines for the use of right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. Right hon. and hon. Members may make use of the facsimile transmission machine in the Central Lobby Post Office on repayment or, alternatively, they may purchase machines for their personal use from their secretarial allowance.

  Ministers' Pay
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Lord Privy Seal, if he will make a statement about Ministers' pay.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The salaries of Ministers and other paid office holders were last increased from 1 January 1987 under the terms of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1983, and will remain at these levels until they are superseded by a new order. The Government have considered possible changes to ministerial salaries against the background of the 21·9 per cent. increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament that will take place on 1 January 1988 if the House decides to confirm the resolution of 26 July 1983 linking the parliamentary salary to a Civil Service pay scale. The Government do not consider that a similar percentage increase in the salaries. of Ministers and other office holders would be justified. Instead, they propose that all Ministers and office holders should receive the same cash increase of £4,048 as Members of Parliament are due to receive from I January 1988. Ministers and other office holders in the House of Commons will receive an increase of £3,036 in their parliamentary salaries from 1 January 1988 under the terms of the resolution of 26 July 1983. It is proposed to award them cash increases of £1,012 in their ministerial salaries to bring their overall increase up to £4,048. The salaries of Ministers and other office holders in the House of Lords will also be increased by £4,048. The details are set out in the table. I have today laid the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987 to implement these changes.
  583

  Ministers and Other Paid Office Holders

  Office

  Current official salary

  January 1988 official salary

  Percentage increase

  Current salary (including Parliamentary salary)

  January 1988 (including Parliamentary salary)

  Percentage increase

  Prime Minister

  44,775

  45,787

  2·3

  58,650

  62,698

  6·9

  Mr. Speaker

  34,875

  35,887

  2·9

  48,750

  52,798

  8·3

  Cabinet Minister (C)

  33,145

  34,157

  3·1

  47,020

  51,068

  8·6

  Cabinet Minister (L)

  36,390

  40,438

  11·1

  Minister of State (C)

  22,875

  23,887

  4·4

  36,750

  40,798

  11·0

  Minister of State (L)

  30,640

  34,688

  13·2

  Parliamentary Secretary (C)

  16,885

  17,897

  6·0

  30,760

  34,808

  13·2

  Parliamentary Secretary (L)

  24,640

  28,688

  16·4

  Attorney General

  35,345

  36,357

  2·9

  49,220

  53,268

  8·2

  Solicitor General

  28,625

  29,637

  3·5

  42,500

  46,548

  9·5

  Lord Advocate

  36,460

  40,508

  11·1

  Solicitor-General for Scotland

  24,085

  34,956

  45·1

  House of Commons

  Leader of the Opposition

  30,225

  31,237

  3·3

  44,100

  48,148

  9·2

  Chief Whip

  27,255

  28,267

  3·7

  41,130

  45,178

  9·8

  Deputy Chief Whip

  22,875

  23,887

  4·4

  36,750

  40,798

  11·0

  Opposition Chief Whip

  22,875

  23,887

  4·4

  36,750

  40,798

  11·0

  Government Whip

  13,815

  14,827

  7·3

  27,690

  31,738

  14·6

  Assistant Opposition Whip

  13,815

  14,827

  7·3

  27,690

  31,738

  14·6

  Chairman, Ways and Means

  22,875

  23,887

  4·4

  36,750

  40,798

  11·0

  Deputy Chairman, Ways and Means

  19,865

  20,877

  5·1

  33,740

  37,788

  12·0

  House of Lords

  Chief Whip

  30,640

  34,688

  13·2

  Deputy Chief Whip

  24,640

  28,688

  16·4

  Government Whip

  21,570

  25,618

  18·8

  Opposition Leader

  24,640

  28,688

  16·4

  Opposition Chief Whip

  21,570

  25,618

  18·8

  Chairman of Committees

  30,640

  34,688

  13·2

  Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

  27,530

  31,578

  14·7

  Members of Parliament

  18,500

  22,548

  21·9

  Notes:

  (a) The Prime Minister has elected to receive the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons.

  (b) The Lord Chancellor's salary is governed by the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987 and is not affected by this order. (He receives £82,690 rising to £83,000 from 1 October 1987).

  (c) The Solicitor-General for Scotland's salary has been adjusted because the holder of the office is no longer a Member of the House of Commons. His previous ministerial salary has been increased by the difference between the ministerial salaries of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for England and Wales. Prior to 1981 the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for England and Wales received the same salary. However, from 1981 the Lord Advocate, who was no longer a Member of the Commons, benefited from the higher ministerial salary that Ministers in the Lords receive compared with their Commons counterparts. Now that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not a Member of the House of Commons his previous ministerial salary will be increased by the differential between the ministerial salaries of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for England and Wales. If the holder of the office of Solicitor-General for Scotland were again to be a Member of the House of Commons this arrangement would lapse.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  2,4,5-T
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions apply to use of the weedkiller 2,4,5-T in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Products containing 2,4,5-T are approved for professional use for the control of weeds in pastures, on non-edible crops, as a pre-sowing, pre-planting or post-crop emergence herbicide on any edible crop, as a control of scrub in forestry and plantations and for the control of heather and woody weeds in coniferous plantations. Only dilute formulations are approved for amateur use.

  Only those products containing 2,4,5-T which have specific approval from Ministers may be used. From 1 January 1988 users must comply with the conditions of
  584
  approval related to use, which are concerned with areas of use, protective clothing, application rates and precautions. These are specified on product labels.

  Saithe Catch Quotas
  Mr. Randall
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to compensate those companies which did not exceed the saithe catch quotas allocated to them for area six before the closure of this fishery; and what corresponding action he will take with those companies which exceeded their quotas in this area.

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

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. John
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will set out the amounts of common agricultural policy surplus production held in each of the stores used for that purpose in the United Kingdom;
  585
  (2) what is the location, by town, of the stores used for the storage of common agricultural policy surpluses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 July 1987]: At 31 March 1987 intervention stocks at each location in the United Kingdom were:

  Cereals

  Location

  Tonnes

  England

  Alford

  7,412

  Ancaster

  4,172

  Avonmouth

  4,141

  Banbury

  22,298

  Bardney

  16,806

  Belford

  6,567

  Birmingham

  78,378

  Boston

  330

  Braintree

  15,096

  Bressingham

  18,997

  Bury St. Edmunds

  47,338

  Chipping Warden

  12,273

  Christchurch

  14,384

  Cleveland

  25,754

  Colnbrook

  20,394

  Colsterworth

  9,478

  Corby

  94

  Coventry

  22,996

  Dagenham

  837

  Diss

  11,972

  Doncaster

  37,336

  Downham Market

  11,426

  Driffield

  6,920

  Droitwich

  1,945

  Dudley

  1,596

  Ely

  86,934

  Elsworth

  10,338

  Fakenham

  775

  Felixstowe

  41,365

  Finmere

  10,164

  Foulsham

  16,533

  Fulbourn

  4,223

  Gainsborough

  9,698

  Gloucester

  54,413

  Grantham

  57,684

  Grimsby

  3,142

  Hadleigh

  4,450

  Halesworth

  75,732

  Haresfield

  18,466

  Hartlebury

  48,714

  Hayes

  4,495

  Heighington

  5,119

  Hemswell

  74,485

  Holton Le Clay

  14,493

  Honeybourne

  22,613

  Hoveringham

  15,762

  Hull

  30,765

  Huntingdon

  25,216

  Ipswich

  35,080

  Kings Lynn

  59,026

  Lincoln

  77,192

  Linton

  13

  Long Eaton

  26

  Luton

  27,875

  Lutterworth

  27,586

  Lympne

  9,760

  Maldon

  38,074

  Manby

  26,809

  Market Marborough

  6,843

  Market Rasen

  10,717

  Melmerby

  25,912

  Membury

  13,531

  Misson

  25,610

  Mistley

  3,065

  Newmarket

  43,046

  Norwich

  21,233

  586

  Location

  Tonnes

  Oldbury

  13,587

  Owmby

  9,005

  Pebmarsh

  6,442

  Prees Heath

  35,194

  Ray don

  9,113

  Retford

  18,783

  Royston

  19,719

  Salisbury

  65,049

  Sawston

  14,776

  Scunthorpe

  57,800

  Selby

  7,174

  Skegness

  1,266

  Sleaford

  8,866

  Snetterton

  36,285

  Southampton

  6,672

  South Wigston

  1,328

  Spalding

  8,235

  Staughton

  16,237

  Stoke Ferry

  9,048

  Stowmarket

  36,370

  Stretham

  12,875

  Sudbury

  2,980

  Swinderby

  7,199

  Swindon

  21,798

  Tangmere

  9,641

  Telford

  767

  Thetford

  8,271

  Tuxford

  8,586

  Uttoxeter

  415

  Watford

  60,506

  Wednesbury

  17,954

  Wellingborough

  178

  Westbury

  8,517

  West Hallam

  27,342

  Whtttlesford

  22,258

  Wimblington

  15,407

  Wingham

  64

  Wisbech

  42,161

  Witney

  10,067

  Woodbridge

  79

  Wroughton

  30,567

  Wymeswold

  13

  Yatesbury

  17,412

  York

  35,843

  Scotland

  Airdrie

  19,483

  Duns

  89,681

  Dysart

  35,829

  Glenrothes

  23,655

  Granton

  17

  Keith

  31,882

  Kirkcaldy

  14,408

  Kirknewton

  17,507

  Locharbriggs

  40,886

  Newmarchar

  4,149

  Ormiston

  65,241

  Penicuik

  9,989

  Stracathro

  52,596

  Tranent

  20,603

  Turrif

  41,122

  Wales

  Monmouth

  19,303

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  Location

  MT

  England

  Billingham

  354

  Bridgwater

  83

  Chard

  600

  Cockermouth

  80

  Exeter

  3,333

  Great Torrington

  240

  High Ercall

  1,530

  587

  Location

  MT

  Knockin Heath

  480

  Market Drayton

  280

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  240

  Newton Abbot

  10

  Nuneaton

  30

  Oswestry

  120

  Penrith

  360

  Plymouth

  40

  Stonehouse (Gloucester)

  200

  Whitchurch (Shropshire)

  1,200

  Scotland

  Cumbernauld

  321

  Wales

  Grymych

  1,520

  Llanelli

  835

  St. Clease

  10

  Northern Ireland

  Bambridge

  5,026

  Coleraine

  512

  Moneymore

  246

  Strabane

  1,356

  Northern Ireland sub-total

  7,140

  GRAND TOTAL

  19,006

  Beef

  Location

  Tonnes

  England

  Avonmouth (2)

  463

  Bishop's Stortford

  7

  Blackburn

  1,358

  Bourne

  7

  Bury St. Edmunds

  438

  Cambridge

  9

  Cannock

  252

  Colnbrook

  307

  Cullompton

  58

  Dagenham

  29

  Doncaster

  18

  Droitwich

  110

  Eastleigh

  88

  Exeter

  129

  Felixstowe

  37

  Fleetwood

  81

  Frome

  128

  Gateshead

  75

  Gillingham

  332

  Grantham (2)

  4,938

  Hertford

  75

  Hull (4)

  5,341

  Kings Lynn (2)

  1,306

  Leeds (3)

  760

  Leicester

  33

  Liverpool (4)

  144

  London (3)

  820

  Lowestoft

  14

  Maidstone (2)

  69

  Manchester

  172

  Northallerton

  11

  Northampton

  88

  Nottingham

  56

  Oswestry

  25

  Paddock Wood

  129

  Peterborough (2)

  1,529

  Plymouth

  10

  Pontefract

  707

  Reading

  29

  St. Helens

  9

  Salford

  290

  Sherborne

  77

  Shrewsbury

  1,083

  588

  Location

  Tonnes

  Stourport-on-Severn

  40

  Truro

  268

  Walsall

  264

  Warwick

  64

  Wigan

  249

  Wigston

  58

  Wolverhampton

  507

  Scotland

  Aberdeen (2)

  2,005

  Bellshill

  29

  Bridge of Allan

  13

  Dundee

  330

  Edinburgh (3)

  74

  Fraserburgh

  197

  Glasgow (2)

  318

  Glenrothes

  1,075

  Inverness

  324

  Peterhead

  9

  Wales

  Cardiff

  19

  Rhyl

  50

  Northern Ireland

  Antrim

  1,801

  Ballymena

  840

  Belfast (3)

  1,389

  Coleraine

  872

  Craigavon (3)

  9,167

  Dungannon

  1,911

  Lisburn (2)

  3,490

  Newry

  91

  Newtonabbey (2)

  5,955

  Omagh

  2,090

  Portadown

  10

  Strabane

  236

  Intervention Butler

  Location

  Tonnes

  England

  Ashton in Makerfield

  1,867

  Avonmouth

  990

  Aylesford

  90

  Banbury

  516

  Birkenhead

  1,080

  Bristol

  16,020

  Buxton

  878

  Cambourne

  603

  Cannock

  3,135

  Chard

  474

  Cheltenham

  434

  Chester

  1,062

  Colnbrook

  9,636

  Cullompton

  6,737

  Derby

  1,137

  Doncaster

  4,128

  Droitwich

  3,056

  Eastleigh

  815

  Easton

  116

  Exeter

  2,429

  Fleetwood

  1,942

  Frome

  2,647

  Gateshead

  721

  Gillingham

  810

  Gloucester

  733

  Goole

  445

  Great Harwood

  276

  Grimsby

  4,258

  Hereford

  1,142

  Heywood

  247

  Hull

  4,852

  Kings Lynn

  3,064

  Leeds

  3,064

  Leek

  572

  589

  Location

  Tonnes

  Liverpool

  19,917

  London

  11,771

  Lowestoft

  2,260

  Luton

  912

  Manchester

  3,980

  Marston

  4,528

  Milford Haven

  438

  Milton Keynes

  319

  Newcastle

  1,170

  Northallerton

  5,687

  Nottingham

  342

  Nuneaton

  100

  Oswestry

  2,724

  Peterborough

  4,235

  Plymouth

  1,347

  Preston

  1,709

  Reading

  2,088

  Retford

  1,638

  Rochdale

  526

  Salford

  3,535

  Sevenoaks

  1,606

  Sheffield

  1,605

  Sherborne

  2,211

  Shrewsbury

  1,712

  Stoke-on-Trent

  470

  Stourport

  2,220

  Taunton

  3,622

  Tewkesbury

  2,770

  Thetford

  1,517

  Truro

  2,938

  Walsall

  1,885

  Warrington

  1,218

  Warwick

  1,488

  Wigan

  42

  Wigston

  1,511

  Wolverhampton

  6,523

  Yeovil

  168

  Yate

  629

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  821

  Dundee

  540

  Edinburgh

  1,976

  Glasgow

  5,325

  Glenrothes

  4,891

  Inverness

  36

  Wales

  Cardiff

  12,263

  Merthyr

  560

  Newport

  1,243

  Rhyl

  1,172

  Swansea

  1,269

  Whitland

  280

  Northern Ireland

  Annalong

  313

  Augher

  814

  Ballymena

  133

  Banbridge

  3,660

  Belfast

  2,122

  Coleraine

  2,036

  Dungannon

  120

  Eglinton

  242

  Lisburn

  1,471

  Londonderry

  846

  Newtownabbey

  1,177

  Omagh

  330

  Portadown

  2,352

  Strabane

  3,206

EMPOLYMENT

  Women
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the number of women which comprise (a) the 139 per cent. increase in the number of women managers, (b) the 282 per cent. increase in women engineers and scientists, (c) the 134 per cent. increase of women in construction craft occupations as stated in the Home Office report "The Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women: A Review" and (d) the proportion of women within the total work force in each of these occupations since 1971.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures underlying the percentage increases quoted in the report were derived by the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick university from the results of the 1971 and 1981 censuses of population and are reproduced in the table.

  Women in Employment in Selected Occupation Groups1

  1971

  1981

  Occupation group1

  Number (000's)2

  Per cent

  Number (000's)2

  Per Cent

  Managers and administrators

  23

  0·3

  56

  0·6

  Engineers and scientists

  8

  0·1

  32

  0·4

  Construction craft occupations

  3

  —

  7

  0·1

  All occupation groups

  8,690

  100

  9,134

  100

  Notes:

  1 The occupational classifications used are the "Warwick Occupational Categories" defined by the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick university.

  2 Estimated numbers in employment were derived from the 10 per cent. sample of census returns that were coded for occupation.

  —denotes percentage less than 0·1.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  Over 13,000 trainees are currently participating in the scheme with the support and co-operation of rapidly increasing numbers of employers, both large and small. I regret the irresponsible attempts of trade unions to obstruct the new job training scheme, which is designed to bridge the gap between the skills that industry wants to employ and the skills that those out of work for six months or more have to offer. I am convinced that the scheme will go from strength to strength and that trade unions will fail in their attempt to prevent long-term unemployed people receiving the training they need for employment.

  Growth Strategy
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place between the Government and trades unions, including the Trades Union Congress, concerning the commitment to implement the European Commission's co-operative strategy for more employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The draft summary and conclusions of the European Commission's Annual Economic Report",
  591
  which called on the Community to press ahead with the co-operative growth strategy, were discussed at the December 1986 meeting of the National Economic Development Council. Employment issues have also been discussed at several other NEDC meetings.

  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has concerning the number of people employed as full-time equivalents in the textiles and clothing industries for each quarter in the last eight years.

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

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of those aged 65 years or over liable to income tax who fail to claim the age allowance; and whether he will takes steps to grant the age allowance automatically to those aged 65 years or over without the obligation to claim.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No information is available on the number of those aged 65 and over who have failed to claim age allowance, but there is no evidence to suggest that the figure is substantial.

  In order to give the benefit of age allowance the tax office needs to know the date of birth of the taxpayer (and his wife). A taxpayer is asked to show this information on his tax return if either he or his wife will be aged over 60 or over during the coming year. Although most taxpayers are not now regularly asked to complete tax returns, where a taxpayer retires from full-time employment he will normally be asked to make a return, and this will give him the opportunity to supply the information. If he does so he can normally expect age allowance to be given at the appropriate time without any further action on his part, provided that his income (including his wife's income) is within the appropriate limit.

  If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind I should be glad to look into it if he will let me have the necessary details.

  Privatisation
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why advertisements for the offers for sale of shares in state companies are restricted to newspapers published in Great Britain; why no such advertisements are placed in newspapers published in Northern Ireland; and if he will ensure that United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland are given the same opportunity to apply for these shares.

  Mr. Lawson
  It is a matter for the Government Department responsible for each sale to decide advertising policy for that sale. It is usual practice for offer for sale advertisements to be placed in several newspapers available throughout the United Kingdom so that all United Kingdom citizens are equally well informed about application procedures for shares in privatised companies.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. John Townend
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff-in-post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Major
  At 1 April 1987 there were 597,814 staff in post in central Government Departments. Of these, 507,460 were non-industrials and 90,354 were industrials.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of raising the income tax threshold to £4,000; how many people this would take out of tax altogether; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 July 1987]: The estimated full-year cost of changing all income tax thresholds to £4,000 would be just over £5½ billion at 1987–88 levels of income and 2·2 million tax units (single people and married couples) would be taken out of tax. These figures assume that the single person's allowance, the wife's earned income allowance, the married man's allowance and the age allowances are all changed to £4,000. This means that the age allowances for married couples would be lowered from their present levels and, as a consequence, 200,000 married couples aged 65 or over would be brought into tax. Overall, there would be 2 million fewer single people and married couples paying tax as a result of the measure.

TRANSPORT

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department in helping small businesses over the last three years; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Channon
  Achievements over the last three years are as follows:

  For bus, minibus and taxi operators:

  —the many more business opportunities provided in the Transport Act 1985 by the deregulation of local bus services.

  For bus and lorry operators:

  —an increased flexibility in drivers' hours arrangements allowed by changes successfully negotiated in EC regulations, and the removal of some controls imposed by the Transport Act 1968.

  For international hauliers:

  —the agreed removal of quantity restrictions on international road haulage within the EC.

  For business men with roadside premises:

  —a relaxation of my power to direct refusal of planning applications, and the proposed removal of local highway authorities' powers in England and Wales to block applications, for certain roadside developments.

  For airline operators:

  —new bilateral agreements with Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and Luxembourg.

  For helicopter operators:

  —the scrapping by the Civil Aviation Authority of

  593
  licensing requirements for services to oil rigs outside the United Kingdom.

  For shipowners:

  —simpler and less costly arrangements for bringing secondhand ships onto the United Kingdom register.

  For shipowners in coastal trade:

  —an agreement with the West German Government, allowing United Kingdom vessels access to German coastal trades on a reciprocal basis.

  For MOT garages:

  —provision to allow MOT testing stations to use fewer forms.

  For the supply industry:

  —the British Railways Board were asked to obtain more supply and support services, including rail and station catering, from the private sector.

  —the procurement organisation recently set up to direct all the Department's purchasing, will take steps to encourage the use of small firms where appropriate.

  The procurement organisation is in the process of establishing suitable performance indicators to monitor the use of small firms, and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is monitoring the effects of bus deregulation under the Transport Act 1985. The other measures do not lend themselves in the same way to the use of statistical performance indicators.

  BAA (Share Offer)
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport in which newspapers published in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland the offer for sales of shares in the British Airports Authority was advertised.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The BAA full and abridged prospectuses containing application forms for BAA shares were published only in national newspapers or those that enjoy a large circulation in the vicinity of BAA plc's airports. The following newspapers were used:

  The Aberdeen Press and Journal

  Daily Express

  Daily Mail

  The Daily Telegraph

  Financial Times

  Glasgow Herald

  The Guardian

  The Independent

  London Daily News

  The London Evening Standard

  The Mail on Sunday

  The Scotsman

  Sunday Express

  The Sunday Times

  The Times

  Ship Registration
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what responses were received to the consultative document on ship registration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Some 50 responses to the March 1984 consultative document were received. The Merchant Shipping Bill to be introduced this autumn will take forward some of the proposals in the consultative document, in particular those on eligibility to register and on the categorisation of dependent territory registers.

  British Rail
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport which parts of British Rail are currently under consideration for disposal to the private sector; for each part, how much profit or loss was made in each of the last five years; and how much was spent on infrastructure and maintenance.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Railways Board is currently considering disposal of British Transport Advertising and of Doncaster Wagon Works Ltd. BTA previously acted for the Railways Board and its other principals on a non-profit making agency basis. Doncaster Wagon Works was part of the Doncaster works of BREL until April this year, and no separate historical financial information is available.

  Herald of Free Enterprise (Report)
  Mr. David Shaw asked
  the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the formal investigation into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise.

  Mr. Channon
  I understand that Mr. Justice Sheene intends to deliver his report in court on Friday 24 July.

  A47 (Dual Carriageway)
  Mr. Carttiss
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, in view of recent fatal accidents, he will make an early statement on the priorities he plans to give to constructing the A47 Acle to Great Yarmouth Straight to dual carriageway standards.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no early plans for dualling this length. Norfolk county council, as the Department's agent, was asked in mid-May to assess the justification for its improvement. Its study will have regard to the accident record.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 6 July, Official Report, column 63, he will publish the contractual terms of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not the practice to release details on contractual arrangements as these are commercially confidential. However, given the parliamentary interest in the break clause of the contract for the first Trident submarine, my predecessor placed a copy of this in the Library of the House on 8 May 1986 after first obtaining the agreement of the company.

  Nerve Gas
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the expenditure and projected expenditure on the procurement of nerve gas detection equipment for each of the years 1979 to 1995.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Expenditure on procurement of nerve gas detection equipment for the years in question was as follows:
  595

  £ million

  1979–80

  nil

  1980–81

  1·21

  1981–82

  0·58

  1982–83

  3·63

  1983–84

  5·95

  1984–85

  4·50

  1985–86

  4·51

  1986–87

  9·37

  Expenditure in future years is, of course, a matter to be considered in the light of future needs and cannot be usefully speculated upon here.

  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence who are the main suppliers of nerve gas detection equipment to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The current main suppliers of nerve gas detection equipment to the Ministry of Defence are Thorn EMI Electronics Ltd. of Nottingham and Graseby Ionics Ltd. of Watford.

  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of members of Her Majesty's forces in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, near Salisbury.

  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been exposed to nerve gas at Porton Down in each year since 1962; over how long a period these experiments have been conducted; how many of those exposed have subsequently left the service; how their reactions are monitored; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Chemical Defence Establishment is responsible for research and development aimed at providing effective protection for our service personnel against chemical and biological warfare agents, should these ever be used against them. As part of this essential work, volunteers are invited from the armed services to participate in a range of studies, one element of which involves exposure to very low and medically-safe concentrations of potential chemical warfare agents in order to determine the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally in such an environment.

  Studies of this nature have been conducted ever since the CDE was established during world war 1. A precise figure for the total number of volunteers over the years is not available but since world war 2 approximately 3,500 service personnel have participated in studies involving exposure to safe concentrations of potential chemical warfare agents. A year-by-year breakdown of this figure cannot be given for security reasons—since such data could enable an informed observer to gain a useful insight into the scope and direction of our chemical defence programme. Information is not available on the number of volunteers who have since left the services.

  Studies involving such exposures are permitted only after approval by both CDE medically-qualified personnel and a panel of distinguished medical authorities from outside the Ministry of Defence. Before any volunteer study is authorised, a clear need for it must be identified and fully adequate arrangements defined for the safety and welfare of volunteers. Guidelines approved by the Royal College of Physicians are observed throughout.

  Volunteers are invited from all branches of the armed forces and no one is put under any pressure whatever to
  596
  apply or, having applied, to continue. Indeed, it is made clear to those who come to the CDE that they are free to withdraw at any time for whatever reason and without prejudice to themselves. They are also given full information on the nature, object and duration of the tests for which they have volunteered in the presence of a service officer who is not involved in the programme and whose role it is to safeguard the interests of the volunteers.

  All volunteers are given a thorough medical examination on arrival at the CDE and before their departure. Each volunteer's participation is recorded in his/her medical file. Service medical records are available, if required, to civilian medical practitioners after Service personnel have returned to civilian life.

  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to how many members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Alliance allow members of their service personnel to be exposed to nerve gases.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  National practice in such areas is a matter for the Governments concerned. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to comment.

  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the use of members of Her Majesty's forces in experiments involving exposure to nerve gases and other toxic chemicals; how many individuals have been so exposed in each of the past 10 years; and if they are required to sign any document that would have the effect of waiving their rights to sue for compensation under the terms of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 in the event of injury or death.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.

  The repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which was brought about by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 and which came into effect on 15 May 1987, gives service personnel participating in volunteer studies at the CDE and their dependants the right to sue the Ministry of Defence, its servants or agents in common law for any negligent act or omission which has resulted in personal injury, disease or death. This position is made clear to service personnel participating in volunteer studies and they are not required to sign any document which would have the effect of waiving this right.

  120 mm DS/T Shot
  Mr. McWilliam
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place the second part of the 1987–88 order for 120 mm DS/T shot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Provided that satisfactory prices can be agreed, we intend to place an order for a further tranche of our 1987–88 requirement for 120 mm DS/T Shot as soon as is possible.

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters at RAF Boulmer have been vacant for more than 12 months.

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall reply shortly.

  FH70 Ammunition
  Mr. McWilliam
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the non-delivery of FH70 ammunition from Rheinmetal GMbH relating to orders placed more than two years ago.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Deliveries of L15 high explosive shell under the current contract with Rheinmetal GMbH in April 1986 and have been maintained steadily since then. Ninety five per cent. of the shells due under this order have been delivered.

  Service Voters
  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the percentages of service personnel in each of the armed forces who are registered on the index of service voters; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that in future nearly half the Royal Air Force, one third of the Army and one quarter of the Royal Navy, together with many of their spouses are not disfranchised in future elections.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for registration rests upon the individual and it is not within our power to compel service personnel to register. However, we shall continue to strive for higher numbers on the index by a constant process of encouragement. This will include: advice during training; the production of Defence Council instructions advising commanding officers of their obligation to encourage maximum registration; notice board information material; articles; broadcasts; advertisements and advisory booklets (in conjunction with the Home Office), and liaison with electoral registration offices.

  End User Certificates
  Mr. McWilliam
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence which companies from which his Department has ordered arms or equipment over the last five years have been prosecuted for illegally supplying arms or equipment with false end user certificates; and what was the result of each such prosecution.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold the information in the form requested. However, I can assure the hon. Member that before any contracts are placed all the relevant circumstances relating to the award of the contract are taken into account. This would, of course, include the reputation of the suppliers in question.

  Support Services, Germany (Privatisation)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the special study on the privatisation of support services for British forces in Germany in the Library.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The report is a classified document which is commercially sensitive and is, in any case, still under consideration. I will, however, arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the consultative document which has been issued to work force representatives.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the special study examining the scope for extending the use of contractors to provide support services for the British forces in Germany has been completed and recommendations submitted to the Commander-in-Chief; and if he will make a statement.
  598
  Mr. Sainsbury
  A study into the scope for extending the use of contractors to provide supporting services to the British forces in Germany was completed in 1986. The study examined the factors surrounding the application of competitive tendering in the theatre, and put forward a strategy for efficiency and competition aimed at securing better value for money, including the formation of a joint efficiency team reporting to the Commanders-in-Chief Committee (Germany). Representatives of the civilian work force have been consulted and their views will be taken into account in reaching decisions on the implementation of the study's recommendations.

  Aircraft Losses
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of aircraft damaged beyond repair by all services in routine flying exercises since 1979; and what is the total cost of these losses in (a) lives lost and (b) cash.

  Mr. Freeman
  In each year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" are set out the details of all accidents involving loss of, or serious damage to, aircraft of the three services, as well as resultant fatalities. In the time available, it has not been possible to separate out or cost the information asked for without disproportionate effort.

  Exercise Purple Warrior
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the proposed locations of the amphibious landings and parachute assault landings in Galloway, Arran and Kintyre during Exercise Purple Warrior in November in the current year; how many troops will be involved in each of these landings; what type of aircraft will be involved in Exercise Purple Warrior, listing the numbers of each type; whether there will be any United States military participation in Exercise Purple Warrior; if he will provide details of the facilities being made available to Warsaw Treaty Organisation observers at Exercise Purple Warrior; what is the estimated cost of Exercise Purple Warrior; if he will list the names of all properties on and over which Exercise Purple Warrior will be conducted, indicating the owner of the land in each. case; and if he will list the nature, location and extent of any planned live firing during Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Stewart
  I shall answer shortly.

ENERGY

  Hinckley Point Power Station
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received a safety report on the alleged welding malpractice at Hinckley Point power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The NII has investigated the alleged welding malpractice at Hinckley Point and has concluded that there is no evidence to support the allegations. A copy of the NII's report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Coal Industry Act 1987
  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to lay orders under sections 6 ad 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1987.
  599
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987]: My right hon. Friend has today laid orders under sections 6 and 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1987. The orders fulfil the Government's promise to ensure that all substantial groups of coal industry employees are represented on the management of the coal industry social welfare organisation and the mineworkers pension scheme. I hope that British Coal and all the unions concerned will now work together constructively on both sides.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Women
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department finances research on the problems of recruiting and selecting women trainees on British aid-funded scholarships; and what research has been done by his Department on how the proportion of women on the technical cooperation training programme can be increased.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We intend to finance research on the constraints to increasing the proportion of women benefiting from ODA-funded training awards. Terms of reference for such a study have been prepared and we are in the process of identifying a suitably qualified researcher.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Overseas Development Administration provides funds to publicise issues of women and development, and to establish what proportion of the aid programme is of direct benefit to women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The objective of our aid is to benefit the people of developing countries, including women. It is impracticable to state what proportion of the aid programme benefits women separately.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether all aid documents issued from his Department carry an assessment of the impact of their projects or programmes on women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since last year it has been standard ODA procedure for evaluations to include an assessment of the impact of the aided activity on women where this is relevant. The evaluation reports issued will include these assessments.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish a cross-departmental group of Overseas Development Administration officers to develop British policy on women and development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am satisfied that our policy on women in development already reflects extensive consultation within the ODA.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will create a special fund to finance projects of specific interest to women giving priority to funding projects established by Third world women's organisations; and if he will make a statement;
  600
  (2) if he will increase the number of women's advisers to form a fully-funded and resourced women's unit designed to initiate policy on women and development and to oversee its implementation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our policy is to integrate concern for women into all ODA activities. ODA officials are aware of the importance attached to taking account of the impact of our activities on women and our social development advisers provide the expertise needed. I believe that a separate women's unit or special fund would tend to "marginalise" women's interests.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department consults British non-governmental organisations and women's groups on women and development policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We hold regular discussions with members of the women's organisations interest group of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and other Women in Development experts.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any major evalution has been funded to assess the impact of the aid programme on women in major recipient countries of British aid; and if issues concerning women and development are raised at aid planning meetings.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In concert with other development assistance committee donors, our evaluations now include a consideration of the impact of projects on women. The DAC will be preparing a synthesis study of the results. In this way we hope to obtain in a cost-effective manner the lessons of experience for a considerable number of projects in many countries.

  Women and development issues are raised at meetings of aid consortia and consultative groups and other aid planning meetings.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Overseas Development Administration will make representations to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank urging them to expand their policies in relation to women and development; in the light of his Department's support for the International Monetary Fund's economic aid in Tanzania, how much of the £50 million that has been pledged to the Tanzanian Government will go to programmes involving women and development; and in what places and for which projects.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The International Monetary fund agrees broad economic targets, largely related to the balance of payments, as part of its lending programmes. Longer-term domestic issues are addressed by the World Bank. I believe that the bank is already making determined efforts to integrate a concern for women into its financing activities.

  The bulk of the British aid recently pledged to Tanzania will be used to finance essential imports and to support the railways sector. The remainder, about £12 million, will be used to finance specific projects and programmes, including the development of maternal and child health care and family planning in southern Tanzania.
  601
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the near future a White Paper including a plan of action on women and development policy in the aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ODA booklet "Women in development", copies of which are in the Library of the House, sets out our policy in this area. Since its issue in 1986 we have confirmed the policy and further clarified it.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to conduct a study on the proportion of women in the Overseas Development Administration; and if he will publish in the Official Report the changes in that proportion in the past five years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration already monitors the proportion of women in its employment, their access to training and relative success in career advancement. The proportion of women employed in the Overseas Development Administration on 1 April in each of the last five years and on 1 July 1987 is:

  Year

  Total staff

  Number of women

  Percentage

  1982

  2,035

  771

  37·89

  1983

  1,927

  714

  37·05

  1984

  1,753

  684

  39·02

  1985

  1,617

  641

  39·64

  1986

  1,608

  635

  39·49

  1987

  1,548

  622

  40·18

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the present women's adviser post will be reformulated within the aid programme so that it is held by one woman who has no additional responsibilities.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Specialist advice on women's issues is provided by the ODA's social development advisers. This ensures that our concerns for women's role in development and measures taken to enhance it are understood in a broader social context; I believe this makes our work more effective.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of women, and the percentage they constitute, who obtain places on technical co-operation training courses.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Women received 980 (16·8 per cent. of the total) new training awards in the year ending 31 March 1987.

  Mapping
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements his Department now has, following the abolition of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys, for providing aid in mapping to developing countries; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that such arrangements are effective.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Directorate of Overseas Surveys was absorbed into the Ordnance Survey as its Overseas Surveys Directorate in 1984. It continues to provide a range of services to aid recipient countries. These include 602
  surveys, advice and institutional support. Under arrangements agreed between the Ordnance Survey and the Overseas Development Administration, such work is commissioned and funded on a project basis. In addition, the Overseas Development Administration provides funding for certain core services which amounted to about £1·3 million in 1986/87.

  The Overseas Surveys Directorate programme and funding are reviewed at an annual meeting between the Ordnance Survey and the Overseas Development Administration.

  Shelter-Related Projects
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of his Department's budget has gone on aid to shelter-related projects in each year since 1977.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  East African Army Worm (Ethiopia)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any request from the Government of Ethiopia for assistance in respect. of combating locusts or the East African Army worm; and what information he has concerning the threat from the pests to the assistance already given by the United Kingdom to that area of Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have received no such request from the Government of Ethiopia. We have received a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation of threats to Ethiopia and neighbouring countries from swarms of desert locusts and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Britain has provided over £3 million for migratory pest control in Africa over the past 12 months, including £790,000 to combat locusts and army worm in Ethiopia.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Mr. Madel
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he expects the Parliamentary Boundary Commission to publish major proposals for changing the parliamentary boundaries of constituencies in England before 31 December 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission is required to present its reports on all the constituencies in England not less than 10 and not more than 15 years after the date of submission of its previous report. The report of the last general review of England, the third periodical report, was submitted on 1 February 1983. The Commission's fourth periodical report may therefore be submitted at any time between 1 February 1993 and 31 January 1998.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants authorising telephone taps have been issued in 1987 to the present time.
  603
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone tapping warrants he has issued in 1987 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Hurd
  The number of telecommunication warrants issued by the Home Secretary in force on 31 December 1986 was 206. The figures were given in an annex to the report of the Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Lloyd, on the first year of operation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which was presented to Parliament in March 1987 (Cmnd 108). I do not propose to publish statistics additional to those in the Commissioner's Report.

  Entry Certificates
  Ms. Short
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that no one who has already applied for an entry certificate will be subjected to the harsher tests for entry proposed in the Queen's Speech.

  Mr. Renton
  We will announce our detailed proposals for handling outstanding entry certificate applications once the forthcoming Bill has been published.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action the Government intend to take to support the work of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Hurd
  Spending on the Metropolitan police this year will be over 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79 and the cash limit of £929 million for 1987–88 which I announced in February is 9 per cent. more than last year. I announced in May 1986 manpower increases of 1,200 in the police establishment and 600 in the civil staff ceilling over four years. So far I have approved increases of 600 policemen and 400 civilian staff; and I am prepared to approve further increases of 600 policemen and 200 civilians over the next two years subject to being satisfied that earlier increases have been effectively used and that satisfactory progress has been made with civilianisation. The programme of civilian manpower increases should release at least 400 officers for operational duty. Actual police strength has not kept pace with the establishment increases. The force is at present about 600 below the level which I have authorised.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the Metropolitan police compared with 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The strength of the Metropolitan police on 30 June was 27,105, an increase of some 4,800 officers over May 1979.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to monitor the incidence of AIDS in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since March 1985 prison medical officers have been required to report identified cases of HIV infection that is, (those in which a positive result to 604
  an HIV antibody test has been obtained) and cases of diagnosed AIDS. In June 1987 medical officers were asked to make a separate report following a diagnosis of PGL (Persistent General Lymphadenopathy) or ARC (AIDS Related Complex). A central statistical record based on the reports is maintained by the Director of Prison Medical Services.

  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the law covering the effects of activities of a known AIDS carrier towards a third party.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no present plans to amend the criminal law in this respect.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the establishment of the Thames Valley police authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received representations from most members with constituencies in the Thames Valley police force area about the latest application by the police authority for additional police posts. The application is under consideration.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police manning levels in the Thames Valley force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since May 1979 the strength of the Thames Valley police has increased by 811 and its establishment by 470. I understand that the force has recruited up to its establishment. The Thames Valley police authority has applied for 200 additional police posts and this is under consideration.

  Mr. Watts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now approve a further increase in the establishment of the Thames Valley police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An application by the Thames Valley police authority for additional police posts is under consideration.

  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss his annual report.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with the Commissioner on various matters covered by the report.

  Tamils
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the original 64 Tamils who arrived in Britain at the beginning of the year have subsequently been given temporary admission; and how many are still being detained.

  Mr. Renton
  As at 15 July, 39 of the group of 64 Tamils who arrived in Britain on 13 February 1987 had been granted temporary admission. Another nine had been released on bail, and bail has been granted in principle to 15 others subject to satisfactory sureties and the outcome of inquiries by the immigration service.

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention.

  Mr. Hurd
  The ministerial group on crime prevention will soon publish a report on its first year's work. The group has proved an important means of co-ordinating and stimulating crime prevention activity. Under the new chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) it will continue to develop this role.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received making proposals for dealing with the rising crime rate.

  Mr. John Patten
  We receive representations from a variety of sources. Their contents cannot easily be summarised, but there is a high level of support for the Government's crime prevention initiatives.

  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for new initiatives to promote the prevention of crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  In addition to a new national crime prevention publicity campaign, we plan to publish a handbook setting out a range of examples of how all those who are concerned about crime can make a positive and practical contribution to preventing it. We are working up plans for a new national crime prevention organisation which might support and encourage local crime prevention activity. Opportunities for establishing more local projects and initiatives are being explored.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Devon and Cornwall police have completed their investigation of the claims made by former police constable Tom Clarke regarding the treatment in custody of persons held in connection with the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We look forward to receiving the chief constable's report shortly.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 10 July 1987 the total prison population in England and Wales was 50,381. This does not include 648 in police cells.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to sell offensive weapons to people under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to introduce legislation to regulate the sale and possession of knives as martial arts weapons.
  606
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for the control of the sale of heavy duty catapults, spiked shoe straps, and other offensive weapons available by mail order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are committed to bringing forward proposals on the sale of offensive weapons which have no legitimate uses. In addition we have already set in hand a study of how the law relating to the possession of knives and other sharp bladed instruments might be reinforced and we shall be considering urgently how best to take matters forward in the light of that study.

  Police Surgeons
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police surgeons are employed in England and Wales; and how many are women.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 7 July.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to his policy on the provision of police stations in rural towns and villages in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for each chief constable to determine the most suitable methods of policing for his force area.

  Identity Cards
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent his refusal to introduce identity cards is based on the experience of other countries where they have been obligatory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The experience of other countries is only one of the relevant factors. We are not persuaded that the balance of advantage lies in introducing identity cards in this country.

  Non-metropolitan Police Forces
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present rate of recruitment into the non-metropolitan police forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  About 3,700 police officers were recruited to the non metropolitan forces (that is all forces in England and Wales except the Metropolitan Police, and the City of London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumbria, South Yorkshire, West Midlands and West: Yorkshire forces) in the year ended 30 June 1987. They were recruited either to replace officers who retired or resigned or to enable forces to implement increases in establishment. Between May 1979 and May 1987 strengths in these forces increased by 4,041 police officers, from 60,277 to 64,318.

  Police Manpower (Norfolk)
  Mr. Patrick
  Thompson asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for the number of police in Norfolk for each of the following years: 1979, 1983 and 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Authorised Establishment

  Actual Strength

  31 December 1979

  1,265

  1,237

  31 December 1983

  1,273

  1,278

  31 May 1987

  1,318

  1,318

  Independent Television Network
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to discuss the future structure of the independent television network.

  Mr. Renton
  I shall be meeting the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority on 22 July to discuss a number of matters of current interest.

  Crime Prevention (Insurance Companies)
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to involve insurance companies further in the fight against crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Insurance companies, either individually or through the Association of British Insurers already make a significant contribution to crime prevention. For example they have offered insurance discounts and other incentives to policyholders for taking certain security precautions; they have provided security advice through literature and videos; they have participated in crime prevention panels; they have set up a register of total loss vehicle claims; and they have given valuable support to the Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. I am shortly to meet representatives of the Association and I am confident that insurance companies will continue their active involvement in a range of crime prevention activity.

  Crime (Bristol)
  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will fund a crime survey in the Bristol area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Department has recently awarded a research grant to the Avon and Somerset constabulary for this purpose.

  Obscene Publications Act 1959
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce legislation to extend to broadcasting the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

  Mr. Renton
  Such a provision will be included in the Broadcasting Bill which we plan to introduce as soon as practicable.

  Illicit Drugs
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the Government's programme to reduce the traffic within the United Kingdom of illicit drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are continuing to step up action on all aspects of our anti-drugs strategy. Recent developments include the allocation by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 460 further posts for customs work, including 110 more specialist drugs investigators, support and legal staff; the establishment of 17 regional crime squad drugs wings manned by 221 additional police officers; further strengthening of the national drugs intelligence unit; and implementation of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. In 1986 customs broke up more than 80 drugs organisations, and police successes included the detection of 11 illicit amphetamine laboratories. Following last month's United Nations conference on drug abuse and illicit trafficking in Vienna, the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in current intergovernmental discussions concerning a proposed new United Nations convention on drug trafficking.

  National Unity
  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, within his departmental responsibilities, he will propose further administrative and legislative action designed to promote the unity of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  Only some of my responsibilities extend to the United Kingdom as a whole; but Home Office policies, in particular for broadcasting, race relations, immigration, crime and policing in England and Wales, respect the territorial, constitutional and social unity of the United Kingdom, and are designed to operate fairly between the different parts of the country to which they apply.

  London (Policing)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on policing London.

  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mr. Hurd
  I welcome the commissioner's annual report, which gives a comprehensive account of the many ways in which his force is meeting the challenge of policing London.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any plans for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to recompense victims of road accidents involving stolen cars.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our proposals for a statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme are set out in the Criminal Justice Bill. These proposals would make no change of substance in respect of road traffic accidents.

  Mothers and Children (Prisons)
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and ages of children currently in prison with their mothers.

  Mr. John Patten
  On the 6 July, 28 babies were in prison mother and baby units at Askham Grange, Holloway and Styal.

  The ages of the babies were:

  Age months

  Number

  Aged under 1

  5

  Aged 1

  3

  Aged 2

  4

  Aged 3

  4

  Aged 4

  3

  Aged 7

  1

  Aged 8

  1

  Aged 9

  2

  Aged 10

  2

  Aged 13

  1

  Aged 15

  1

  Aged 16

  1

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the percentage of fiancées and spouses refused entry clearance under the primary purpose rule for the last two years.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is available only for entry clearance applications in the Indian subcontinent. In 1985 no wife or female fiancée in the subcontinent was refused solely or partly because of the primary purpose rule; in 1986 the proportions were negligible for wives and about 10 per cent for female fiancées. The proportion of husbands so refused was 25 per cent. in 1985 and 35 per cent. in 1986. The corresponding proportions for male fiancés were 45 per cent. in 1985 and 50 per cent. in 1986. These proportions take account of the outcome of appeals.

  Prison (Bicester)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the timetable for the construction of the new prison near Bicester.

  Mr. John Patten
  Work is due to start on site in March 1988 and the prison is scheduled to be handed over to the Home Office in mid-1991.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Dr. Michael Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received with regard to religious broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We receive representations on a wide variety of television and radio programmes, including religious programmes. Programme policy is a matter for the broadcasting authorities, not the Government.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to change the present arrangements for eligibility for the concessionary television licence.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no present plans to do so, but we are keeping the operation of the concessionary scheme under review in the light of the judgment of the High Court in the case brought by Kirklees metropolitan council.

  Shotguns
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review the law regarding shotguns.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The law on shotguns is kept under close review and we are pursuing two initiatives. By amendment to the firearms rules, we shall shortly be introducing a requirement that shotgun certificate holders should notify any change of address to the chief officer or police. Secondly, a Home Office working party, on which the police and the British Shooting Sports Council are represented, is examining what measures should be taken to improve the security of shotguns when they are not being used, including the need for a statutory safe-keeping requirement.

  Neighbourhood Watch Scheme
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to expand the neighbourhood watch scheme.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are now over 35,000 Neighbourhood Watch Schemes spread throughout the police force areas of England and Wales. We are about to begin consultations with interested parties about the formation of an organisation to stimulate and support local crime prevention activity including Neighbourhood Watch. We also propose to produce a guidance note for distribution to police forces and the public setting out good practice to help the development of effective neighbourhood watch schemes.

  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to improve the crime clear-up rate.

  Mr. Hurd
  Clear-up rates for the most serious offences, including violence against the person and sexual offences, remain high at over 70 per cent.

  I shall continue to encourage chief officers to target their resources on the most serious crimes which are of particular concern to the public. They must decide their own priorities and methods in the light of their appreciation of local circumstances. But the police cannot succeed in detecting or preventing crime by themselves. The whole community must be involved; and I will be looking for ways to encourage that involvement.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has

  611
  on comparative crime rates for homicide, rape, and armed robbery in England and Wales, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany and France.

  Mr. John Patten
  International crime statistics are published periodically by Interpol. A copy of its most recent publication "International Crime Statistics 1983–84" is in the Library. The available figures do not distinguish armed robberies from other robberies. Care is needed in using such comparisons; because of differences in legal systems there are often differences in definitions and in coverage of the figures: there may also be differences in the extent to which offences are recorded by the authorities.

  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total numbers of recorded crimes, crimes of murder, rape, violence against the person, robbery and armed robbery, respectively, in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available (a) in the Metropolitan police area, (b) in other metropolitan police areas, and (c) in non-metropolitan police areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  Numbers of homicides, other offences of violence against the person, rapes, robberies and the

  Table 2. Notifiable offences of robbery recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used

  England and Wales, 1977–86

  Number of offences

  Year

  Metropolitan Police District

  Other metropolitan police forces1

  Other police forces

  Total

  1976

  746

  95

  235

  1,076

  1977

  901

  146

  187

  1,234

  1978

  718

  111

  167

  996

  1979

  734

  125

  179

  1,038

  1980

  740

  169

  240

  1,149

  1981

  1,317

  265

  311

  1,893

  1982

  1,756

  359

  415

  2,560

  1983

  1,276

  347

  334

  1,957

  1984

  1,422

  377

  299

  2,098

  1985

  1,610

  502

  427

  2,539

  1986

  1,549

  596

  506

  2,651

  1 Incorporates City of London, West Midlands, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Northumbria.

  Arson
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests and convictions there have been in connection with the second homes arson campaign in Wales since 1978; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constables concerned that the numbers of arrests and convictions in connection with the second homes arson campaign in Wales since 1978 are as follows:

  Police force area

  Arrests

  Convictions

  North Wales

  19

  19

  Dyfed-Powys

  17

  0

  Gwent

  1

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  37

  19

  612
  total of notifiable offences recorded in each police force area are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables, Vol. 3" (table s.3.1 for each year from 1980 to 1985); figures for earlier years were given in the annual "Criminal Statistics" Command Paper. Numbers of offences of violence against the person and robbery (whether armed or not) recorded in 1986 in each force area are published in table 6 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 4/87. The other information available is given in the following tables. In the absence of a court decision it is not possible to distinguish murder from other types of homicide.

  Table 1. Notifiable offences of homicide and rape recorded by the police

  England and Wales, 1986

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  Homicide

  Rape

  Metropolitan Police District

  210

  824

  Other metropolitan police forces1

  154

  494

  Other police forces

  298

  970

  Total

  662

  2,288

  1 Incorporates City of London, West Midlands, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Northumbria.

  The arrests in Dyfed-Powys and Gwent were the result of a single operation involving all police forces in Wales in 1980.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents there have been in the second homes arson campaign in each of the calendar years 1978 to 1987 in the following constituencies (a) Caernarfon, (b) Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, (c) Ynys Môn and (d) Carmarthen;

  (2) how many incidents there have been in the second homes arson campaign in Wales in each of the calendar years 1978 to 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constables of South Wales and Gwent that there have been no incidents in their police force areas during the period. I understand from the chief constables of North Wales and Dyfed-Powys that the number of incidents in their police force area were as follows:
  613

  Numbers of incidents in connection with second homes arson campaign in Wales, 1979 to 1987

  North Wales

  Year1

  Caernarfon

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  Ynys Môn

  Dyfed-Powys2

  Total

  1979

  2

  3

  0

  3

  8

  1980

  7

  9

  6

  10

  32

  1981

  4

  0

  6

  8

  18

  1982

  6

  1

  1

  0

  8

  1983

  3

  0

  2

  2

  7

  1984

  1

  4

  0

  2

  7

  1985

  4

  1

  4

  3

  12

  1986

  10

  2

  0

  1

  13

  1987

  3

  0

  0

  3

  6

  TOTAL

  40

  20

  19

  32

  111

  1 Figures for 1978 are not available.

  2 Separate figures for Carmarthen are not readily available.

  Offences (Use of Firearms)
  Mr. McWilliam
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were committed in the last five years where firearms were used, broken down according to the kind of weapon involved and the category of offence, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used. Figures for 1976 to 1986 by offence group are published in Home Office statistical bulletin issue 16/87. The following table gives figures for 1986 by type of principal weapon involved; those for earlier years are published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1985" (Cm. 10). A full analysis of the 1986 figures will appear in chapter 3 of the command paper, to be published later this year.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police1 in which firearms were reported to have been used, by principal weapon

  England and Wales 1986

  Number

  Long-barrelled shotgun

  600

  Sawn-off shotgun

  560

  Pistol

  1,314

  Rifle

  53

  Imitation

  252

  Supposed

  668

  Other

  30

  Total excluding air weapon

  3,477

  Air weapon

  5,886

  TOTAL

  9,363

  1 Includes offences of criminal damage but only where the damage was estimated at over £20.

  Authorised Establishment 30 April 1979

  Authorised Establishment 31 May 1987

  Increase

  Avon and Somerset

  2,853

  3,030

  177

  Bedfordshire

  947

  1,000

  53

  Cambridgeshire

  1,090

  1,160

  70

  Cheshire

  1,805

  1,845

  40

  Cleveland

  1,411

  1,474

  63

  Cumbria

  1,088

  1,144

  56

  Derbyshire

  1,709

  1,793

  84

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,673

  2,794

  121

  South Africa House (Demonstrations)
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis's directions were introduced in relation to demonstrations outside South Africa House.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Commissioner's direction were first made in June 1986 and that they have been reviewed and renewed every month since then. The directions were implemented on 6 May 1987 following an incident in which the embassy building was attacked and damaged.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Metropolitan police consulted either Ministers or officials of his Department prior to the introduction of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis's directions in relation to demonstrations outside South Africa House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to revoke his directions in relation to demonstrations outside South Africa House.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police areas which have been granted an increase in police establishment since 1979, together with the size of increase.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:
  615

  Authorised Establishment 30 April 1979

  Authorised Establishment 31 May 1987

  Increase

  Dorset

  1,164

  1,235

  71

  Durham

  1,349

  1,357

  8

  Dyfed Powys

  934

  935

  1

  Essex

  2,525

  2,722

  197

  Gloucestershire

  1,116

  1,164

  48

  Greater Manchester

  6,735

  6,943

  208

  Gwent

  975

  978

  3

  Hampshire

  2,954

  3,105

  151

  Hertfordshire

  1,533

  1,596

  63

  Humberside

  1,939

  1,972

  33

  Kent

  2,820

  2,911

  91

  Lancashire

  3,118

  3,158

  40

  Leicestershire

  1,706

  1,733

  27

  Lincolnshire

  1,182

  1,183

  1

  Merseyside

  4,451

  4,679

  228

  Norfolk

  1,265

  1,318

  53

  Northamptonshire

  950

  1,074

  124

  Northumbria

  3,325

  3,453

  128

  North Wales

  1,279

  1,316

  37

  North Yorkshire

  1,328

  1,368

  40

  Nottinghamshire

  2,145

  2,259

  114

  South Wales

  3,069

  3,109

  40

  South Yorkshire

  2,752

  2,931

  179

  Staffordshire

  2,066

  2,156

  90

  Suffolk

  1,088

  1,186

  98

  Surrey

  1,599

  1,639

  40

  Sussex

  2,802

  2,896

  94

  Thames Valley

  2,977

  3,467

  470

  Warwickshire

  876

  981

  105

  West Mercia

  1,834

  1,953

  119

  West Midlands

  6,509

  6,684

  175

  West Yorkshire

  5,104

  5,204

  100

  Wiltshire

  1,022

  1,074

  52

  City of London

  1,022

  798

  (-224)

  Metropolitan

  26,589

  27,815

  1,226

  Totals

  117,698

  122,592

  4,894

  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the authorised police manpower levels of (a) the Metropolitan police, (b) other metropolitan police forces and (c) the non-metropolitan police forces in each year since 1974 to date.

  Authorised Establishments

  December

  May

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Gwent

  928

  964

  964

  964

  974

  975

  975

  975

  978

  978

  978

  978

  978

  978

  Hampshire

  2,844

  2,845

  2,935

  2,935

  2,954

  3,034

  3,034

  3,084

  3,084

  3,084

  3,084

  3,084

  3,105

  3,105

  Hertfordshire

  1,472

  1,472

  1,472

  1,483

  1,533

  1,533

  1,533

  1,568

  1,568

  1,568

  1,578

  1,578

  1,596

  1,596

  Humberside

  1,910

  1,939

  1,939

  1,939

  1,939

  1,939

  1,939

  1,972

  1,972

  1,972

  1,972

  1,972

  1,972

  1,972

  Kent

  2,454

  2,465

  2,615

  2,615

  2,820

  2,842

  2,871

  2,871

  2,875

  2,875

  2,875

  2,875

  2,911

  2,911

  Lancashire

  2,880

  3,080

  3,080

  3,080

  3,118

  3,138

  3,158

  3,158

  3,158

  3,158

  3,158

  3,158

  3,158

  3,158

  Leicestershire

  1,603

  1,705

  1,705

  1,705

  1,706

  1,706

  1,727

  1,727

  1,733

  1,733

  1,733

  1,733

  1,733

  1,733

  Lincolnshire

  1,174

  1,182

  1,182

  1,182

  1,182

  1,182

  1,182

  1,182

  1,182

  1,183

  1,183

  1,183

  1,183

  1,183

  Norfolk

  1,218

  1,264

  1,264

  1,264

  1,265

  1,265

  1,265

  1,265

  1,273

  1,273

  1,273

  1,278

  1,318

  1,318

  Northamptonshire

  844

  914

  950

  950

  950

  978

  978

  1,006

  1,006

  1,018

  1,025

  1,031

  1,054

  1,074

  North Wales

  1,216

  1,276

  1,276

  1,276

  1,276

  1,309

  1,312

  1,313

  1,313

  1,316

  1,316

  1,316

  1,316

  1,316

  North Yorkshire

  1,277

  1,328

  1,328

  1,328

  1,328

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  1,368

  Nottinghamshire

  2,066

  2,124

  2,145

  2,144

  2,144

  2,260

  2,260

  2,259

  2,259

  2,259

  2,259

  2,259

  2,259

  2,259

  South Wales

  2,886

  3,069

  3,069

  3,069

  3,069

  3,069

  3,069

  3,105

  3,105

  3,109

  3,109

  3,109

  3,109

  3,109

  Staffordshire

  2,066

  2,066

  2,066

  2,066

  2,066

  2,066

  2,066

  2,099

  2,099

  2,099

  2,104

  2,104

  2,131

  2,156

  Suffolk

  1,077

  1,085

  1,086

  1,086

  1,088

  1,123

  1,123

  1,124

  1,124

  1,136

  1,136

  1,136

  1,186

  1,186

  Surrey

  1,438

  1,442

  1,503

  1,503

  1,599

  1,602

  1,602

  1,602

  1,602

  1,602

  1,602

  1,626

  1,639

  1,639

  Sussex

  2,661

  2,785

  2,785

  2,785

  2,802

  2,811

  2,823

  2,823

  2,822

  2,830

  2,830

  2,830

  2,830

  2,896

  Thames Valley

  2,960

  2,960

  2,995

  2,995

  2,997

  3,005

  3,005

  3,107

  3,124

  3,267

  3,267

  3,317

  3,417

  3,467

  Warwickshire

  876

  876

  876

  876

  876

  876

  920

  920

  925

  925

  925

  925

  967

  981

  West Mercia

  1,650

  1,650

  1,670

  1,671

  1,834

  1,834

  1,921

  1,921

  1,923

  1,923

  1,923

  1,953

  1,953

  1,953

  Wiltshire

  979

  994

  994

  995

  1,022

  1,032

  1,033

  1,035

  1,042

  1,042

  1,042

  1,045

  1,049

  1,074

  City of London

  1,028

  1,022

  1,022

  1,022

  1,022

  1,022

  1,022

  1,022

  1,022

  798

  798

  798

  798

  798

  Metropolitan

  26,628

  26,628

  26,628

  26,628

  26,589

  26,589

  26,577

  26,577

  26,615

  26,915

  27,115

  27,165

  27,515

  27,815

  Other Metropolitan Areas

  Greater Manchester

  6,600

  6,600

  6,735

  6,735

  6,735

  6,766

  6,766

  6,941

  6,943

  6,943

  6,943

  6,943

  6,943

  6,943

  Merseyside

  4,317

  4,342

  4,342

  4,451

  4,451

  4,451

  4,452

  4,607

  4,607

  4,607

  4,607

  4,607

  4,679

  4,679

  616
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:
  617

  Authorised Establishments

  December

  May

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Northumbria

  3,322

  3,322

  3,322

  3,322

  3,325

  3,325

  3,355

  3,355

  3,357

  3,357

  3,357

  3,378

  3,378

  3,453

  South Yorkshire

  2,752

  2,752

  2,752

  2,752

  2,752

  2,752

  2,872

  2,872

  2,872

  2,872

  2,872

  2,872

  2,881

  2,931

  West Midlands

  6,471

  6,471

  6,509

  6,509

  6,509

  6,509

  6,509

  6,684

  6,684

  6,684

  6,684

  6,684

  6,684

  6,684

  West Yorkshire

  5,103

  5,104

  5,104

  5,104

  5,104

  5,104

  5,104

  5,154

  5,154

  5,154

  5,154

  5,154

  5,154

  5,204

  Non Metropolitan Police Forces

  Avon and Somerset

  2,868

  2,868

  2,851

  2,851

  2,852

  2,953

  3,020

  3,020

  3,020

  3,020

  3,020

  3,020

  3,020

  3,030

  Bedfordshire

  890

  926

  941

  941

  947

  947

  960

  975

  980

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  Cambridgeshire

  1,023

  1,061

  1,090

  1,090

  1,090

  1,140

  1,140

  1,140

  1,140

  1,140

  1,140

  1,140

  1,140

  1,160

  Cheshire

  1,770

  1,770

  1,805

  1,805

  1,805

  1,805

  1,845

  1,845

  1,845

  1,845

  1,845

  1,845

  1,845

  1,845

  Cleveland

  1,411

  1,411

  1,411

  1,411

  1,411

  1,418

  1,419

  1,474

  1,474

  1,474

  1,474

  1,474

  1,474

  1,474

  Cumbria

  1,074

  1,079

  1,079

  1,082

  1,082

  1,113

  1,113

  1,128

  1,128

  1,128

  1,128

  1,128

  1,130

  1,144

  Derbyshire

  1,559

  1,559

  1,709

  1,709

  1,709

  1,712

  1,712

  1,767

  1,767

  1,767

  1,767

  1,767

  1,767

  1,793

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,573

  2,673

  2,673

  2,673

  2,673

  2,673

  2,734

  2,734

  2,734

  2,734

  2,734

  2,739

  2,757

  2,794

  Dorset

  1,089

  1,108

  1,108

  1,108

  1,164

  1,164

  1,164

  1,176

  1,176

  1,183

  1,183

  1,203

  1,211

  1,235

  Durham

  1,371

  1,373

  1,373

  1,349

  1,349

  1,349

  1,349

  1,355

  1,355

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  Dyfed Powys

  866

  916

  916

  916

  916

  934

  934

  934

  934

  934

  934

  934

  934

  935

  Essex

  2,436

  2,436

  2,511

  2,511

  2,525

  2,533

  2,603

  2,633

  2,643

  2,653

  2,663

  2,673

  2,722

  2,722

  Gloucestershire

  1,007

  1,101

  1,100

  1,100

  1,116

  1,116

  1,116

  1,131

  1,140

  1,164

  1,164

  1,164

  1,164

  1,164

  Michael Hickey and Others
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of inquiries into the cases of Michael Hickey and others convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater.

  Mr. John Patten
  The main report of the inquiry, which has been conducted by officers of the Warwickshire constabulary, has been received and is under consideration. Following the receipt of additional representations on behalf of the convicted men, further inquiries have been ordered and the results of these will need to be fully considered before my right hon. Friend can reach a decision on the case.

  Heysel Stadium Disaster (Extraditions)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors he proposes to take into account in deciding whether to sign extradition warrants in respect of persons accused of offences in relation to the disaster at the Heysel stadium, Brussels, in May 1985; and when he expects to reach a decision.

  Mr. Hurd
  As in other extradition cases, I have to consider whether, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be unjust or oppressive to order surrender. Factors which I take into account in such cases include the seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence; how long ago it is alleged to have been committed; and whether the accusation is made in good faith in the interests of justice.

  In reaching my decision I am willing to consider representations on such matters made by or on behalf of the person concerned, and any further evidence not available at the time of the court's decision. I shall be meeting hon. Members next week to receive representations on behalf of those accused of offences arising from the Heysel stadium disaster. The timing of my decision may depend on the nature of the representations which I have to consider.

  Prison Disturbances (Report)
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to publish Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on prison disturbances in 1986; and if he will make a statement.
  618
  Mr. Hurd
  The report of the inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into the disturbances in prison service establishments in England between 29 April and 2 May 1986 is published today. This is the outcome of the inquiry which I announced to the House on 6 May 1986.

  I pay tribute to Sir James Hennessy and his staff for the thoroughness of his report. It sets out in full what happened in the six establishments which were most seriously affected and, in less detail, the events in 10 other establishments. The report recounts the background to the disturbances, draws conclusions about their causes, and points up lessons for the future.

  No clear pattern to the disturbances emerges. There were different circumstances in different places. The report concludes that the underlying causes were complex and of varying impact. A poor regime or overcrowding in some places may have been an underlying factor. In others the type and mix of prisoners could have been critical.

  The chief inspector concludes that a number of factors,
  "contributed to the explosion resulting from the mixture of volatile elements in many of the establishments which suffered disturbances. But the catalyst was clearly the industrial action".
  That was the overtime ban and other action imposed by the national executive committee of the Prison Officers' Association (POA NEC) on 29 April. The cause of the prisoner unrest, which in some establishments broke out into full scale disturbances, was the uncertainty and anxiety among inmates about the real or anticipated effects of the industrial action upon their lives.

  In drawing conclusions from these events, the chief inspector first canvasses the possibility of a no-strike agreement in the prison service. I shall want to think carefully about this before entering into any consultation with the trade unions concerned.

  On the wider issues, as the chief inspector sees, the new working and management arrangements, known as Fresh Start, are at the heart of solving some of the key problems for the prison service which he identifies in his report. In particular, fresh start will provide a more unified management and a better means of determining manning levels, of securing an agreed and standard level of regime, and of servicing the courts without damaging the internal operations of establishments. These are all points upon which the chief inspector makes recommendations.

  His proposals on contingency planning against inmate disturbances are also positive and helpful. Steps were

  619
  taken immediately afer the outbreak to review contingency plans at local, regional and national levels. Fresh guidance has been issued on handling major disturbances. There have been extensive discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has issued revised guidelines to the police service on the role of the police in the event of industrial action in the prison system. Contingency plans will be reviewed again in the light of the chief inspector's analysis and further action taken as necessary.

  More generally, I have asked the director general of the prison service to develop a full action plan for responding to the many recommendations in the report, and he will be reporting to me personally.

  The prison disturbances of April last year did great damage not only to the prison estate but also to the public's confidence in the prison service. They were a traumatic and shocking experience for the prison service itself, staff and management alike. The chief inspector's cool and analytical report will serve to set the record straight. But its greater value will be to reinforce the lessons for the future which emerged from those violent hours. I am determined that it shall.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Health Authorities (Private Treatment)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which health authorities have contracted out to the private health sector medical treatment of patients in the last 12 months; what payment has been involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We encourage health authorities to consider entering into contractual arrangements with the private sector whenever it would be a cost-effective way of providing services. Expenditure for 1985–86 (latest available) on contractual arrangements for patient care by health authorities in England is given in the following table:

  Expenditure on Contractual Arrangements for Patient Care

  District Health Authorities

  1985–86

  £

  Northern Region

  Hartlepool

  —

  North Tees

  —

  South Tees

  6,932

  East Cumbria

  279,450

  South Cumbria

  43,800

  West Cumbria

  —

  Darlington

  635,013

  Durham

  4,238

  North West Durham

  —

  South West Durham

  —

  Northumberland

  428,277

  Gateshead

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  95,069

  North Tyneside

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  Total

  1,492,779

  Yorkshire Region

  Hull

  4,593

  East Yorkshire

  —

  Grimsby

  —

  Scunthorpe

  151,794

  Northallerton

  1,359,892

  620

  District Health Authorities

  1985–86

  £

  York

  —

  Scarborough

  —

  Harrogate

  —

  Bradford

  29,600

  Airedale

  36,112

  Calderdale

  56,556

  Huddersfield

  55,093

  Dewsbury

  22,711

  Leeds Western

  85,223

  Leeds Eastern

  32,846

  Wakefield

  —

  Pontefract

  —

  Total

  1,834,420

  Trent Region

  North Derbyshire

  —

  South Derbyshire

  —

  Leicestershire

  76,363

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  South Lincolnshire

  —

  Bassetlaw

  —

  Central Nottinghamshire

  52,954

  Nottingham

  1,500

  Barnsley

  64,582

  Doncaster

  12,350

  Rotherham

  47,083

  Sheffield

  631,671

  Total

  886,503

  East Anglian Region

  Cambridge

  1,730,046

  Peterborough

  24,076

  West Suffolk

  169,522

  East Suffolk

  118,757

  Norwich

  113,583

  Great Yarmouth

  —

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  —

  Huntingdon

  25,697

  Total

  2,181,681

  North West Thames Region

  North Bedfordshire

  16,800

  South Bedfordshire

  40,540

  North Hertfordshire

  108,120

  East Hertfordshire

  722,376

  North West Hertfordshire

  24,563

  South West Hertfordshire

  109,338

  Barnet

  37,655

  Harrow

  2,345

  Hillingdon

  1,714,610

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  151,744

  Ealing

  10,392

  Brent

  —

  Paddington

  191,725

  Riverside

  272,386

  TOTAL

  3,402,594

  North East Thames Region

  Basildon and Thurrock

  7,544

  Mid Essex

  309,666

  North East Essex

  587,565

  West Essex

  —

  Southend

  52,598

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  672,720

  Hampstead

  95,292

  Bloomsbury

  559,481

  Islington

  111,762

  City and Hackney

  1,529,655

  Newham

  128,217

  Tower Hamlets

  144,436

  Enfield

  786,603

  Haringey

  376,801

  621

  District Health Authorities

  1985–86

  £

  Redbridge

  133,525

  Waltham Forest

  134,595

  TOTAL

  5,630,460

  South East Thames Region

  Brighton

  314,161

  Eastbourne

  338,515

  Hastings

  50,302

  South East Kent

  55,122

  Canterbury and Thanet

  101,272

  Dartford and Gravesham

  —

  Maidstone

  11,799

  Medway

  49,025

  Tunbridge Wells

  168,563

  Bexley

  67,308

  Greenwich

  148,768

  Bromley

  499,315

  West Lambeth

  51,856

  Camberwell

  64,430

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  387,996

  TOTAL

  2,308,432

  South West Thames Region

  North West Surrey

  215,186

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  382,110

  South West Surrey

  1,012,182

  Mid Surrey

  190,972

  East Surrey

  137,968

  Chichester

  1,024,215

  Mid Downs

  490,275

  Worthing

  558,464

  Croydon

  127,360

  Kingston and Esher

  146,044

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  704,751

  Wandsworth

  602,386

  Merton and Sutton

  371,957

  Total

  5,963,870

  Wessex Region

  East Dorset

  570,529

  West Dorset

  —

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  492,296

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  79,981

  Winchester

  143,413

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  153,468

  Salisbury

  37,456

  Swindon

  3,237

  Bath

  394,674

  Isle of Wight

  —

  Total

  1,875,054

  Oxford Region

  East Berkshire

  154,474

  West Berkshire

  —

  Aylesbury

  65,385

  Wycombe

  46,364

  Milton Keynes

  29,368

  Kettering

  16,213

  Northampton

  526,944

  Oxford

  249,807

  Total

  1,088,555

  South Western Region

  Bristol and Weston

  82,578

  Frenchay

  67,801

  Southmead

  30,669

  Cornwall

  2,201,663

  Exeter

  —

  North Devon

  2,034

  Plymouth

  200,363

  Torbay

  220,426

  622

  District Health Authorities

  1985–86

  £

  Cheltenham

  41,884

  Gloucester

  109,700

  Somerset

  4,200

  Total

  2,961,318

  West Midlands Region

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  —

  Hereford

  —

  Kidderminster

  22,878

  Worcester

  62,442

  Shropshire

  110,789

  Mid Staffordshire

  81,713

  North Staffordshire

  230,899

  South East Staffordshire

  114,827

  Rugby

  51,939

  North Warwickshire

  800,564

  South Warwickshire

  555,231

  Central Birmingham

  2,517

  East Birmingham

  25,000

  North Birmingham

  15,579

  South Birmingham

  —

  West Birmingham

  —

  Coventry

  119,878

  Dudley

  116,494

  Sandwell

  68,221

  Solihull

  —

  Walsall

  64,602

  Wolverhampton

  177,975

  Total

  2,621,548

  Mersey Region

  Chester

  —

  Crewe

  —

  Halton

  —

  Macclesfield

  120

  Warrington

  —

  Liverpool

  1,735,153

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  —

  Southport and Formby

  520,274

  South Sefton

  31,938

  Wirral

  —

  Total

  2,287,485

  North Western Region

  Lancaster

  312,849

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  588,584

  Preston

  1,042,094

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  —

  Burnley, Pendlc and Rossendale

  —

  West Lancashire

  —

  Chorley and South Ribble

  815,491

  Bolton

  —

  Bury

  —

  North Manchester

  834,359

  Central Manchester

  —

  South Manchester

  722,529

  Oldham

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  Salford

  513,850

  Stockport

  —

  Tameside and Glossop

  97,100

  Trafford

  —

  Wigan

  79,000

  Total

  5,005,856

  Supplementary Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures showing for single non-householders in each London borough net spending power on supplementary benefit as a percentage

  623
  of net spending power earning £50, £75 and £100 a week, in 1987–88 and after introduction of the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows net spending power on supplementary benefit as a percentage of net spending power at a range of gross earnings, assuming no contribution is made toward domestic costs and that all entitlements are received.

  Replacement rates (per cent.) for single non-householders April 1987

  Weekly gross earnings

  Aged under 25 years

  Aged over 25 years

  £

  50

  52

  61

  75

  39

  46

  100

  32

  37

  The position after the introduction of the proposed community charge will depend on the levels of the charge in each borough and the rates of benefit which will then be provided. These are still to be decided.

  Family Practitioners Committees
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of (a) women members, (b) men members, (c) women chairpersons and (d) men chairpersons on each family practitioner committee.

  Mrs. Currie
  Of the 90 family practitioner committees in England, 26 chairmanships are held by women. The information requested on membership is in the following table, which includes chairmen. Vacancies exist on some committees.

  Family practitioner committees membership

  Members

  Chairmen

  (a) Women

  (b) Men

  Avon

  7

  21

  W

  Barking and Havering

  6

  24

  W

  Barnet

  10

  20

  M

  Barnsley

  9

  21

  M

  Bedfordshire

  6

  24

  W

  Berkshire

  8

  22

  M

  Birmingham

  10

  19

  M

  Bolton

  9

  18

  W

  Bradford

  5

  26

  M

  Brent and Harrow

  10

  20

  W

  Bromley

  8

  23

  M

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  21

  W

  Bury

  5

  23

  M

  Calderdale

  4

  24

  Vacancy

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  20

  M

  Camden and Islington

  11

  18

  M

  Cheshire

  6

  23

  M

  City and East London

  8

  22

  M

  Cleveland

  9

  21

  M

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly

  10

  20

  M

  Coventry

  8

  23

  W

  Croydon

  13

  17

  M

  Cumbria

  9

  22

  W

  Derbyshire

  7

  24

  M

  Devon

  9

  22

  W

  Doncaster

  10

  20

  M

  Dorset

  9

  21

  M

  Dudley

  7

  20

  M

  Durham

  7

  23

  M

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  10

  19

  W

  East Sussex

  8

  23

  W

  Enfield and Haringey

  13

  18

  M

  624

  Members

  Chairmen

  (a) Women

  (b) Men

  Essex

  9

  24

  M

  Gateshead

  8

  21

  M

  Gloucestershire

  11

  19

  M

  Greenwich and Bexley

  8

  21

  M

  Hampshire

  8

  25

  M

  Hereford and Worcester

  5

  23

  W

  Hertfordshire

  8

  22

  W

  Hillingdon

  8

  21

  M

  Humberside

  8

  23

  Vacancy

  Isle of Wight

  10

  20

  M

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  12

  17

  M

  Kent

  11

  20

  W

  Kingston and Richmond

  12

  16

  M

  Kirklees

  6

  25

  M

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  11

  17

  M

  Lancashire

  8

  27

  M

  Leeds

  6

  20

  W

  Leicestershire

  6

  24

  M

  Lincolnshire

  7

  24

  M

  Liverpool

  7

  20

  M

  Manchester

  7

  24

  M

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  13

  18

  W

  Newcastle

  6

  20

  M

  Norfolk

  10

  20

  M

  Northamptonshire

  9

  22

  M

  North Tyneside

  6

  19

  M

  Northumberland

  8

  22

  M

  North Yorkshire

  5

  26

  M

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  22

  M

  Oldham

  11

  20

  M

  Oxfordshire

  9

  22

  W

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  9

  21

  M

  Rochdale

  11

  17

  M

  Rotherham

  7

  24

  M

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  7

  20

  M

  Salford

  7

  17

  M

  Sandwell

  5

  25

  M

  Sefton

  6

  23

  M

  Sheffield

  7

  19

  M

  Shropshire

  8

  20

  M

  Solihull

  9

  18

  W

  Somerset

  11

  18

  W

  South Tyneside

  7

  20

  M

  Staffordshire

  6

  24

  M

  Stockport

  8

  21

  M

  Suffolk

  6

  22

  W

  Sunderland

  7

  22

  M

  Surrey

  9

  25

  W

  Tameside

  5

  22

  W

  Trafford

  6

  25

  M

  Wakefield

  8

  20

  M

  Walsall

  8

  19

  M

  Warwickshire

  10

  19

  W

  West Sussex

  11

  20

  W

  Wigan

  7

  22

  W

  Wiltshire

  8

  19

  W

  Wirral

  8

  20

  M

  Wolverhampton

  9

  19

  M

  742

  1907

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that local authority community-based services for the mentally ill are expanding sufficiently rapidly to offset the rundown in National Health Service accommodation.
  625
  Mrs. Currie
  The development of comprehensive, local services for mentally ill people requires the co-operation of health authorities, the voluntary sector and the private sector as well as local authorities. The rate at which services in the community are increasing is generally satisfactory, although we recognise that there are parts of the country where progress is disappointingly slow.

  We are not aware of any examples of mental illness hospitals being closed and former patients failing to receive appropriate care in an alternative setting.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated average cost to his Department and local authorities of a place for a juvenile offender on an intensive intermediate treatment scheme within the Department's recent intermediate treatment initiative.

  Mrs. Currie
  Grants under the IT initiative were awarded on the basis that the estimated cost of providing a programme of intensive IT was £2,000 per case. This figure was fixed at the beginning of the grant period (normally two years) so that the voluntary body providing the scheme had a clear indication of the money available from central Government during the whole of the grant period.

  The Department has no up-to-date information from which we could derive a current average cost of providing schemes of intensive IT. We have commissioned Dr. Martin Knapp (University of Kent) to undertake a research study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of various forms of IT compared with other court disposals, but the results of his work are not yet available.

  Balderton Hospital (Eastdale Unit)
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate (a) the cost of running the Eastdale unit at Balderton hospital for the last five years and (b) how the cost was distributed between his Department and the relevant health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  Central Nottinghamshire district health authority estimates that between 1981–82 and 1985–86 (the most recent five-year period for which figures are available) the cost of running the Eastdale unit was £1,351,000. Of that sum, £496,000 (37 per cent.) was contributed directly by the Department by means of a special allocation to the Trent regional health authority.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people at present detained in special hospitals are awaiting transfer to other hospitals or into the community.

  Mrs. Currie
  On 8 July, 117 patients had been identified by their responsible medical officers as being suitable for a move from a special hospital, either on permanent transfer or for a period of trial leave.

  Community Care
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Audit
  626
  Commission's 1986 report "Making a reality of Community Care", with regard to provision for the mentally ill.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Government do not think that the substantial progress already made in carrying forward the policy of community care is properly reflected in the Audit Commission report; in particular, in the mental illness field, its account of existing community facilities is misleading. The report of Sir Roy Griffith's overview of community care policy due by the end of this year, however, has it available as written evidence, and we await this report with interest.

  The challenge of providing a good comprehensive community-orientated modern service for mentally ill people has been patchily met by health and local authorities; and successive Governments have recognised that it will take a good deal of effort over a long period to produce the kind of service we want. But a great deal has been achieved; the Health Advisory Service, and Good Practices in Mental Health with sponsorship from the Department have helped to catalogue and spread good practice. Since 1979 gross expenditure on hospital and community health services for mentally ill people had grown by 18 per cent. in real terms by 1985 and gross expenditure on personal social services for this group by 47 per cent. (also in real terms) in the same period. A lot remains to be done; and funding for and pressure on authorities are designed to secure appropriate priority for services for mentally ill people.

  Nursing Recruitment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to respond to the results of the review into nursing recruitment.

  Mr. Newton
  As soon as possible.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the net cost to public funds, taking into account additional tax revenue and welfare benefit entitlement, of increasing the gross pay of all nursing grades by (a) 5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 15 per cent.

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated cost of increasing gross pay for all nursing and midwifery staff in the hospital and community health services in England by 5, 10 and 15 per cent. is:

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  5

  206

  10

  412

  15

  617

  Notes:

  1. Increases based on estimated paybill for 1987–88 including average 9·5 per cent. pay increase from 1 April 1987.

  2. All figures inclusive of employers' national insurance and superannuation costs and agency staff.

  3. Assumes employers' costs rise roughly in line with pay.

  There is insufficient information on which to base an estimate of the net effect on tax revenue and benefit expenditure.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the cost of agency nurses to the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  The annual accounts of health authorities in England for 1985–86 record total expenditure on the employment of non-National Health Service (agency etc.) nursing staff as £51,297,230.

  We collect no estimates of this expenditure but figures from the accounts for 1986–87 will be available in the autumn.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence there is of HIV infection in the heterosexual population.

  Mr. Newton
  Twenty-six cases of clinical AIDS reported in the United Kingdom up to the end of June 1987 probably acquired the infection heterosexually. There have been 205 laboratory reports of HIV antibody positive tests in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to the end of June in persons who are thought to have acquired the infection heterosexually.

  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the evidence that condoms provide adequate protection against HIV.

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised that the evidence for the protective effect of condoms against HIV consists, first, of results of laboratory tests which demonstrate that commercially available latex condoms are impermeable to HIV. Secondly, there are epidemiological data showing reduced rates of infection among individuals at risk of HIV who generally or habitually use condoms when compared with those who do not use condoms.

  AIDS
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider, as part of his campaign against AIDS, promoting the idea of avoiding risk activities rather than just relying on condoms.

  Mr. Newton
  Our campaign to date has actively promoted avoidance of activities that carry a risk of HIV transmission and will continue to do so. For those who are unwilling or unable to restrict sexual contacts to a single faithful partner, condoms provide some protection. We will continue to promote this message in our compaign of AIDS public education.

  Data Processing and Information Technology
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what improvements in his Department's data processing and information technology facilities are anticipated during the next six months.

  Mr. Portillo
  Development work will continue on the operational strategy for social security, a range of major computerisation projects which will improve service to the public, allow greater efficiency in the payment of benefits and provide better jobs for staff. Among the milestones which it is planned to reach in the next six months are provision of an on-line inquiry service for retirement 628
  pensions, completion of the installation of the terminal replacement inquiry system (TRES) in unemployment benefit offices and the development of microcomputer-based systems to support the processing of claims for income support and family credit.

  NHS (Agency Staff)
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the cost to the National Health Service in the Nottingham health authority for staff who have been employed through agencies of (a) nurses, (b) operating department assistants, (c) ancillary and (d) other staff.

  Mr. Newton
  The 1985–86 annual accounts of the Nottingham health authority show the following expenditure for non-National Health Service (agency, etc.) staff:

  £

  Professions allied to Medicine

  3,507

  Professional and technical

  1,396

  Administrative and Clerical—typing and secretarial

  116,561

  Administrative and Clerical—other

  74,739

  Ancillary

  17,669

  Ambulance

  7,448

  Total

  221,320

  Hospital Closures (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the possible closure of hospitals in the Nottingham health authority area.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been saved in cleaning, laundry and catering by competitive tendering in the Nottingham health authority since the programme began.

  Mr. Newton
  The information available centrally relates to total annual savings generated by competitive tendering exercises for catering, domestic (cleaning) and laundry services. As at 31 March 1987, Nottingham health authority had reported total annual savings generated of £1·4 million.

  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the progress of his competitive tendering policy.

  Mr. Newton
  In general, yes. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 14 July which sets out the good progress made by health authorities in England in putting their domestic (cleaning) catering and laundry services out to tender. As at 31 March 1987, this has resulted in annual savings generated of £93·3 million.

  City Hospital, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps will be taken to maintain services if the proposed privatisation of the Nottingham city hospital campus is implemented; and if he will make a statement.
  629
  Mr. Newton
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the process whereby health authorities put their cleaning, catering and laundry services to competitive tender. I understand that this exercise has been completed for both catering and cleaning services (with the contracts awarded in-house) and that tenders will be invited in the autumn for the laundry service. These processes are fully compatible with the maintenance of services needed to run the hospital.

  Average daily number of available beds for geriatric and psychogeriatric specialties

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  Gateshead District Health Authority

  234·4

  228·6

  229·4

  238·1

  234·4

  England

  61,858·9

  62,818·5

  63,774·3

  65,911·8

  64,986·5

  Average daily number of available beds in England per 10,000 population

  13·2

  13·4

  13·6

  14·0

  13·8

  1 Provisional figures.

  Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library the information contained in the fuller reply he promised to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on changes in the collection and publication of information by his Department since 1979 in his answer of 3 December 1986, Official Report, column 698.

  Mrs. Currie
  The fuller reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was published in the Official Report of 12 January 1987 at columns 129–32.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the amount of money available for the social fund will take account of the time taken for pre-1988 single payments to pass through the administrative process.

  Mr. Scott
  Awards of single payments made under the former legislation but payable after the introduction of the social fund will not be payments from the fund. They will not affect social fund budgets.

  Hospitals (Norwich)
  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect of the outcome of the public inquiry into the Norwich southern bypass on the reappraisal of the siting of the second Norwich district general hospital; and in particular the time scale of that reappraisal.

  Mrs. Currie
  The health authority's further work on this option appraisal, which should take about three months, should include examination of all the relevant factors, including an assessment of the outcome of the inquiry into the Norwich southern bypass.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about future plans for the St. Andrews, Hellesdon and the David Rice hospitals in Norwich.

  Mrs. Currie
  The East Anglian regional health authority's current proposals for health service provision for the district include plans for a new district general

  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Beds
  Mr. Mc William
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total provision of geriatric and psychogeriatric beds in the Gateshead health authority area in each of the last five years; and what was the provision in all other health authorities per 10,000 population.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table.

  hospital in Norwich, the first phase of which is to be an acute mental illness unit. If Hellesdon is eventually chosen as the site for the new hospital, the existing mental illness hospital there would close after the construction of the first phase of the new hospital. Both the David Rice and St. Andrews hospitals would be retained in the short term until the reprovision of the mental illness services in the district is completed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how long the reappraisal of sites for the second Norwich district general hospital will take.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what time is being allowed for the latest appraisal of sites for the new district general hospital in Norwich.

  Mrs. Currie
  We expect the health authority to be able to complete the further work on the option appraisal in about three months.

  NHS (Pay)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each regional and district health authority the difference between money allocated for nurses' pay in 1987–88 and what steps he is taking to make up the shortfall.

  Mr. Newton
  The cost of the review body awards for doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and the professions allied to medicine in England will be £488 million in 1987–88. The Government have provided an additional £264 million towards that cost. Of the remainder, £200 million was covered in authorities' initial allocations for 1987–88 and £24 million will be met from their cost improvement programmes. The increased funding has not been apportioned between individual staff groups.

  The additional £264 million has been allocated as follows:

  £ million

  Regional Health Authorities:

  Northern

  16·8

  Yorkshire

  18·8

  Trent

  23·2

  East Anglian

  9·9

  631

  £ million

  North West Thames

  18·8

  North East Thames

  23·8

  South East Thames

  20·9

  South West Thames

  17·0

  Wessex

  13·9

  Oxford

  10·9

  South Western

  16·5

  West Midlands

  26·7

  Mersey

  13·5

  North Western

  23·0

  Regional Health Authorities total

  253·7

  Special Health Authorities and others

  10·3

  264·0

  Allocations to district health authorities are a matter for regions.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to assist health authorities to meet the cost of the ancillary workers' pay award.

  Mr. Newton
  Negotiations are continuing in the ancillary staffs Whitley council. Health authorities will be expected to meet the cost of any award from the allocations made to them by the Government, which of course include an allowance for inflation, and from their cost improvement programmes.

  Hospitals (Shared Bedrooms)
  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients on (a) general, (b) geriatric, (c) psychiatric and (d) mental handicap wards share bedrooms; if he will draw the attention of district health authorities to the disapproval of this practice expressed by his Department in 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on numbers of patients in wards accommodating both sexes is not collected centrally. The guidance given to health authority chairmen in 1980 still stands.

  Mrs. G. L. Rowbottom
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will investigate the reason why Mrs. G. L. Rowbottom of April Cottage, 26 Old road, Stone, Staffordshire, allowance number YP533478D has not received the renewal of her family income supplement allowance book following her application in April in advance of the expiry date of 26 May last.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes. I am writing today to my hon. Friend setting out the position.

  Mrs. Gladys Upton
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to reply to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich with a statement about the case of Mrs. Gladys Upton, owed benefit by his Department after loss of her insurance stamps.

  Mr. Portillo
  I hope to be able to reply shortly to the hon. Member's letter which was received on 2 July 1987.

  Tobacco (Under-age Purchase)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to seek to increase the penalties available under law for those persons over 16 years of age who purchase cigarettes or tobacco specifically for children under 16 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is not a criminal offence for persons aged over 16 to purchase tobacco products. Their sale to children under 16 is illegal under the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986, and the fine on conviction is up to level 3 on the standard scale (£400). The rate of level 3 can be increased by order to reflect inflation.

  Income Levels
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the number of retirement pensioners and the percentage they constitute of the retirement pensioners' population who live on between 100 per cent. and 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level for each year since 1979 in Scotland;

  (2) for each year since 1979, what percentage of Scottish retirement pensioners lived below the supplementary benefit level;

  (3) for each year since 1979, what percentage of Scottish retirement pensioners lived on or below supplementary benefit levels;

  (4) if he will publish as a table in the Official Report the number of Scottish sick and disabled people living on between 100 per cent. and 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level and the percentage they constitute of the sick and disabled for each year since 1979;

  (5) for each year since 1979, what number of Scottish retirement pensioners lived on or below supplementary benefit levels;

  (6) what number of Scottish retirement pensioners lived below supplementary benefit levels for each year since 1979;

  (7) for each year since 1979, what number and percentage of sick and disabled people in Scotland lived: (a) on or below supplementary benefit levels and (b) below supplementary benefit levels.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have asked officials to consider both whether it is possible to produce statistically valid figures and whether each reply can be prepared without incurring disproportionate cost. I shall let the hon. Member have replies as soon as possible.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements are being made for payments to pharmacists who withdraw from their National Health Service contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Provision for compensation payments to certain pharmacists in Great Britain who withdraw from their NHS contracts was included in the overall provision for the family practitioner services for 1987–88. However the votes do not include subheads under which payments can be made and Parliamentary approval to new subheads in Class XIV Vote 2, Class XVI Vote 17 and Class XVII Vote 7 will be sought in Supplementary Supply Estimates.
  633
  Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3 million will he met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Hospitals (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many beds will be provided at the Royal Liverpool Infirmary following the relocation of services from St. Paul's eye hospital and The Seamen's dispensary;

  (2) how many hospital beds there are at present in St. Paul's eye hospital and The Seamen's dispensary, Liverpool.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 10 July 1987, c. 311]: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks in precisely the form requested. The latest information available centrally is given in the table. For current information the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Liverpool health authority.

  Average daily number of available beds and occupied beds during 1986

  (provisional figures)

  Hospital/Clinic

  Available beds

  Occupied beds1

  St. Paul's Eye

  51·7

  33·1

  Seamen's Dispensary

  2nil

  2nil

  Liverpool Maternity

  134·5

  101·8

  Mill Road Maternity

  134·0

  82·4

  Liverpool Women's

  59·0

  43·4

  1 Bed occupancy figures are based on a midnight count and do not therefore reflect the use of beds by patients who do not stay overnight.

  2 Out-patient facilities only.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many unemployed people have been disqualified from unemployment benefit on grounds of voluntary unemployment at each unemployment benefit office in Greater London since the new rules came into operation in October 1986; in how many cases the disqualification was for the maximum period; and what were the comparable figures for a similar period in 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987]: I regret that the information is not available in the precise form requested. However the following table shows the number of disqualifications from unemployment benefit imposed under section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 at each adjudication office in the Department of Employment which deals, wholly or partly, with cases from the Greater London area. Later figures are not yet available. Information is not collected on the length of disqualifications and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Adjudication office

  1 October 1983 to 31 March 19842

  1 October 1986 to 31 March 19872

  Barking

  2,933

  2,672

  Borough

  2,372

  2,144

  Croydon

  2,225

  4,088

  Ealing

  3,734

  1,926

  Finchley

  2,575

  2,550

  Hammersmith/Hounslow

  4,414

  3,005

  Hornsey (Kings Cross)1

  —

  1,802

  Leyton

  1,603

  1,913

  Stepney

  1,698

  1,508

  634

  Adjudication office

  1 October 1983 to 31 March 19842

  1 October 1986 to 31 March 19872

  Westminster1

  —

  1,488

  Wimbledon

  2,557

  2,730

  Woolwich

  2,370

  2,510

  Total

  26,481

  28,336

  1 Opened after March 1984.

  2 Figures collected on a quarterly basis.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department in helping small businesses over the last three years; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Eggar
  Orders are placed with small businesses which are able to satisfy the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's value-for-money requirements. The value of such procurement since 1984 was:

  £million

  1984–85

  1·766

  1985–86

  4·180

  1986–87

  6·695

  One third of Foreign and Commonwealth Office procurement is from the central agencies. No data are available on how much of this business is with small firms.

  Commercial departments of Diplomatic Service posts give a wide range of help to British exporters, including small firms.

  For example, in 1984, 1985 an 1986 they assisted 74,598, 77,325 and 76,942 British business visitors and handled 58,491, 60,485 and 65,473 market information inquiries, respectively. Posts do not keep separate statistics showing the help given to small firms but these represent a significant proportion of the overall work load.

  Visas
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the handling of visitor's visas at the high commission in New Delhi; what proportion of visa applications is granted; and what delay is involved between applications for and the granting of visas.

  Mr. Eggar
  The visit-visa operation continues to operate smoothly at posts in the sub-continent, including New Delhi where around 300 applications per day are currently being handled. Nearly 90 per cent. of applications are granted. The vast majority of visas are issued within 24 hours.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that plutonium exported to France is covered by peaceful end use safeguards restrictions; and what current plans there are to export plutonium to France and in what quantities.
  635
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  Exports of plutonium to France, like those to other member states of the European Community, are covered by the standard format set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) on 18 December 1986 at columns 611–12.

  Information on exports to individual countries was and remains confidential for both commercial and security reasons.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will examine during his next meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany the implications for current European nuclear disarmament negotiations of the forward basing of French intermediate range nuclear weapons on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany;

  (2) what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the Federal Republic of Germany on the implications for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of French plans to make available to the Federal Republic of Germany dual key control on forward-based French intermediate range nuclear weapons deployed on West German territory.

  Mr. Mellor
  We know of no French plans to deploy French intermediate-range nuclear weapons on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The French Prime Minister said in a newspaper interview at the end of June that there is no question of deploying French nuclear weapons outside French territory.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will raise the implications for nuclear arms control in Europe of the planned deployment of neutron weapons by France when he next attends (a) the Western European Union and (b) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers Group

  (2) if he will direct the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations committee on disarmament to initiate discussions on the prospects of nuclear arms control in the light of French plans to deploy neutron weapons in Europe.

  Mr. Mellor
  We know of no French plans to deploy neutron weapons in Europe.

  Agreements and Treaties
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those international agreements and treaties to which Her Majesty's Government are a signatory.

  Mr. Eggar
  The texts of all treaties to which we are signatory or a party are laid before Parliament and are published as Command Papers. Those which are in force for the United Kingdom are published in the treaty series of Command Papers which has an annual index.

  The most comprehensive list of treaties entered into by the United Kingdom is "Parry's Index of British Treaties 1101–1968", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards the recent 18-point peace plan for El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our policy in El Salvador is to support President Duarte's efforts to consolidate democratic institutions and the rule of law, and to end insurgency and terrorism. We welcome his efforts to promote regional reconciliation and were disappointed that the FMLN failed to attend the most recent meeting last September called by President Duarte for that purpose.

  Soviet Foreign Minister (Statement)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 13 July, he will publish in the Official Report an account of the statement made by the Soviet Foreign Minister to Her Majesty's ambassador in Moscow; and what response has now been made by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 13 July.

  EC Foreign Ministers (Copenhagen Meeting)
  Mr. Rhodes James
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of European Community Foreign Minsters in Copenhagen on 13 July.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I attended a meeting with other Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 13 July in the framework of European political co-operation. We adopted statements on East-West relations, the middle east and Afghanistan. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The discussion of East-West relations covered recent developments in the Soviet Union, the prospects for current arms control negotiations, and the CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna.

  We reaffirmed our support for an international conference on the middle east, recalled our commitment to respect for human rights in the occupied territories, and agreed that the Twelve should continue to contribute to economic and social development in the territories.

  We agreed that the Twelve should pursue their contacts with all the interested parties in the middle east.

  We noted the action taken by Syria against the Abu Nidal organisation, following the firm stand taken last year by the Twelve and other members of the international community in response to Syrian involvement in terrorism. We agreed that the Twelve would lift their ban on high-level contacts with Syria, but leave their other measures against Syria in place.

  We also discussed South Africa, and asked officials to study the implementation of the measures agreed by the Twelve last September.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Life-sentence Prisoners
  Ms. Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners, who have received sentences

  637
  of life imprisonment in the non-jury Diplock courts where the trial judge has made a minimum term recommendation, have been released on licence or otherwise, before the expiry of the recommendation, in the last 15 years.

  Mr. Stanley
  One—on medical grounds.

  Draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order
  Mr. Archer
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations and individuals made representations or submissions concerning the draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (NI) Order; and of these which opposed and which supported provisions in the order relating to financial relief.
  638
  Mr. Stanley
  I shall reply to the right hon. and learned Member shortly.

  Flooding (Castlereagh)
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations about flooding in the vicinity of 79 to 106 Newtownbredas road in the borough to Castlereagh on 10 July; if there has been any previous concern expressed about the inadequacy of the storm drainage in the roadway at this location; and if he has any proposals to improve the existing drainage system.

  Mr. Needham
  I shall reply to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

European Consumer Affairs Council
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 make a statement on the matters discussed, and the progress made, at the meetings of the European Consumer Affairs Council held on 7th April and 10th June.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, on 10th June the Consumer Affairs Council continued progress made on 7th April and agreed a directive to harmonise legislation prohibiting novelty products which are made or packaged to appear like food or drink, and could be dangerous, especially to children. It also reached agreement in principle on a directive to provide common rules for toy safety throughout the Community.
Among other matters, the council also agreed resolutions responding to Commission reports on consumer access to justice, and on a possible general product safety obligation at Community level. The Commission will be undertaking further work on both subjects.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information. Is it not correct that the council also discussed a Commission proposal for a child safety campaign? If that is correct, can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking in advance of the Commission's proposals to make their own contribution to the EC child safety campaign in 1988, and whether the Government will be discussing those proposals with the voluntary organisations to see what they can do together?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, any government should do all they reasonably can to reduce the number of accidents to children. The Government have made clear their readiness to participate in some form of child safety campaign provided that it is reasonably well thought through and properly targeted. I must confess that there are considerable doubts whether it is sensible to try to run a child safety campaign from Brussels when so much emphasis needs to be given to local initiatives and to direct contact, but we shall approach the discussions in Brussels constructively.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as progress is now being made towards a completed internal market, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential to get at the earliest possible date a general product safety directive that is in line with our own legislation? What action will the United Kingdom Government take to make this a reality?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government have already introduced a general safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Therefore we support in principle the concept of a general safety duty. We have undertaken to approach the discussions with the Commission on this difficult and complex issue in a constructive way. We must see how much further we can take it, accepting the need for such a duty.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, if I may follow up that point, my understanding is that at the present rate of progress it would be at least two years before there was a real discussion on a directive. I am asking whether Her Majesty's Government can do anything to hurry it up other than just agreeing in principle.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the internal market has a target date of 1991 or 1992. We have already introduced a general safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act of this year. It is important that we should proceed on a Europe-wide basis and we shall be taking the matter up with Brussels.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, can the Minister report any progress on the unit pricing directive which to my knowledge has been in the pipeline for the best part of 10 years?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although the Government still have a reservation on the matter the council has now reached broad agreement on the general principles which should apply to unit pricing of prepackaged goods. I would expect the remaining points of difficulty to be resolved fairly quickly and this should enable proposals to be adopted by the end of this year.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question. Is he aware—as I feel he probably is—that there was considerable anxiety among the consumer organisations and the relevant Select Committee of your Lordships' House about the ineffectiveness of the Consumer Consultative Committee? On 12th February the Government told me in an Answer in

1153
this House that they accepted that the present consultative conditions were not satisfactory. While appreciating the workload of the Minister, does he feel that during the recess he could look at this matter so that perhaps we might make progress on our return?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is the proper attitude of all consumer organisations to express anxiety about the state of the world. I shall certainly look at that matter during the recess and see what can be done.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, will my noble friend not take more robust action against those manufacturers of items that look like sweets but are anything but sweets? It appears that manufacturers have no concept of how easily children are led to put these things into their mouths.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the purpose of the directive was to harmonise legislation. I hope that we shall make progress.

Parliamentary Counsel Office: Staffing
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 steps they are taking to increase the strength of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there are at present 24 legislative draftsmen on the office's strength, and additionally four on loan to the Law Commission. By the end of September, as a result of a recent recruitment exercise, the total number will have increased to 30.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comparatively reassuring reply. Does he recall, as I am sure he does vividly, the fact that during the previous Session literally hundreds of drafting amendments had to be introduced into legislation, often at a very late stage? Can he give an assurance that the further steps which he has now announced will prevent that process being repeated when the long legislative programme in the Queen's Speech ends up in this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern. The kind of amendments to which my noble friend is referring are the responsibility of the sponsoring government departments. That therefore means the Ministers, which means those who sit on the Front Benches in both Houses of Parliament. I am confident that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel will, as it has always done in the past, cope with the demands placed upon it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we warmly welcome the news that the number of counsel is to be
1154
increased to 30, and feel quite sure that this will improve the performance in the terms to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred. Will the noble Lord say further whether the post of Second Parliamentary Counsel is still vacant or whether it has been filled?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not briefed on that particular point. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I feel sure he will appreciate that this is an important supervisory post which will assist to improve the department's performance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the work of parliamentary counsel, the legislators and indeed the users of statutes is greatly increased by Ministers and their departments requiring too much detail to be written into statutes, much of which is purely administrative and some of which is unenforceable? Will he therefore also bear in mind that we have fewer parliamentary counsel now than we had 15 years ago when the problem was not quite so acute? Is he able to assure us that the increase in the number of parliamentary counsel will not lead to a further increase in the contents of each statute?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that I can give my noble friend the undertaking that he seeks. However I say to my noble friend that I think that both members of the Government and also parliamentary counsel have heard clearly what has been said in your Lordships' House about the need for as much simplicity as possible. I should add that I should not always ascribe the complexity of what we study in Bills to the language of the draftsmen but rather to the complexity of the subjects with which the Acts deal.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, do we really require extra parliamentary counsel when it seems that their main work will be involved in privatising British national assets?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, they are very important subjects, and they all need legislative drafting.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether any consideration has been given to placing the parliamentary counsel under the Lord Chancellor rather than the Prime Minister, who at least theoretically ought to have more time to attend to their problems?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Parliamentary Counsel's offices consolidation branch was of course transferred in 1965 on loan to the Law Commission. Under arrangements which have become firmly established the office now provides the commission with draftsmen normally on two years secondment for the drafting of law reform Bills and consolidation Bills, and responsibility for the commission rests with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that for the moment those seem to us to be the right arrangements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would he care to comment on the reports that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has requested no fewer than 200 extra civil servants to assist in the preparation and drafting of the forthcoming Education Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am relieved to say that I think that is rather another Question.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister able to give us a slightly more definite answer to the noble question put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the application of Parkinson's Law? Can we be assured that the appointment of more parliamentary counsel will not simply lead to more legislation? The basic trouble is not merely the parliamentary counsel but the endless spate of ill-thought out legislation with which this and the other place are inundated.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, missed the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton at the beginning of his supplementary question that, as my noble friend said, there are fewer parliamentary counsel today than there were when my noble friend produced his distinguished report in 1975. In fact I am not certain whether that is the case but I take it, as I always do from my noble friend Lord Renton, as being true.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that the difficulty of this situation—and it is a serious one—is that the wastage rate in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is high. I should not wish the House to think that my noble friend Lord Renton's recommendation was in some way disregarded. Since the Renton Report of 1975 no fewer than 21 parliamentary counsel have been recruited, but the trouble has been that there has been a wastage of 18. To come back to the beginning again, if it is the case that, despite these efforts, we have rather fewer parliamentary counsel than we had some years ago I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, need worry about the volume of legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree, in view of the projected legislation, that even with 30 counsel there is scant hope of improvement in the quality of Bills when introduced; there is scant hope of avoiding that series of government amendments which have bedevilled so many of the Bills; and there is scant hope of easing the burdens of your Lordships' revisory role?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend's concluding remark that the revising role of your Lordships' House will continue to have a heavy burden placed upon it, but I think we can take comfort from the fact that that means that your Lordships' House is absolutely necessary.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if one has that kind of wastage rate—18 to 25—there must be something seriously wrong with the way in which one treats them?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that parliamentary counsel are treated certainly by junior
1156
members of the Government with considerable respect. The problem is that it is an onerous job.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that last year, after the Recess, there was a Bill dealt with in the spill-over Session—I cannot remember what it was—and the majority of amendments came from the Government? Does this not show quite clearly that they had not had time to consider that Bill properly? The same applies to most Bills going through our Chamber today.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has said seriously, but this of course is a dereliction of duty so far as the Government are concerned and not neglect so far as parliamentary counsel are concerned.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say whether the Government have investigated the reason for the disturbingly high rate of wastage about which he informed your Lordships a moment ago? If they have been into the question, what is the reason?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reasons are different. There are six different reasons that have been ascribed to me ranging from retirement to some not being up to the required standard.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, would not another reason be that these very ingenious gentlemen can attract greater rewards in the private sector by pursuing professional practice?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as my noble friend Lord Broxbourne says, that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is operating in a competitive field. Obviously there is a certain amount of wastage from that point of view.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure us that there is no intention of privatising the legislation in this case?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that that falls a little wide of the original Question.

Parliament: Lifetime
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: 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 the lifetime of a parliament should be extended to seven years, such legislation not to take effect until the expiry of the present parliament.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): No, my Lords.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it is difficult to thank my noble friend for that lengthy reply, but I thank him anyway. Would the Government agree,

1157
with the present average lifetime of a parliament, that legislation—particularly controversial legislation — seldom has time to work its way through the system, and that a different Administration can, and often does, repeal such Acts enacted by its predecessor before as it were, giving the baby a chance to live? This, in turn, leads to a go-stop effect.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that some policies of course take longer to mature, but against this there is the overriding need for the Government to keep in touch with the feelings of the electorate, and I think that recently we showed that we were in touch.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that, contrary to the length of time advocated by the noble Viscount, the Government have in fact introduced a tendency towards four-year parliaments? Would they consider going a stage further and seeking fixed terms in order that we may avoid the damaging pre-election uncertainties that we had the last time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord would care to look back a little further, he will find that between the 1918 and 1987 general elections the average life of a parliament, excluding the war parliament of 1935 to 1945, was four and a quarter years.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that in contradistinction to the view held by his noble friend, the Levellers probably had it right in 1643 when they opted for annual parliaments? By and large, shorter parliaments are better.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the 1 year and the 3 year parliaments did not prove to be successful.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, in suggesting the extension of a parliament to seven years, the noble Lord said that it should not apply to this parliament. Is there any likelihood that legislation will be introduced to shorten the life of this parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, we have a lot of work to do in the next five years and we look forward to receiving the noble Lord's comments as legislation progresses.

Duty-Free Shop Sales
3.21 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Governmment what economic advantage is gained by the Treasury by forgoing the collection of taxes and excise duties on certain goods sold at international airports.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no direct economic advantage accrues to the Treasury, but there are benefits to the United Kingdom economy as a whole including the important contribution of
1158
duty-free shops to the economies of airport and cross-Channel ferry operators and as a shop window for British goods.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is it not a fact that in earlier days the opportunity of exploiting the duty-free device was a convenient way of subsidising the development of what was a private enterprise? Is there not now a distinct difference when, in effect, the Treasury will be subsidising a private company?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no; to the best of my knowledge the Treasury will be subsidising private citizens.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while giving due weight to the observations of my noble friend Lord Beswick, will the noble Lord agree that since all indirect taxation is by nature regressive, any relief that can be granted is extremely welcome?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no, but I agree that any relief from taxation is certainly to be welcomed.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if we wish to help private citizens it can be done in other shops and not necessarily in those at the airport? Is it not a fact that in this case the beneficiary is not the seller of the actual article but, to a large extent, the private company (as it will be) because of the rates that it can now charge?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am tempted to use one of the forms that I have been given, but I suppose that it will not do as an Answer. It is true that the revenue from duty-free shops at airports helps to carry the cost of airport facilities. If it were not there the cost would be higher and in the end the consumer would be worse off.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I should like to ask a final question. When considering this matter is any weight given to the safety factor? Is it not a fact that the encouragement of extra loading of inflammable liquid adds to the fire hazard?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have not seen the calculations but I should imagine that, as a proportion of the fuel on the aircraft, the bottles of whisky and vodka would not add much. However, I am sure that, as with all such matters, the storage of materials is taken into account in looking at the safety aspects of aircraft.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is not the expression "duty-free" a transgression of the Trade Descriptions Act? It is nothing like duty-free; it is only partly duty-free when one looks at the price of a bottle of whisky on sale at London Airport.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, technically it is free of duty but the cost may not show the full rebate.

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the proposed merger of British Airways and British Caledonian Airways. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Caithness who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Prison Population.

Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill
3.25 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House
3.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Summer Recess.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend give an undertaking that what is obviously necessary on this occasion will not easily be regarded as a precedent for future occasions? It is bad when even non-controversial legislation has to be rushed. We should not let this occasion pass without getting an undertaking from the Government with regard to the future.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has said. The three Bills concerned are the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the Finance Bill and the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill. The first two Bills are money Bills which the House would not normally amend; the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill is not a money Bill but, if I may venture to say so, it is wholly uncontroversial. None the less, I shall draw to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House, what my noble friend has said.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, would it not be wise to name the Bills instead of stating in broad terms all Bills to the end of the Session?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have just named them.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, but not on paper.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, no, not on the paper. Once again, I shall draw that point to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill
3.27 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 12 [Controls on board trains engaged on international services:]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 13, line 43, leave out ("London or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that at the Report stage of the Bill, following discussions at the Committee stage the Government agreed with your Lordships, that customs and immigration procedures on international trains should be part of the arrangements in the Bill. We were grateful for the Government's consideration of that matter. Those of us interested in making sure that long-distance trains to more distant parts of the country are effective and commercially viable were grateful for that concession.
However, the situation remains that although passengers boarding a train in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow or Edinburgh will be able to travel straight through to Paris, Brussels, or wherever, and have their customs and immigration arrangements dealt with on the train, people coming from London will have to go to Waterloo and pass through what has been described as airport-type facilities. Those noble Lords who regularly pass through airport-type facilities will know that they cause considerable delay. Frequently one must arrive at an airport an hour or two before departure. 1 am not suggesting that there will be that degree of delay at Waterloo but, undoubtedly, to have to check in baggage and go through immigration control there will cause greater delays than simply by getting on the train.
As I understand it, the cost of building the facilities at Waterloo has been estimated at approximately £7 million. That figure will not be borne by the taxpayer but by British Rail; but I have the impression that British Rail is not too anxious to construct those facilities unless it has to. In any case, at the end of the day the cost will be borne by the travelling public.
Not to build those facilities will cause less interference to the environment at Waterloo, where local people are already somewhat upset by the degree of interference which is to be placed on their lives by an increase in the number of travelling public. We should not dismiss that consideration too lightly. In France and in Belgium, in Paris and in Brussels, one simply will not have to go through these immigration and Customs facilities. It will all be done on the trains. It is my contention that if it is good enough for Paris and Brussels it ought to be good enough for London.
The Select Committee did not pronounce on the subject of Waterloo. It said very strongly that there should be Customs and immigration facilities on long-distance trains from north of London, but it did

1161
not pronounce itself as being opposed to those facilities being at Waterloo.
Finally, if the Single European Act succeeds, as we hope it will, in reaching a position where the internal market is such that the internal Customs and internal immigration problems are overcome by 1992, there will be no need for those facilities on what is now a land frontier. In the past the argument has been that in this country we were different from the Continent because they all had land frontiers whereas we had only sea frontiers. But of course with the Channel Tunnel we shall now have a land frontier.
For that reason and for others, though those may be less important, I believe that we should take this last opportunity of trying to persuade the Government that it is not necessary to have this large and expensive facility at Waterloo—this facility which will certainly not facilitate the transport of passengers. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and consider with it Amendment No. 2.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Lord in his amendment. Having moved an amendment in Committee leaving Waterloo in, and the Government proposing to leave Waterloo out at Report stage and giving very good reasons, my noble friend said he would keep this under review. But I do not think one can ask the Government at this stage to commit themselves to agree to this sort of thing.
A great deal of success was achieved in agreement on frontier controls as regards cross-country trains. The noble Lord at that time was also speaking for other departments, where this is an entirely new concept. There are different situations on the Continent. Although I believe it would be very nice for people to have the same facilities as when they are getting on at Paris or Brussels, it is not comparing like with like. Sadly, therefore, I think we must wait to see what happens in the next six years and not decide this afternoon.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is an amendment which frankly I should have liked to support and add my name to. My noble friend Lord Carmichael and I had some difficulty in so far as we withdrew our own amendment, which would have provided for this because the Government had moved and accepted a position of there being Customs and immigration facilities on trains north of London. But I noticed that when the Minister dealt with this on 13th July, at col. 877 of Hansard, he said:
"However, there is, of course, nothing in the new clause"—
that is the clause which the Government introduced—
"to prevent on-train controls being introduced for those services of British Rail (or the operator, whoever it is) and the appropriate government departments agree".
I wonder whether the Minister could give some assurance now that if British Rail should make such a request for all trains and not just those north of London, and if the appropriate government departments agree, there will be no opposition from the Treasury if such a request is made by British Rail. One has a feeling that even the government clause had to be fought for very hard against the Treasury
1162
interests. I hope the Government themselves would agree with the principle, if British Rail should make such a request, that there would be no opposition from the Treasury.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, with great regret, I do not feel able to support this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said, all of us who sat on the Select Committee—indeed, the whole House—are deeply grateful that the Government have followed the recommendation that we made and have agreed that what we now call in shorthand "trains travelling to the north of London" will have this facility. I personally remain of the conviction that the bulk of travellers—70 per cent. seems to be the agreed proportion—who will be travelling to London from either Paris or Brussels will find it more convenient if airport-type facilities are available at the terminus rather than if they had to go through the business on the trains.
So far as concerns immigration, this is a problem which might be dealt with more comfortably on the train but I remain convinced that as you lose the facility of the red and green channels—which implies that everybody on the train will be passing through the red channel—there is going to be what I think we might call the embarrassment factor of selected passengers having their luggage brought down from the rack and inspected in front of everybody in the carriage. That could well mitigate against this being regarded as an advantage.
I am afraid I was lost completely by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it would require a person to arrive at the terminal one hour or so in advance so that this might happen. It does not happen at airports for the reason that when one has to get there in advance; it is for the benefit of the carrier. However, we have won a great concession from the Government in this case. It is in the Bill that if the facility is thought to be wise it should be introduced in the future, so the legislation provides for that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it did not take long on Monday in this House for the euphoria of the Government's new clause in respect of on-train controls to be overtaken by the argument, "if it can be done for trains beyond London, why not for trains to Waterloo too?" That came as no surprise to the Government but I should make it clear at the outset that the Government did not limit what is now in Clause 12 to trains beyond London because that was the least they felt they could get away with. It was because the balance of advantage and disadvantage of imposing a duty on the Government is really very different in respect of the Waterloo services.
The Government accept that one of the important safeguards built into Clause 12 as it now is—that there is no duty to provide on-train controls where BR does not ask for them—also safeguards BR's position if the House were to adopt this amendment. If BR felt that too much revenue-earning space would be taken up by the necessary check-in facilities or if it did not wish to bear any charges the Government may eventually decide to impose in respect of the exercise of controls in this way, it could indeed simply not apply for on-train controls; and so its interests are well covered.

1163
However, it is the Government's interests in this that are not adequately catered for. The Government have a duty to use their financial resources and manpower efficiently and economically. HM Customs have estimated that approximately half as many Customs officers again would be required for on-train controls as for conventional static controls. For trains bound beyond London, already covered by Clause 12, as the House has heard, there is no commercially attractive alternative to carrying out controls on the train, but the viability of these services may well depend upon them. The Government are prepared to accept the increased calls upon their manpower and resources, and reserve their oposition in relation to the cost.
However, for trains to London the arguments are quite different. For a start, on British Rail's estimates there will be two or three times as many passengers using trains to London as using trains to more distant destinations. Therefore the scale of the potential call on the Government's resources is much greater.
Secondly, the need for on-train controls is not the same. All the trains arrive at the same station, so that a system of airport-type controls is a completely viable alternative. It undoubtedly represents the best use of the Government's resources and it does not cast any doubt on the viability of the service. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that it is far from obvious whether passengers bound for London would prefer on-train controls. It will not be popular if Customs and immigration officers question people in close proximity to their fellow passengers.
It will be still less popular for passengers to be taken away to interview rooms for questioning or to have to take their baggage there to be searched. However, that will be absolutely necessary if we are not to abandon our campaign against drugs and terrorism. The officials may arrive just as passengers are embarking on the final course of a meal in the restaurant car; compare that with a system of red and green channels where the great majority of passengers pass through the green channel without interruption.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned possible delays owing to exit checks but the only checks that passengers will have to go through on exit, apart from any security checks that obviously may need to be carried out before boarding, are passport checks. There are no Customs checks on ordinary travellers upon exit and even passport checks are now carried out upon exit on a selective basis, only a proportion of passengers being checked on exit at airports.
The Government have concluded therefore that any perceived need for on-train controls does not, in the case of trains bound to or from London, justify a prior commitment to undertake the heavy burden that such a system of checks would place upon the resources" of HM Customs and Excise and immigration. But I emphasise, as I did when I introduced this clause, that there is nothing in the clause to prevent on-train controls on the Waterloo trains if British Rail and the government departments concerned agree.
I cannot go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like me to go and say that there
1164
would be no opposition from the Treasury on this matter for the reasons that I put forward in my speech, but I hope that with the explanation that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will not press his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of a news bulletin from Kent Radio this morning which said that Customs officers have voted not to agree to travel aboard Channel Tunnel trains because they do not consider that the system is safe? Does he have any comment to make on that statement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have not heard that announcement. I only hope that during the course of the next six years we shall be able to sort out that question.
Lord Tordoff: Indeed, my Lords, I wonder whether that kind of attitude does not lie behind some of the difficulties that we have already had. I am not trying to detract from the fact that the Government changed their mind between the Committee and Report stages and were good enough to say so. That is something that takes a certain amount of courage on the part of any government and we are grateful for it.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points raised in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that this system was a new concept. It is not a new concept at all but one that has existed for many years on the Continent. Paris and Brussels are indeed no different from London when it coins to such a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has rightly noted what the Minister said at Report stage, and he has made the same statement just now; namely, that there is nothing in the Act to stop on-train Customs from Waterloo if that is desired later. The only hurdle that will be there to stop it will be an investment of £7 million into the equipment that has been installed in order to have airport-type facilities. That investment will not lightly be thrown away. All I am suggesting is that we should look forward somewhat and before that amount of money is invested we should take the decision now to put customs and immigration on to trains from Waterloo.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, is deeply grateful to the Government. That comes as no surprise. However, I must refute the notion that 70 per cent. of people will find the system more convenient and that it will be for the benefit of the carrier. There is bound to be some delay in passing through airport-type Customs. It may not be an hour, as I said in my opening remarks, but the process is bound to take some time. I n order to catch a train, one will have to arrive at the station some while before the normal departure time so as to go through Customs and to queue up at immigration control. The procedure may take only half an hour but it will make a difference to the time that people arrive as well as to the number of people who will be milling around Waterloo waiting to board trains.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is very frank when he says that the real reason behind this move is the question of the best use of government resources. I understand that and also that the Treasury would not be very pleased to find the money to make that

1165
desired change. However, the cost is now being put back on to the travelling public who will have to pay directly instead of through taxes.
It seems to me that it is turning back the clock to suggest that it is not popular to go off to interview rooms and that we have to consider those sad people who are disturbed during their dinner in the restaurant car. After all it has been happening on the Continent. I know that they are all foreign over there but the system seems to work.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said on the subject of exit checks but I have to remind him that I did not mention them. I am sure that that point was put into his brief by a cautious gentleman somewhere in a box, but I do not remember referring to exit checks.
It seems to me that we now have an opportunity to get the situation straight from the start and that we ought to keep the travelling public in mind. This is the last chance that the House will have to make up its mind and therefore I intend to press the amendment.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beswick, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Brockway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Molloy, L.

Denington, B.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridgc, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rugby, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fletcher, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

TordofT, L. [Teller.]

Granville of Eye, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gregson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hampton, L.

Willis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ypres, E.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Cathcart, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De Freyne, L.

Braye, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

1166

Dundee, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Moyne, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Hanvood, B.

Newall, L.

Foley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Onslow, E.

Glanusk, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Fender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hankey, L.

Reay, L.

Havers, L.

Reigate, L.

Hayter, L.

Renton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renwick, L.

Hives, L.

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandys, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Knutsford, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Slim, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Layton, L.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Luke, L.

Teviot, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trafford, L.

Margadale, L.

Tranmire, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marsh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Ullswater, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Vinson, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

BA-BCal:Proposed Merger
3.54
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place. It is as follows:
"None. The offer was announced only this morning. The Director General of Fair Trading will advise my right honourable and noble friend the Secretary of State on the question of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as soon as reasonably practicable".
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for repeating an Answer made by his colleague in another place to a Question which perhaps should have been addressed to him. We accept that there are certain procedures which have to be gone through before the Secretary of State can make up his mind whether to refer this merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Nevertheless, even at this stage, I should like to ask the noble Lord a series of questions.

1167
Was there contact between the director general and the two companies in question during the course of the negotiations leading up to the announcement which was made? As your Lordships will know, it is quite common when major transactions—and this, by any standard is a major transaction—are envisaged that informal approaches are made to the Office of Fair Trading to try to elicit a view as to what the likely reaction of the director general, advised by the Merger Panel, might be, and the director general has in a number of cases informally given advice. Was such advice sought and was it given?
Secondly, is it the intention that the proposed merger be made conditional on non-referral or do the two companies accept that a referral is almost certain? I would refer in that instance to the case where United Newspapers proposed an acquisition where under the Fair Trading Act, as the noble Lord explained to us the other day, it is quite normal for the Secretary of State to take a decision to refer; and it said, "We wish to make this acquisition. We accept that there may be a referral. When there is a referral we will debate it in front of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and then we will come back and set the terms". Was this proposed merger a case of that sort or was it a case where the merger was proposed on the basis that it will not go forward if there is a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Thirdly, would the Government accept even now that this is something of an exceptional merger; that it involves a reversal of government policy of trying to promote a second force British airline, with I think a Scottish flavour, when British Airways was in public ownership and there was a substantial discussion about allocation of routes between British Caledonian and British Airways which led to a certain amount of rather acrimonious discussion between the two companies but was justified by the Government on the basis of increased competition? Is this policy now reversed?
Fourthly, whatever the director general says, we must accept that it is the Secretary of State's decision at the end of the day whether to make a referral of this proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Does the noble Lord accept that such a referral would be an excellent opportunity for an independent general review of the public interest and of the extent to which the international climate, which I understand is the justification for the proposed operation, has changed since the Government's policy of promoting a second force British airline? Finally, would the Secretary of State accept that if there is no referral, then we on this side cannot but believe that the present competition policy has largely broken down?
4 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I in my ignorance had thought that we would be told what the Private Notice Question that had been asked was, instead of which we only got the answer. But I should like to ask the Minister—I am probably echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has just said—whether this matter came as a complete surprise to the Director General of Fair Trading, as
1168
it did to everyone else, or whether he was aware that this was about to be referred to him for a decision.
I should also like to know about another important matter. When do the Government expect a decision from the Director General of Fair Trading? If that decision is made when Parliament is in recess do the Government propose that the way in which they receive the recommendation from the director general will not be decided until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter? I ask that because these decisions are so often made when the House has either just gone into recess or when it is in recess and it is obvious to everybody that there should be a full discussion on the matter.
The next point that I wish to put to the Secretary of State is that obviously, whatever the decision, such a merger would have very grave repercussions on industry both internationally and in Europe and in this country. What would the Government's reaction be to the policy on competition which they support if we do have the merger of two such very large organisations?
My last question is: is the Director General of Fair Trading going to propose to the Government either that the merger be accepted or that the merger be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? I am quite convinced that we on these Benches would wish such a proposed merger to be referred.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. As regards the parties to the merger and the Director General of Fair Trading, advice may or may not have been given and contact may or may not have been made between the parties. Those matters remain confidential between the Director General of Fair Trading and the parties to the merger and I am afraid that I am not in a position to know what has happened. The noble Lord asked whether referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be a condition upon which the offer would be withdrawn. My understanding is that that is a condition which is imposed by the Takeover Panel and is a normal condition in this kind of matter.
As regards the whole question of airline policy and what I might or might not do in those circumstances, I am in a quasi-judicial position. The strict position is that I wait to hear from the director general and he will advise me on whether or not a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If he advises me to do that I shall then consider whether I should or should not do so at that time. These matters must follow an orderly progression.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I am sure that the director general will as usual advise me as expeditiously as possible. However, all in your Lordships' House would agree that this is not an easy matter. There are complex issues at stake and therefore the director general will have to take a reasonable amount of time to come to a decision. Whatever happens, we can only assume that he will make his decision some time after the House rises because that is only a matter of some 10 days' time. I shall have to see what happens at that time. I cannot possibly give an undertaking that this whole matter can wait until October, until your Lordships' House

1169
returns. These are commercial matters and great issues are at stake. I shall have to wait to see what the director general says.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wish to clarify one point with the Secretary of State. He said that it was a requirement of the Takeover Panel that the merger should lapse if there were a referral. I believe I am right in saying that it is a requirement of the Takeover Panel that the particular terms of the offer should lapse but not the intention to merge. That is the point I was getting at.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am as ever grateful for the noble Lord's greater knowledge of the minutiae of takeover law.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I wish to express a note of sadness that British Caledonian should have come to this. How does the Civil Aviation Authority come into this matter? It has allocated routes to British Caledonian on the basis of competition with other companies. That competition will now go. What then happens to the route allocation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the effect of the merger on the airline competition policy and on routes is really a matter which is more properly the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. That is a matter which would normally fall to him and I am sure it is one that he will consider should that come to pass.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure he is—that if the merger takes effect it will involve a complete reversal of the civil aviation policy which has been pursued by successive governments at any rate since 1971? Is he aware therefore that there is a great deal more to this issue than even the important matters that concern the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Is my noble friend also aware of the fact that has already been mentioned that the Civil Aviation Authority has for years carefully allocated routes to one or other of these airlines with a view to maintaining, in accordance with government policy, two large and viable international airlines in this country? Whatever the outcome of this particular referral, will my noble friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to this House at the earliest possible moment as to the changes which the Government intend to make in the civil aviation policy which has been pursued for years by their predecessors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend but I hope that all in your Lordships' House will appreciate that we are dealing now with two private sector companies which only this morning have decided on a particular course of action. There is a procedure to follow. As a result of that procedure this merger may or may not take place. If it does take place that may or may not have an effect on aviation policy. There is a whole series of matters involved, some of which are more properly dealt with by me. I must correct an incorrect answer which I inadvertently gave earlier. The matter of
1170
routes is of course very much a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority but many other matters are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
We should look at all these matters in an orderly manner. The first thing that will happen is that the Director General of Fair Trading will report to me. At that stage I may or may not refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. All parties will have a very good opportunity then to give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. When we see the result of that and the outcome, if it should come to that, and the outcome of all those procedures we can then look upon the effect, if any, upon airline policy. But I suggest that we look upon this in an orderly manner.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord will want to answer my question. Does he agree that competition in this particular area is international rather than national? Does he agree that these are two independent commercial private companies, that the merger would appear to many outside observers to make commercial sense and that it is certainly good for the British airline industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that may or may not be so. At the moment I should rather wait to hear from the Director General of Fair Trading. If I can, I shall keep my powder very dry.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there could well be some concern about the verification documents that have been issued with the British Airports Authority's new share issue if the shaky state of British Caledonian's finances were known, particularly in view of the fact that it represents a major part of the prosperity of Gatwick Airport?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is an entirely different matter but I should have thought that the amount of traffic going through Gatwick would not be affected by what happens now. We shall just have to see.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the noble Lord decides not to refer this matter will that enable him to make a statement to this House before we rise?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not anticipate that the Director General of Fair Trading will be in a position to report to me until after the House rises. It is only then that I can begin to consider the position.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in reply to an earlier question the noble Lord suggested that the matter of Gatwick may not have total relevance today. However, we on these Benches would suggest that the future of Gatwick is important because that is the main base of British Caledonian and any change in ownership of it could shift the balance of usage between Heathrow and Gatwick quite drastically.
While I understand that it is difficult for the noble Lord to respond specifically to these questions today, will he please convey to his right honourable friend the worry which is felt on all sides of the House about

1171
these matters of civil aviation policy? It cannot be simply a matter of two companies merging; it goes far beyond that. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, it goes to the whole question of civil aviation policy throughout the country.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I made two points with which the Minister did not deal: first, competition and the likely effect of this merger, and, secondly, the international repercussions. I also asked him whether the Government would refrain from taking a decision until the House had had an opportunity to debate the matter. Reverting to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, can the Minister give us a definite assurance that if it was proposed to alter the arrangements under which air transport has been working in this country through the CAA, at least that would not be done until the matter had been debated in Parliament?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am in a difficult position in this matter. I ask all in your Lordships' House to bear with me.
It would not be right or proper for me to comment on particular matters. I must wait to hear the report of the director general and then make up my mind at that time. I am in a quasi-judicial position in this. It may well be that in the fullness of time there will be an opportunity to debate the matter, should one course of action pertain, should another course of action pertain there may not be.
I cannot give an undertaking. This is a commercial matter and there are other procedures. I should very much prefer there to be an opportunity to debate it, but it may be that as a result of events the matter will be out of my hands.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the convenience and choice of passengers will be affected by the merger? I am a regular traveller on British Caledonian. I prefer to go via Gatwick, and there is the convenience offered to passengers by the train service between Victoria and Gatwick.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am quite certain that the Director General of Fair Trading or, should it come to that, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, would take all these points into account. I very much doubt—I have no means of knowing at present—whether it would affect the use of Gatwick and/or Heathrow. These are matters that have to be looked into by other people before they come to me.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the light of comments made on all sides of the House, will not the Secretary of State recognise that the timetable is set by him and the director general can report to him in the fullness of time or tomorrow, as the case may be? It would be no problem for the Secretary of State to announce now—he can correct me if I am wrong—under the Fair Trading Act that, whatever the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading may be, he, the Secretary of State, intends to refer this to the Monopolies and Mergers
1172
Commission. That will allow a proper debate on the issues at the right time.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot give such an undertaking. The director general must look at the position. It is a very complex matter. I shall be relying upon his advice. As soon as I receive it, I shall then decide.

Channel Tunnel Bill
4.15 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 17 [Supervision by Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 19, line 12, at end insert ("in Scotland except by or with the consent of the Procurator Fiscal or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister may recall that I raised this in the dying days of the Report stage. The Minister in his reply said that Scotland was covered by subsection (10), which on the face of the Bill refers only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I tabled the amendment to give the Minister time to make sure that his words were correct.
I still have grave doubts. I have taken some advice. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the matter and that he has taken legal advice. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the matter. We have in the interim taken advice from the Scottish law officers.
I should first own up to an inaccuracy in my description of the effects of Scots law during the Report stage on Monday. I have to say that the Government still believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Prosecutions in Scotland are of course normally brought by the Procurator Fiscal in lower courts and the Lord Advocate in higher courts. There are, however, very limited circumstances in which a private prosecution could be brought in Scotland. Whereas elsewhere in the United Kingdom in the absence of specific legislation the right of private prosecution is virtually unconstrained, this is not the case in Scotland. The Scots law already provides a thorough system of checks against vexatious proceedings. It is not therefore necessary or appropriate to make special provision in the Bill as it is for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, I shall once more draw what he has said to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I note that the Minister said this was neither necessary nor appropriate. As to its inappropriateness I wonder whether he would look at it again. That is one of the points on which the meaning of the amendment hinges.

1173
If the Minister has consulted the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as I am sure he has, and this has been looked at carefully, I am in no position to proceed with the amendment.
I still have a very uneasy feeling. I know that private prosecutions happen rather more often than the Minister seems aware. We have had some very important ones quite recently. Given the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority: Supplementary]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("or direction") and insert (", direction or certificate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 inclusive.
In proposing the amendment I am honouring an undertaking that I gave on Report to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. To use her own word, she was "shattered" on that occasion by my telling your Lordships that the Government accepted the principle of her amendment, which provided that Eurotunnel should adopt a code of practice relating to the transport of persons who are disabled. I explained—I think that the noble Baroness accepted this— that certain drafting changes were needed. These have now been made, and the amendments now before your Lordships achieve the objective.
The amendments provide that Eurotunnel must adopt a published code of practice on transport by their shuttle trains of people who are disabled. They may if necessary exclude certain categories of disabled people but, if so, they must explain why. This is intended simply for those categories of people whose needs in terms of facilities or equipment are so complex that the concessionaires could not reasonably be expected to carry them on shuttle trains. They must give details of how they will ensure the safety of disabled persons in the tunnel system. This code of practice will be considered by the Intergovernmental Commission, and only when it is satisfied will it issue a certificate allowing Eurotunnel to carry passengers.
If Eurotunnel has not made satisfactory arrangements for carrying passengers with disabilities, it will not be allowed to carry passengers on its shuttles at all. I do not think that your Lordships could ask for more. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we come back to this question for the third time. Both I and those helping me to prepare the case appreciate very much the Minister's gesture. We are satisfied with the amendment that he has offered in place of mine, which was wrongly drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 13:
Page 19, line 29, after ("direction") insert (", certificate").
Page 19, line 37, after ("direction") insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 40, after ("direction") insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("certificate") and insert ("statement").
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("stating").
Page 19, line 43, after ("direction") insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 44, at end insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 45, leave out ("certificate") and insert ("statement").
Clause 19 [Operation by the Concessionaires]:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) The Concessionaires shall not convey any passengers by means of shuttle trains at any time when there is not in force a certificate issued by the Intergovernmental Commission stating—

(a) that the Commission are satisfied with a code of practice relating to the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled which has for the time being been adopted by the Concessionaires; and

(b) that the code of practice has been published in a manner approved by the Commission.

(5) Such a code of practice must contain—

(a) a statement of any description of such persons not intended to be conveyed by means of shuttle trains, with reasons;

(b) details of provision for ensuring the safety of such persons in the tunnel system, in particular the safety in the event of an emergency of such persons being conveyed by means of shuttle trains; and

(c) information relating to such other matters affecting the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled as the Commission may specify.

(6) Contravention of the restriction imposed by subsection (4) above may be restrained by an order of the High Court made on an application by the Intergovernmental Commission.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Insurance cover.
As stated in the Treaty, and regardless of anything contained in Clause 22 or Annexe III of the Concession Agreement, the Concessionaires shall take out and maintain insurance cover for any liabilities incurred by them arising from the construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel.").
The noble Lord said: Before I forget to do so, may I also take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill on its way through the House and for putting up with what he may have considered to be my untimely interruptions.
This is the third time that I have spoken on insurance. I make no apology for bringing the matter up again at this late stage. At Report stage I had not received certain information from the Minister which subsequently made me change my mind. I received the information too late as I had already submitted the amendment. The same situation arises today. The Minister at Report stage said that he would write to me if he thought there was anything worth writing about. He evidently thought there was not.
If I remember correctly, the Minister called my amendment otiose. Not being a very literate person, I looked that up. I found that my amendment had been described as "lazy", "sterile", "not required", "serving no practical purpose" and "functionless". If a desire to ensure that people travelling through the tunnel and any expenses arising out of collapse, breakdown or accidents in that tunnel are insured warrants that description, then my education is worse than I thought it was—and at times I think it was pretty bad!
Surely my amendment cannot be described as functionless and futile. It is a point of principle in our society that if someone creates something that ultimately means someone else is damaged or it has an adverse effect on other companies, that person should be responsible either for compensation or for

1175
rectifying the damage. That is all that my amendment seeks to do.
The Minister said that the amendment was futile. He went on to say that it was not necessary because it repeated requirements in the concession agreement. The second point made by the Minister was that it went beyond the agreement. Therefore, it must have done something other than repeat assurances in the agreement. The third point made by the Minister was that it could not be done at a reasonable cost. We have been hearing a lot about privatisation and how the private sector of our society can do things as well as government. I said then that so far as I was concerned I thought that, if this tunnel had to be built, it should have been built from public funds; if the community decided that it should be built, it should be responsible for any damages arising. I still believe that that is absolutely true and a fundamental principle.
If the Government, having been elected on a specific requirement to push forward privatisation, have told the electorate of this country that privatisation is as safe and as good as public ownership, then the same requirements should be put upon the private sector to comply with the simple principle of compensation for damage done. So far as I know, the only way that they can ensure that is to insure against all risks.
The concession agreement says, after the treaty was negotiated saying that insurance shall be taken out, that that should only be done at a reasonable cost. Nobody said what a reasonable cost was and I asked the Minister who would decide that. I have not yet received a reply. I am sure that Members of the House will not be surprised if I say that I am still not satisfied. Users of the tunnel are entitled to know where they stand with regard to insurance.
There is another implication that may be involved. If Eurotunnel cannot find insurers in the private sector to cover such risks, how do we know that an ordinary person can insure himself against the same risks? If it is impossible for Eurotunnel to cover the risk, how can an individual be guaranteed that he can be covered? It may be that the Government, in order to see justice done, will accept that they should do something about covering the risk. I doubt very much whether the Minister will be prepared to say that.
However we look at this matter, this is a government Bill. The Government are laying down the proposals and submitting them to Parliament. Therefore, some responsibility should be laid at their door. If this clause stays as it is and my amendment is defeated, will the Government make the public aware at all times of what the state of insurance is in regard to the tunnel? The proposal is that they should in the first place insure it and then perhaps afterwards, if it becomes unreasonable in someone's opinion, they will stop it. The public are entitled to know. If they are not told, then they will have been deceived.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I ask exactly what the point is? I think that what is suggested also happens when half of London is flooded. Is it so unreasonable that there should be claims under the same heading?
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord's point. Perhaps he can make it again later.
There should be some duty to inform members of the public whether at any particular time insurance covers the risks that may be involved in going through the tunnel. If the Minister can give me a satisfactory reply about informing the public and an assurance that they will be able to negotiate insurance and that the Government will pick up any tab for damages caused, I may withdraw my amendment. Otherwise I certainly am not inclined to.
I do not want to keep the House very long. However, I wish to make the point that if the tunnel is built under the present Bill and Annex III of the concession agreement, it will be possible for people to travel through it uninsured. I think that that is a disgraceful state of affairs.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether, if a train has an accident and people are killed or injured, British Rail compensates them? As far as I know, it does not.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not know. I have some experience of insurance. I could keep the House up until very late tonight if the noble Viscount wants examples. What we are talking about now is the fundamental reason for doing something in advance. I mentioned in a previous debate, when the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised the question of too much bureaucracy in the tunnel, that if a little more bureaucracy had existed in Townsend Thoresen we should not have got to the stupid situation in which there was no television monitor showing whether the doors were closed.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, curiously enough I again find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. Relying from my memory, I believe that during the debate in February I raised the question of what the cost of insurance would be. I also wrote to the Minister and received a reply. I did not think that that reply was satisfactory. However, I was not prepared to argue further about it. On the other hand, this is an opportunity for me to say with some certainty that insurance is one of the indeterminate aspects of the whole plan which causes me to feel that the situation is unsatisfactory. Why do we not know? How can we find out? I have sought the advice of insurance men and they ask, "What do you want to insure?". However, I feel it is proper for me to tell your Lordships that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, for his kind words at the opening of his speech. The reason I have not written to him on the subject is that there was not enough time. I felt it was easier to answer his questions here and now in the House this afternoon.
If I can draw your Lordships' attention to subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of Annexe III of the concession agreement, this requires the concessionaires to insure their liability to compensate third parties and users in respect of death, bodily

1177
injury or disease, or loss of or damage to their property. Clause 22 of the agreement provides that this obligation shall apply only to the extent that such insurance is available at reasonable cost, because it is possible that unlimited cover against extreme eventualities may be beyond the capacity of the insurance market or would be obtainable only at utterly prohibitive cost.
However, Clause 22 also provides that the concessionaires' insurances shall be subject to the approval of the Intergovernmental Commission, and if the concessionaires contend that cover beyond a certain level is not available at reasonable cost they will have to satisfy the commission that that is so.
The concession agreement simply recognises that in the real world every conceivable eventuality concerning damage to users and third parties may not be insurable. But this question is not left entirely to the concessionaires to decide. The decision will be entirely in the hands of the Intergovernmental Commission; and I remind your Lordships that decisions of the commission require the agreement of both national delegations. So there is no uncertainty about this insurance—at least I feel that there is no uncertainty. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Lord and he will not press the new clause further.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Minister has merely repeated what. I said in my statement. Of course I referred to Clause 2, of course I referred to the treaty, of course I referred to Part III, and of course I pointed out the matter of reasonable cost of insurance. That is not a new point. The only matter which the Minister has raised which is new to this debate—also inside the agreement—is that it will be the Intergovernmental Commission that will decide whether the tunnel should be insured. I accept that, and I accept it as meaning quite deliberately that the Intergovernmental Commission will decide the issue of reasonable cost. It should be on the record that the Minister has said that.
The Minister then went on to say—if I am wrong, please correct me—that that agreement is subject to the agreement of the national states concerned. In other words, if the British Government do not agree that the tunnel can go on without insurance because of unreasonable cost, then it has to go on willy-nilly. That is what it means, if it means anything at all. If the Minister is smiling to say it does not mean that—if he will tell me it does not mean that—then I shall know what to say next.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is very little more I can say. If the noble Lord reads what I have said this afternoon, I think he will see that there is definitely going to be a certain level of insurance available which has to be enough to satisfy the Intergovernmental Commission.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it is evident that the words used by the Minister (namely, that the agreement of the Intergovernmental Commission must be subject to the agreement of both national states) mean what I said they meant. Therefore, the Government cannot escape the blame for allowing people to go through the tunnel and possibly suffer horrific damages without any insurance. That will be
1178
their claim and we do not want any fudging of the issue. That is the situation. It is serious, and strikes at something else, because the third reason for refusing my amendment was that we would have to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. It is evident that we do not have to.
We have now arrived at a situation where the British Government, by refusing to agree that the insurance taken out by Eurotunnel is unreasonable, can ensure that that insurance is taken out and maintained. That is the issue now. In view of the Government's refusal to ensure that this tunnel is insured at all times for all risks I am going to press my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is that Amendment No. 14 shall be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content", to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar. Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order. No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Schedule 7 [Protective provisions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 102, line 41, leave out ("which may result").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also with the leave of the House, to Amendment No. 16. These are drafting improvements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 103, line 12, leave out second ("in") and insert ("approved under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Prison Population
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about the prison population which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The House has from time to time been warned of the dramatic rise in the prison population. Last Friday that population stood at 51,029, nearly 4,000 more than a year ago and over 9,300 above the certified normal accommodation; that is, the uncrowded capacity of the prison system. Six hundred and forty-eight of those prisoners were being held in wholly unsuitable conditions in police cells, so diverting police officers from operational duties.
"The main reason for the latest growth in the population is the substantial increase in the number of offenders being dealt with by the Crown Court, and an increase in the average length of custodial sentences passed by the Crown Court. Moreover, despite our efforts to reduce court delays, the number of prisoners held on remand has gone up by about a further 1,000 over the last year to over 11,000.

1179
"Those who commit serious offences should receive severe sentences. The Government have legislated to increase the sentencing powers of the courts where necessary, and the courts in their decisions have reflected public concern by passing longer sentences; for example, for rape and armed robbery. At the same time, we have made clear, most recently in our election manifesto, the need to strike a balance between tough sentences for those who pose a threat to society and lesser sentences for those who pose no such threat. Hence the emphasis which we have placed on tough and challenging alternatives to custody, to which the courts have responded with a substantial increase in the proportionate use of community service orders.
"Sentencing decisions are for the courts. The responsibility of government is to make sure that the decisions of the courts are not frustrated by lack of prison accommodation. Prisons have to be places with the right levels of security in which prisoners can live, and prison staff can work, in tolerable conditions. The problem of overcrowding, and what it means in practice, is well known to any Member of the House who has visited one of our local prisons. We have 5,000 prisoners crammed three to a cell designed for one. A further 14,000 are doubled up. Virtually all of these people are in their cells for most of the day, relying on pots and periodic slopping out for sanitation. Such overcrowded prisons are hard to control and, I would argue, more likely to result in reoffending.
"This Government have invested record sums in the prison service. Expenditure on the service has increased 34 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and the capital budget has more than doubled. The building programme already known to the House involves the opening of 20 new prisons as well as refurbishment of existing prisons and this will have delivered a total of 17,500 more prison places by 1995. It has been expanded in each of the last two public expenditure rounds. Immediately, the programme will produce some 3,000 new places in the 12 months from September. We are making every effort to maximise the use of the existing prison estate and I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the prison service in doing so. They are hard pressed and deserve our thanks. However, in recent months the rise in the population has outstripped the supply of new places and the gap between supply and demand looks set to grow wider still. The report by Sir James Hennessy on last year's prison disturbances, which I am publishing today, reminds us all of the delicate balance between order and disorder in our prisons.
"Further action now is essential. That action must be enough to deal with the immediate problem and prevent it recurring. We must also preserve the momentum of our restructuring of working practices under the fresh start initiative.
"I have therefore taken the following decisions. First, immediate steps are being authorised to secure the opening on a temporary basis of a camp for prisoners—Rollestone in Wiltshire—which will hold 360 inmates. This will be managed and staffed by prison service personnel. I shall keep the need
1180
for further camps or other additional temporary accommodation under close review.
"Secondly, we shall also need a substantial expansion and acceleration of our plans to provide more prison places in the longer term. We propose to set this in hand and I will make a further announcement in due course.
"Thirdly, I am sure that the skills and knowledge of the private sector have a bigger part to play in ensuring the speedy delivery of this accelerated programme. It takes too long to build a prison in this country. I am therefore setting up a new prison buildings board within the Home Office but with a strong outsider element to supervise the building programme and to exploit to the full private sector techniques in bringing new prisons on stream. My noble friend Lord Caithness will report immediately to me on further possibilities for using the private sector following his forthcoming visit to the United States.
"Fourthly, I have considered but rejected using the power of executive release to ease the pressure of the prison population. Rather I propose to lay amendments to the rules for prison department establishments increasing the amount of remission dependent upon good behaviour by those serving sentences of up to and including 12 months from one-third to one-half of sentence length. This is an interim measure, applying only to less serious offenders serving short custodial sentences and the period of remission is dependent on good conduct.
"It will remove the anomaly, criticised by the courts, that those on sentences too short to qualify for parole serve a higher proportion of their sentences than more serious offenders who are selected for parole. As it takes effect over the coming weeks it will help the present problem of overcrowding—to the extent of about 3,500 places—by relieving pressure, particularly on local prisons, and enable prisoners to be removed from police cells, thereby returning police officers to their proper duties of dealing with crime and preserving public order on the streets.
"Fifthly, this measure, is as I have said, an interim one, pending a wide-ranging review of parole and remission arrangements. The operation of the parole scheme in relation to shorter sentences has, as I have said, been criticised not least by members of the judiciary. In our manifesto we undertook to set up a thorough review of the workings of the parole system and of the arrangements for post-custodial supervision. I can announce today the setting up of that review which will also look at remission—under the chairmanship of a distinguished former Member of this House, Mr. Mark Carlisle, QC, with terms of reference which I shall publish in full in the Official Report.
"The Government have consistently shown in deeds over the last eight years their commitment to the prison service and to resolving the long-neglected problems of the prison system, including the lack of capital investment and the reform of working practices. The immediate pressure of the rise in the prison population means that we must amplify and extend our strategy. The measures

1181
which I have announced today on prison building, parole and remission, and the opening of Rollestone, are designed to achieve that".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for repeating the very sombre Statement made in another place by the Home Secretary. It faces up to the crisis that we meet in our prisons today. We debated this matter on Tuesday and I am sure the noble Earl must be regretting that he was not then given the information that he has given the House today. Obviously there have been immediate and recent discussions and decisions on this grave matter.
Before I move on to the content I should like to join in the tribute that the noble Earl paid to the prison service for what its members have had to do and what they have endeavoured to do in the most appalling conditions of service in recent years. The crisis in the prisons was underlined from different parts of the House on Tuesday. We have reached the record figure of 51,029 prisoners in our prisons today, and added to them are the 648 prisoners in police cells about which the police themselves have been complaining. As Mr. James Anderton said, policemen are not gaolers.
What is being proposed to deal with this situation? The Statement points out with frankness that last Friday over 9,300 prisoners above the certified normal accommodation were in prison. That was the measure of the overcrowded state of our prisons. In addition, there were 648 prisoners in police cells. It was essential that action be taken. There were risks of riots and disturbances, apart from the appalling conditions within the prisons which the Statement has frankly admitted and described. It is a shame.
Immediate action is proposed to reduce the size of the prison population to some extent. We shall have to consider whether it goes far enough. The immediate proposal is to provide 360 places in Rollestone Camp. In addition, there is the proposal, which, as far as it goes, we welcome—it may well be that outside the House some will criticise it—for executive release of prisoners. It is hoped that that will reduce the amount of overcrowding by 3,500 prisoners. As the Minister has said, the remission will be dependent upon good behaviour and will relate to those serving sentences of up to 12 months. The remission will be from one-third to one-half of the sentence. That measure, or something similar, was one that the crisis called for.
I wonder why the Government have rejected the proposal made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for executive remission of sentence and the release of prisoners, with the threat of sanction of recall in the event of misbehaviour. I do not know whether that element applies in what is proposed. That proposal was made in 1981. It is one which at that time commended itself to many people. I wonder why it has not been followed, instead of the remission of sentence of 3,500 prisoners.
In addition, the Statement says that it is hoped that in the next 12 months 3,000 more prison places will be provided in the rebuilding programme. That takes us to rather fewer than 7,000 prisoners. After that period, there will still be over 2,000 prisoners above
1182
the certified accommodation in prisons. This is very much an interim measure. More must be done if our shameful prison record is to be dealt with effectively.
We also note the proposal to review the workings of the parole system and the arrangements for post-custodial supervision. The review may be helpful, but I hope there will not be the pressure of the kind that has been brought to bear in this House and elsewhere to limit the usefulness and value of the parole system in certain cases. There must not be greater remission on the one hand and a reduction in releases on parole on the other.
We are grateful for the proposals, as far as they go. We are grateful to the Government for the frankness of the Statement which they have made. The British people have now been placed face to face with something which was a disgrace to our judicial system and to our society.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement which was full of good and useful news. To someone like myself who has been singing Cassandra for 15 to 20 years, it is an enormous relief at last to feel that the Government are attempting to face up to a difficult situation. It is much more difficult a situation than it would have been had some action been taken earlier. I am not going to stress that, because when people do what we want them to we must praise them, even if they could have done it a long time before to greater advantage.
I was interested to note that the Home Secretary used, almost word for word, the arguments that I used on 25th September in an Unstarred Question. I am glad that he has given a much more satisfactory answer to those arguments than I received from the Minister. I know that the Minister could not say more than he did, so I do not hold that against him. This is a wonderful change. It is better.
I shall do the sum that the noble and learned Lord spoke to. There are 9,300 prisoners in excess; there will be 3,000 new places in September; there will be increased remission for 3,000 prisoners, and a camp for 360, leaving just under 3,000 places still to be found. In every Session over the past 12 years a noble Lord has asked the Home Office why an Army camp could not be used. It is a great relief to find that we can use one. It need not be the only one. It depends upon whether there are sufficient suitable prisoners among the 12-month or other prisoners.,
The second good point is that, although I was urging executive release, achieving the reduction by increasing the remission of sentence ensures that it will continue. Once it is started, it happens year by year, whereas the process of executive release has to be renewed each year. If it is not renewed every year, we return to the position we were in before. Anything of this kind must therefore continue for some period. It is a great relief to observe that that will be so.
This first step should be enough to eliminate the 648 police-held prisoners. I should like the Minister to tell us how quickly he thinks that step can be achieved. Can it be done overnight? Will it take six weeks, or what?
Secondly, I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is time that the whole question of

1183
post-custodial supervision, and parole and all its implications, should be looked at afresh. Mr. Mark Carlisle, who after all has had the requisite training, being on the board of NACRO for many years, will be as good a chairman as we could possibly find.
The noble and learned Lord talked about the 1981-proposal made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I think that it was called supervised release. My impression was that it would divide short sentences into three sections. The first third would be served in prison, the second third under supervision and the third third would be remission. I hope that the noble Earl and the Home Secretary will go more carefully into that remedy. We have another 3,000 prisoners to deal with, and I think that process is probably right.
Most 12-month sentences are served in local prisons, but some are served in open prisons. Most trouble arises in the local prisons. I think everyone will welcome this new step with its conditions of non-violence and good behaviour. We think that the Government are at last doing what should have been done a long time ago. We congratulate them and will give them every assistance.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome to the Statement given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I am particularly grateful for the words of the noble and learned Lord about the prison service. In the short time that I have come to know those concerned extremely well, I feel they have done a marvellous job. Their work is very often underrated by the public at large, as indeed is the work of the headquarters of the prison service and of the civil servants who also play such an important part in the overall picture of the prison service.
I would stress at this stage that although I referred to executive release in the Statement, we are not talking about that. We are talking about remission that has to be earned before an inmate can receive the benefit of it.
Both noble Lords mentioned supervised release. I do not think that I can say any more to them than I did on Tuesday, when I replied to the noble and learned Lord in the debate. It will be a matter that will be part of the review of parole. On the review, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it must not be pressurised. A review is a review and none of us will know what the review will say until the report is published.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that what we have done today we should have done earlier. With respect to him, I would say that the situation we face today in the prison service could have been mitigated if the last Labour Government had not cut their prison building programme by 35 per cent. in real terms and had not deferred the eight new building projects. Because it takes so long to build a prison in this country—and that is one of the matters that we intend to speed up—we have not been able to catch up from those days.
1184
Both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the numbers of prisoners in police cells. I think that it would be useful to the House if I said that in 1986 about 303,350 manhours were spent on this work, which was equivalent to 172 full-time posts. I am sure that the House would agree that this is a fair police commitment. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord opposite that the number in police cells, alas, has gone up since the figure of last Friday. I understand that last night there were 720 people in police cells.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is extremely good news that the prisons are coming on stream—the long lead time has been explained—and that more will come on stream fairly soon. Can my noble friend say what has been done by way of studying the American and Swedish systems, one of confinement to the home, and the other of electronic tagging, where a person, instead of going to prison, has to stay at home and is not able electronically to get out of his house? How much study has there been of that system?
Many people who go to prison have a long record of offences, very often starting with youth custody and so on. Youth custody has a very small record of cure. However, if one looks ahead to the prison population in a few years' time those who receive intermediate treatment have about a 50 per cent. chance of going straight afterwards. Can he assure the House that every possible encouragement is given to the full use of intermediate treatment in order to try to improve the situation in the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raised a number of points about non-custodial sentences. I would refer him to what I said on Tuesday in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, when I answered in some detail, in particular on the point that he has raised, which was also raised at that time by my noble friend Lord Elton.
We have the widest range of non-custodial sentences in Western Europe. The number of community service orders handed down by the courts has virtually trebled since 1978. Probation and community service orders account now for some 16 per cent. of disposals for indictable offences compared with 9 per cent. in 1979. My noble friend also raised the question of electronic tagging. I can tell him that I shall look at this system in operation in Florida when I go to the United States in September.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the very problems that he has outlined concerning overcrowding in prisons would be much alleviated if the suggestions that I made on what I may perhaps call the first Criminal Justice Bill—which came into your Lordships' House before the general election—were considered rather more seriously? As some noble Lords were not then present I shall briefly state the suggestions I ask the Government very seriously to bear in mind. I believe they reflect the wishes of many people in this country. These are the reintroduction of the death penalty—to the extent that it does not include hanging; castration

1185
for second time offenders for rape; flogging for bullies and thugs; and deportation for certain second offenders. This would go a long way towards reducing our prison population. I hear some cries of dissent from noble Lords opposite; but I believe that noble Lords opposite know perfectly well that many of these suggestions have a degree of support from many people in the country, and so should be thought about rather more deeply.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, some of the points that my noble friend has just mentioned were debated at length in another place. Although my noble friend gave me notice that he was going to raise the matter in detail at Committee stage on Criminal Justice Bill (Mark I) we never quite reached that stage. I am sure that my noble friend will raise it on Mark II, the Bill before your Lordships' House, when he will be able more fully to deploy his arguments.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would beg the noble Lord not to do any such thing. I wonder whether the noble Earl will permit me to say that I do not want to follow him in any criticism of his government or of my government. He must remember on this national issue that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot be proud of being the third Government of the Conservative Party in consecutive terms and then start referring to what other government have or have not done in the past. One cannot have it both ways. It is much more sensible that this House seriously considers this as a national crisis and a national issue, and that we pool our brains to try to do something about it.
The first issue is surely this. Are there sufficient alternatives to imprisonment which are practical and effective at this stage? I would love the noble Earl in his courtesy to deal with this complaint that I hear: that community service orders—although they are very sensible because they have a rehabilitating effect which prisons do not have and are therefore most useful, apart from emptying our prisons—cannot effectively be made in many parts of the country because there is insufficient staff to man them and not sufficient organisation. Can he tell the House whether that criticism is right and, if it is, can he do something about it?
The second issue concerns premises. It is a very good idea to set up a board to inquire into whether we can have more prisons built more quickly and more cheaply. But what about refurbishing the dreadful prisons that we have, which produce the situation the noble Earl recited in the Statement that he repeated to us this afternoon? Therefore can the board also look at quick, economic and sensible methods of refurbishing our dreadful old prisons?
The last point—I make is on terms of reference with regard to the parole board. The noble Earl said perfectly fairly, "Let us wait and see what they do". I am looking—as I always do with some admiration, and at times some sense of opposition—to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has many determined views on parole; and they are not usually in the direction of increasing but rather of decreasing parole awards. Would the Minister be good enough to indicate to the House whether one of the terms of
1186
reference of this review will be concerned with whether or not recommendations are to be made for increasing the powers of parole in view of the critical situation in our prisons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the terms of reference for parole will indeed be published in the Official Report. One of the terms will take into account the possibility of prisoners released before expiry of sentence being required to perform work of value to the community, having regard to the relative cost and effectiveness of custodial and non-custodial disposals.
The noble Lord criticised the effectiveness of the financing of the community service order. It is the first time I have heard that criticism and it is one I shall want to look into. With regard to the prison building programme, we must not forget one important point. I refer to the difficulty of getting planning permission on some occasions. One can streamline the building process; but while members of the public may be all for having another prison, they do not want it on their doorstep. This can lead to delays—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl misunderstood me—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am just coming to refurbishment. I wanted to get that point across first.
It is in the old Victorian prisons, the local prisons, that we need refurbishment. They are the most overcrowded. We have first to decant the inmates from a wing in order that refurbishment can take place. This has just happened in one of the wings of Liverpool prison which I was pleased to reopen the other day. The prison building programme will relieve the pressure on the local prisons, as will the effect of the Statement today. We shall then, I hope, be able to increase the speed with which refurbishment is carried out.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while I welcome the Statement, I want to express some disappointment that there is no reference in it to the question of prisoners on remand. It was stated in a debate only the other day that some 38 per cent. of the prisoners on remand—I give that figure from memory—do not get custodial sentences. This seems a totally unnecessary loading of the prison population with people who ought not be be there. Surely there are steps that could be taken—an increase in the number of bail hostels is only one—to cut down the number of people on remand who are taking up places in prison.
The Government should give the maximum help to organisations which are doing what they can to see that people coming out of prison do not return. Recidivism puts up the figures in a quite unnecessary way.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have increased the number of places in a bail hostels, a subject on which the noble Baroness is a far greater expert than me. I agree with her that recidivism is one

1187
of the curses of the prison service and that we must do all we can to stop it.
The noble Baroness mentioned a figure of 38 per cent. I understand that of the total 100 per cent. that come into that category, 8 per cent. are acquitted and the remaining 30 per cent. either get non-custodial sentences, such as community services orders, or suspended sentences.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that national officers of the Prison Officers Association, who were in this building earlier today and heard his parliamentary colleague make the Statement, give a general welcome to the measures contained in it? Any relief of the intolerable conditions not only of prisoners but also of prison officers is to be warmly welcomed. They particularly welcome the figure of 50 per cent. on remission but they are anxious that a counter-balance of increased sentences will not nullify the benefit of remission. Will the Minister comment on that possibility?
Can the Minister say why the figure of 12 months was put forward? It is acknowledged that this is an interim measure, that it has to start somewhere and that it will be kept under review. Could the Government not have been more bold and, instead of 12 months, made the period one of two years or even more? Will the Minister accept that the use of Rollestone camp is looked upon by prison officers as a move in the right direction but that they are somewhat concerned about the impact this will have on the number of officers that will be required to man this new eastablishment from the already depleted complement of prison officers in the service? The Minister referred to a "fresh start". Is there not a great shortfall in the number of prison officers required to get it off the ground? Will the Minister comment on that?
Does the Minister accept that the speeding up of the prison building programme and the injection into the prison service of additional funds will be warmly welcomed by the prison officers.?
Finally, is he aware that they will certainly listen with great care to a man for whom they have the highest respect—Mr. Mark Carlisle—when he brings forward his report on and review of the parole system?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I am particularly pleased about the general welcome that the Prison Officers Association has given to the Statement today. I agree with the noble Lord that it will give relief to prison officers. They sometimes work in not terribly good conditions. It has been one of the failings of the building programme in the past that it has not sufficiently taken into account the requirements of staff.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Appalling conditions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the possibility of the judiciary increasing sentences. It is the judiciary who pass sentences. We
1188
limited the effect of the 50 per cent. remission to 12 months because that is where the effect of the flattening out under Section 33 of the 1982 Act is most felt. That has been the subject of some criticism from the judiciary. I hope that the judiciary will see this as a positive step in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that there was a depleted complement of prison officers. I find it difficult to agree with him. Since 1979 the prison population has risen by some 11 per cent. while the number of prison officers has risen by 20 per cent. There has been a considerable increase in prison staff. With regard to shortages of staff, this is very difficult to determine at the present time until each establishment is assessed on its individual basis. As soon as each establishment has been assessed we will know the full staff position.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that those of us who have urged upon him and the Government, year after year, month after month, the use of camps and the building of camps to prevent the Government being overrun by events, have done so for two reasons? The first is that the camps can be built and used in an emergency; and it takes so long to build prisons. The second is that they can be used for the purpose of housing remand prisoners who do not require a high degree of security. Those suggestions have been made, certainly by me, for the past eight years. Can the Minister now give the House an undertaking that in this emergency, which many of us have prophesied over and over again, these camps will be used for the purpose of housing remand prisoners so that remand prisoners can be taken out of the local prisons and out of the police cells, and the local prisons can be used for the purpose of convicted prisoners? This is the centre of solving the problem. These camps should not be used simply to provide further places for convicted prisoners.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that remand prisoners do not require such high security.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, with great respect, I said those of the remand prisoners who do not require so high a degree of security.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall qualify what I said and I am grateful to the noble Lord—that those are the remand prisoners. We must not forget that these are people who have not been allowed bail and therefore in the eyes of the court are considered to need some sort of security in order to protect the public.
I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, about using camps for remand prisoners in the case of Rollestone. One of the great disadvantages of Rollestone is its inaccessibility for remand prisoners. As the noble Lord knows better than I do, remand prisoners are entitled to visits every day, and they are entitled at the moment to receive their own food brought in from outside. On my visits to local prisons, those on remand have said that they would much rather be in the "local" than in a camp on Salisbury Plain. That

1189
is why we intend to use Rollestone for sentenced prisoners.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is it not clear that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has said again and again that judges do not take into account, and are not permitted to take into account, questions of remission in imposing a custodial sentence or in coming to a conclusion as to whether a non-custodial sentence should be imposed?
In regard to the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to go to Rollestone in order to visit a man he is going to defend at the Old Bailey, because I fancy that he would be too busy to do so.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for his remarks. Of course he is absolutely right on both counts.

Channel Tunnel Bill
5.22 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
When I moved on 16th February of this year, That the Bill be now read a second time, I said that we had waited a long time for this debate. I did not mean just the 10 months (now 15) since the Bill was introduced in another place. Rather I was thinking of the 12 years since a similar Bill was abandoned just before it came to your Lordships' House. One could have added that it was nearer 200 years since the possibility of a tunnel was first raised. So this is an historic time.
The Bill has been with us for five months but we have seen it for only a part of that time on the Floor of the House. After Second Reading it was sent to a hybrid Bill Select Committee. It remained there for two months. I cannot commend too highly the dedication and care of that committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who was assisted by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, the noble Lord Lord Galpern, my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my noble friend Lord Holderness and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The committee received 1,467 petitions from those whose private interests where affected. It saw at first hand the impact of this project—the environmental consequences it will have in parts of Kent and London. It sat for 30 days, and visited sites in Kent and Waterloo. It listened with sympathy and understanding to petitioners and to the arguments of their learned counsel.
Your Lordship's Select Committee made 109 amendments to the Bill; it received a large number of assurances from the promoters; and its special report contained 147 paragraphs. It found compromises, acceptable to most petitioners, on the road access to the Cheriton terminal, on the alignment of the railway across the sensitive Holywell Coombe, on the terminal's drainage and on the routeing of
1190
construction vehicles. It also identified many of the issues we have discussed this month in full Committee and at Report. Since the Bill returned from the Select Committee it has received substantial amendments on certain important questions.
First, following the debate in Committee on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Teviot we have inserted a new clause on on-train controls, a matter of great concern to your Lordships. This is an important move towards ensuring that the benefits of the tunnel in operation are properly distributed to all parts of the country. Indeed it complements Clause 40 on British Rail's plan for an international service, which was inserted by the Select Committee. Then after the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, at Committee and Report stages, there is the new provision that the House has just agreed to insert in Clause 19 requiring a code of practice for the transport of disabled people, which has been welcomed in all parts of the House. My noble friend Lord Belstead—whom I must thank for sharing much of the task of replying from this Bench—has been of great assistance, I believe, in offering some reassurance and clarification to noble Lords on other matters. We have benefited from the wide experience of Members of this House. I must thank all your Lordships for your work while the Bill was going through.
Once passed by this place and accepted by another place, this Bill will pass into law. The treaty can then be ratified by both Governments, the French Parliament having already completed its scrutiny of their legislation. Then in London the leading role will move down river to the City, for this is a private sector project and it is for the private sector company, Eurotunnel, to convince the markets that it is a worthwhile investment. The company expects to complete very shortly the syndication of the £5 billion project loan. It plans to raise the major tranche of equity capital later this year. As the Government have made clear from the start, in the treaty, in the concession and now in the Bill, the project is to be carried out without any financial support or guarantees from public funds. The Bill before your Lordships ensures that there will be no such call on the public purse either directly or via British Rail.
The construction of the link will bring some £1 billion worth of orders to industry in this country, and that must flow through to creating jobs. The operation of the tunnel offers benefits in three areas. There will be a shuttle service for cars and passengers operated by Eurotunnel; and there will be for the first time a direct rail link between this country and the Continent. British Rail estimates that the growth in rail freight will take some 1,500 heavy lorries off the roads every day. Others suggest the figure could be higher. Finally there will be the international passenger services from London and regional centres to Brussels, Paris and beyond. Nineteen ninety three will see truly the light at the end of the tunnel.
So we have played our part in the eventual creation of a fixed link between this country and the Continent of Europe in what the Select Committee called,
"the greatest engineering project in Europe ever undertaken by the private sector",

1191
and in perhaps a greater spiritual and cultural link with our European partners. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister has said, we are approaching the end of the long parliamentary period through which this Bill has passed. I want to make just a few brief comments and in these I am associated with my noble friend Lord Carmichael, who has shared with me responsibility from the Opposition Front Bench.
I too should like to thank the Select Committee for its work. There is not the slightest doubt that without the Select Committee our sittings might have been longer. It has been extremely helpful. We are particularly grateful to the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who so far as I could see from my position here has remained in that seat through practically all our deliberations and has intervened on a number of occasions. The committe went deeply into the environmental matters and some of those recommendations were carried through during our Committee and Report stages.
I must also thank the Minister. He has carried on this immense task for the Government almost single handedly, except when he was helped on one or two occasions by his noble friend Lord Belstead on environmental matters. We may have disagreed with him—indeed, I know we have, because I did—but he has been extremely courteous and paid considerable attention to the detail and contents of the Bill, and we are grateful to him.
The Minister referred to two important amendments, those on disablement and on-train Customs facilities. Without the slightest doubt the Minister must have played some part in ensuring that those two important amendments were included in the Bill. I naturally regret that the amendment that we promoted from these Benches for inland Customs depots was not carried. It was defeated by only 17 votes. However, 17 votes is a defeat. We only hope that British Rail will pick it up and, in discussions with manufacturers in the regions, will endeavour to establish inland Customs depots wherever it will be helpful to our manufacturing trade.
I believe that we in this House have been particularly useful in discussing various safety matters, in accordance with the Select Committee's insistence. I believe that those matters have been important in our debates. We also have on record a number of important statements made by the Minister on various issues. I think that they will also be extremely helpful.
As is generally known, we wanted a full economic inquiry before the project proceeded. I make clear the fact that we want to see the sea ferries continue. We believe that there must be choice for both passengers and freight between the fixed tunnel and the sea ferries.
We hope that the project will meet the objectives of most of us. One of the reasons why we were in favour of the fixed tunnel link was that freight opportunities
1192
will be grasped by British Rail and by manufacturers. We can then bring assistance to areas North of Watford—the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Wales—by the fast freight train into Europe. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I support the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking the Minister in particular, and other noble Lords who have taken part but who have not always been part of the transport club in this House. It is usually a small and select band of noble Lords who sit through Committee and Report stages of transport Bills. They can be counted on the figures of one hand.
I should like to apologise to a number of noble Lords because it has been drawn to my attention—I was not aware of it—that in summing up the amendment that I moved this afternoon, I was discourteous enough to mention some noble Lords without referring to them as "noble Lords". That perhaps indicates the degree of chumminess that exists within the transport club, but I apologise to them profusely. I did not intend to cast any doubt on their nobility.
The Select Committee is to be greatly commended, along with its chairman. It undoubtedly saved not only this House a great deal of time but it went as far as it could to alleviate the fears and problems of people living in Kent particularly and perhaps to a lesser degree those in the Waterloo area. The exercise which it carried out is one of which it can be proud, and this Parliament must thank the committee.
There are issues in the Bill which we on these Benches should have preferred to have been different. We should have preferred it to have been a publicly-funded Bill, at least to a degree. We should have preferred it to have been a rail only Bill. We should have preferred to have Customs and Immigration on the trains from Waterloo. However, those matters have been fully debated and decided upon by your Lordships' House.
The message that must go out from this Chamber, and which I hope will go out from Parliament as a whole when the Bill goes back to another place and receives Royal Assent, is that the Parliament of this country is united in its determination for the nation to make a success of the tunnel project. It is a mighty project. The onus now lies with private industry, bankers, manufacturers and people up and down the country who work in projects associated with the tunnel. As I said when we were discussing the Green Paper on the Bill and at every stage of its progress, I believe that this project can do a tremendous amount to improve the economy of this country; it can revivify parts of the country which at the moment are suffering.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston—now one of the club—has rightly made references to Liverpool. I believe that that is one of the areas that can benefit greatly from the tunnel. There is a chance that business can return to Liverpool and that it can compete with the ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg

1193
in a way in which it has previously been unable to do. That is an example of the potential which exists. I hope that the nation will grasp that potential which lies behind the Bill. I wish the Bill and the tunnel every success.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for the generous tributes which have been paid to the Select Committee and its chairman. The former are certainly deserved; I am not so sure about the latter.
I confess that I felt great alarm when I was invited to chair the committee. My apprehensions grew when I learnt that it was to have no fewer than five former Ministers, and I doubted whether I should be able to be heard. However, they were extremely indulgent of me. That I was heard—unfortunately—lies in the record of 1,150 pages of evidence.
The only member of the committee to cause us slight anxiety was not a Minister, although he was a distinguished Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means in another place. It arose during the first week of our hearings when we heard evidence from the Kent Hang-Gliding Club. The noble Lord showed so much enthusiasm for this pastime that I was fearful we might lose a quorum, but with his usual kindness he agreed to postpone taking it up until later in life.
It was an immensely interesting experience and I am grateful for the marvellous support that I received from the committee. I am pleased that our report was of some use to the House in its further deliberations on the Bill. I think that it would be wrong—as we were sitting quasi-judicially—for me to comment about the project other than to say that I wish it very well.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to refer to the final paragraphs of the Select Committee report. Despite the constraints of its terms of reference, the committee felt obliged—and I think rightly—to draw attention to the need now to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel, when it is built, are spread across the country as a whole and not allowed to stop in Kent, London and the Home Counties. The duty for achieving that falls fairly and squarely on British Rail; and only British Rail can achieve it.
In its final paragraph the committee expressed the hope that all sectors of the economy will rise to and profit from the challenges which the tunnel will offer. There is little in British Rail's behaviour so far which gives me good grounds for thinking that that hope will be fulfilled. I say that for three reasons. It has taken Parliament until the last stage of this Bill in another place to wring from my noble friend on the Front Bench an amendment about on-train controls. I refer your Lordships to the Official Report for 13th July 1987, at col. 876. I should have thought that British Rail ought to have been on to that matter even before the Bill went before Parliament.
Let us take the case of the Waterloo issue. Any developer worthy of his salt would have seen that when one is about to embark on something of the scale which is proposed, one would have taken trouble a long time in advance to consult with the local communities and authorities. British Rail in fact
1194
installed an information kiosk about their proposals for Waterloo when the Bill was already well under way in the other place. They then thought they had done enough about it.
Finally, I had occasion, as chairman of the South-East Regional Planning Conference, to write on their behalf to the Minister of Transport earlier this year about the impact all this was making on the home counties and how it was to be handled in the context of county structure plans, and so on. After some correspondence with him, he suggested that the remainder of the matters should be pursued with British Rail. A letter was sent to them on the 18th May, and I am still awaiting a reply, let alone being engaged in any constructive discussions with them.
So when the Committee say, as they do, that they hope all sectors of the economy will rise to and profit from the challenges offered by this tunnel and when other noble Lords say—as they have, quite rightly—that they hope the benefits will be spread across the country, we need to recognise that this depends crucially on British Rail. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will see that they get up to the mark.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friends in saying how much we appreciate the work of the Minister and of the Select Committee. Indeed I think your Lordships can be congratulated on the thoroughness with which this Bill has been looked at. Certainly we have disproved the commentator in The Times, who said at the beginning of this new Session that the Channel Tunnel Bill "will go through their Lordships' House on the nod". I am sure no one would say that is what has happened.
I am reminded of the oft-quoted remark of a former distinguished Member of this House who, when referring to the Prime Minister of the day, said, "He is the best Prime Minister we have." I feel very much the same way about the tunnel. I think it would be probably easier to find a new Prime Minister than to find a new tunnel in today's circumstances because, whether we like the tunnel project or not, if it fails it will put back the prospect of a fixed link for an enormous period of time. That is why I would suggest that when the Bill becomes an Act and the treaty is ratified that is not the end of the story for Parliament: it is merely the beginning. We still have an enormous job to do and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will keep both Houses of Parliament fully involved in what is going on.
I am bound to say I am disappointed to find that we are approaching this enormous challenge in the 21st century with the technology of the 19th. I am far from satisfied that this shuttle scheme is going to be satisfactory. I can see that it has the superficial attraction that if you have people sitting in their cars you can get them on and off the trains probably more quickly than would be possible if you adopted any other means. But certainly from the little one has heard about it, I sense that it has been a matter of some dispute within the Eurotunnel organisation itself.

1195
I derive a lot of satisfaction from what is now Clause 24 of the Bill, which places squarely on the Secretary of State the responsibility for approving the specification. I hope and believe that will be very conscientiously done because, as my noble friend said in his remarks, it seems that in a recent statement of a conference the Customs union expressed some doubt about the safety of their members if they have to work on the trains. As the Minister said, six years is a long time. I would suggest there is an enormous job still to be done to satisfy the public and the workforce that the tunnel is going to be safe.
My other worry is whether in fact the project is going to be viable. It is to be a commercial undertaking, and I fully accept that it has to be operated in that way. We have already heard doubts expressed by a number of distinguished Members of the House as to the practice of using compulsory purchase powers for public purposes and then passing on the benefit of that to private enterprise for commercial purposes. Certainly I would not suggest that as it is going to be commercial it should be subsidised; but I have grave doubts as to whether British Rail can carry the full burden that will obviously be placed upon it if it is to do all the great things that we are promised. For example, I wonder whether it will make the kind of impact one would want to see in trying to ease the problem of the North-South divide.
I was recently reading the EuroWest Port Study which was commissioned in respect of the Clyde. It was being suggested that the River Clyde might be revitalised and its port used as being nearer to the United States, for example, and that cargoes could travel by train through the tunnel bound for destinations in Europe. Apparently it has been decided that would not be a viable proposition. I recall also that in 1974–75 it was the under-estimate of the amount of work and the cost for the railways which represented one of the enormous problems which led ultimately to the abandonment of that project.
Also we have been reading of the immense importance that Eurotunnel place on the revenues from the railways. The Minister has said that it is a commercial matter but we have not been given, either in this House or in the other place, any details of the agreement that was recently negotiated between Eurotunnel, British Rail and its French equivalent. I came across a cutting from the Newcastle Journal dated the 6th July, which says:
"News of the growth in cross-Channel traffic comes on top of the recent deal with British Rail and its French equivalent SNCF to pay more for using the tunnel. The agreement, negotiated by new Eurotunnel chairman Alastair Morton, means that the railways have to pay 60 per cent of the revenue forecast, whether the passengers actually turn up or not"—
I would underline the last phrase—
"for the first 12 years of the tunnel's life.".
It seems a little odd that the Newcastle Journal should have information which has not been made available to Parliament, so far as I know. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so. As I have said in earlier discussions on this theme, this should be a matter which is before the public before they are
1196
invited to subscribe for shares in the enterprise. This is clearly a vital matter and whereas time after time we have been told by the Minister that six years is a long time and many things can be taken care of in that time, it seems that Mr. Morton was not prepared to wait even six weeks after taking office before getting an agreement tying the railways for 12 years, starting in 1993.
As I say, one hopes, because this is now the only chance, that they will resolve these problems. However, I am bound to say that I have grave doubts about the viability of the project and I hope that if any problems arise Parliament will be kept fully informed.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, welcomed me to a club. I am not quite sure what the club was but if it was one that included the wholehearted support of the tunnel Bill in its present state, I must decline membership. I have already paid tribute to the Minister for the very nice, courteous and efficient way that he has handled the Bill and it would be churlish of me not to add my thanks to the chairman and the members of the committee who have done so much work on the Bill. However, there is just one small point (as some may think) I should like to make arising out of what has been said. There was a dreadful moment when I thought we were going to get into a Second Reading debate again on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
I do not blame British Rail for what may be the serious consequences of this tunnel and its activities on the rest of the country. I certainly hope that the benefits of the tunnel will be spread evenly and equitably throughout the nation. I only attempted, as the Bill has gone through your Lordships' House, to point out that there was a danger that they would not. I do not blame British Rail for carrying out the task that has been laid down for it—that is, to service industry, to service commerce and to service passengers. My fear was that the mere presence of the Channel Tunnel in the South-East of England would exacerbate the difficulties of the North-South divide.
At this late stage all that I urge on the Government is that they take heed of the warnings about the exacerbation of the North-South divide, and consider whether they are coming true. If so, they should not close the tunnel or Canary Wharf, even though the financial world seems to be almost on the threshold of doing so according to the popular press; nor should they damage the City of London. They should ensure that, as concentration of the private sector increases in the South East, something is done to redress the balance by decentralising government activity away from the South East and into the regions.
A large amount of government activity, including Civil Service jobs and the Department of Employment, should be in the north where most of their customers are to be found. Government activities need not all be located in the South East. Then perhaps serious damage caused by the unequal distribution of resources within the economy may be prevented. I wish the Minister well and thank him and his department.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to offer the House a few thoughts at this last stage of the Bill. First of all, I should say that I began my work on this Bill as a member of the Select Committee who was enthusiastically in favour of a Channel Tunnel; but I believe that I and others on the committee who took a similar view listened to the evidence with minds as fair and open as possible. I have no doubt that it is in the interests of the people of this country that the tunnel should exist. I believe that it will act as an instrument of economic regeneration not only in the south east of England but in many parts of the north as well.
There are one or two points that should be made about our procedures. I have no doubt that it was right to proceed with this measure by means of a hybrid Bill. If there had been a series of public inquiries—as indeed was urged upon us—they would have stretched over many years, which of course was desired by many of the people who wanted a public inquiry. In the final analysis they would have persuaded nobody because the people who did not want the tunnel and the very substantial facilities around Folkestone would have remained as passionately opposed to it if there had been a public inquiry as they were under the hybrid Bill procedure. The same goes for those living around Waterloo.
Having said that in terms of this project, which after all is probably the biggest public works project that will be undertaken for the rest of this century, I think it is necessary to make one further comment. One should look with considerable care at any other substantial project of this kind having these procedures attached to it. We have to accept that some people's rights were undoubtedly affected because of the character of the hybrid Bill inquiry system. When taking part in a public inquiry one has the right to announce one's opposition in principle to what is proposed. But, as was made quite clear, on a number of matters the committee was not prepared to hear arguments in regard to principle on the grounds that both Houses of Parliament had given this Bill a Second Reading.
Undoubtedly some people had a very real sense of grievance. As I have already made clear, I think that the Government were right to act as they did in this particular case, but I do not think that the Government should persuade themselves in the future that the same happy method can be used so far as concerns other projects. One must look very carefully at the civil rights of many of the people who felt that their interests were substantially adversely affected by this scheme but did not have the opportunity of arguing against the principle of it.
I repeat that I am a warm enthusiast of this Bill. However, there are two further observations that I should like to make. Like my noble friend Lord Tordoff I believe that the Bill has been significantly improved in Committee. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Stedman, undoubtedly improved the Bill, and I believe that on-train Customs controls north of London were an exceptionally important issue. I shall not go over the same ground again, but it was made absolutely clear to the Select Committee that without such controls there would be no effective railway services to the Continent from trains starting
1198
or ending their journey north of London. In my view the fact that we now have that measure on the statute book represents a major improvement to the project.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said a few moments ago about his experience with British Rail. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I think that he was a little unfair. Most of my colleagues took the view that British Rail had presented its evidence fairly and discharged difficult responsibilities competently. As an illustration of his discontent he said that he had written to British Rail on the 18th May and had not yet received a reply. I am sorry about that. Unhappily, I must tell him that at about the same time I wrote to a member of the Cabinet concerned with this Bill and I have not as yet had a reply either. No doubt we shall both be successful over the next week or so and receive replies on the matters that we raised. It is only fair to say that we all—if I may speak for all my colleagues on the committee—believed that British Rail had handled its difficult responsibilities with some degree of fairness.
My final point is that I did not and still do not like the term "safety authority". I did not think that it was appropriate to put down an amendment on this point. It was dealt with rather elliptically in our report. There is not a safety authority; there is the Safety Advisory Committee, which fortunately now has the power, as a result of a concession made by the Government while the committee was still sitting to publish any strong opinions that it may hold if its advice is disregarded. That was an exceptionally important concession so far as the Government were concerned, which I think was the view of the whole committee.
I come to my conclusion. Although there are many angry people in Kent and many angry people around Waterloo—all those who heard their evidence sympathised very greatly with many of them—nevertheless, I regard this as a great moment of opportunity for this country once and for all to put through this project. Like my noble friend Lord Tordoff I should have preferred it to have been part public and part privately financed. Nevertheless, I very much hope that Eurotunnel succeeds in raising the very substantial capital that is required.
All the members of the committee, or very nearly all, took the view that Eurotunnel had handled its case with responsibility and sensitivity and that everything we saw of Eurotunnel was a very good augury for the future. On this occasion I simply represent my own views in wishing this project great success. I believe that it represents a dramatic change with our relationship with the Continent of Europe.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I shall shorten the observations I intended to make and very simply echo the nice sentiments that have been expressed concerning the Minister, the Select Committee and its chairman. I should also like to offer my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of many of my colleagues in this House who have taken part in the debates on this Bill, to both the Minister's officials and to those whom I might call our own advisers on this side of the House. Whenever we had a point—and quite often it was a

1199
point that was not particularly sympathetic to the views that they were advancing—they were always helpful and willing to advise us.
My own special pleasure in the Bill arises inevitably from Clause 12, relating to on-train controls. I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that the matter of on-train controls was raised in a debate that took as its theme whether we should have a fixed link at all and if so which of the four it should be. I can assure him that in marshalling my thoughts when I raised it, I had very considerable assistance from British Rail as to practice and custom abroad. I agree utterly with what the Minister and several of my noble friends said; namely, that that amendment will go far towards spreading the benefits. It will also, I feel, play a significant part in making the tunnel more user-friendly for the passenger side of the business.
I have one question. Amendment No. 12 excludes those services which call at stations beyond London and the Channel Tunnel portal at Cheriton. I do not want to rehearse old arguments at all. However, I wonder whether I may ask what may be the last question on this Bill in this House. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister what effect Clause 12 will have on the status of the proposed international station at Ashford and, in particular, will he confirm that it will still go ahead? I feel that the Channel Tunnel can be bracketed with perhaps the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal as a really mammoth venture. I wish it, and indeed the Bill that underpins it, every success.
6 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, may I very briefly close this debate by thanking all noble Lords who have been kind enough to pay tribute to my handling of the Bill in your Lordships' House. A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Sandford, have said that this Bill now places a heavy responsibility upon British Rail to make sure that they take the freight opportunities which lie before them around the whole country. I can only endorse those sentiments and hope that British Rail will rise to the occasion and get this traffic which would be so valuable both to them and in terms of taking traffic off the roads.
I should like to agree thoroughly with the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this represents a great opportunity for the country and that the message should go from this House that we want to make a success of the project. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, had doubts perhaps about the commercial agreement between British Rail and Eurotunnel as to their contribution to the costs of running the project. That is a matter for British Rail, but I am sure that they would not have entered into the agreement unless they thought that they could make money out of it.
I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that Parliament will hear more about this over the next few months and years. There are regulations under Clause 11 which will be laid before Parliament to give
1200
the force of law to regulations of the Intergovernmental Commission and of course other matters which will have to come before Parliament.
I should like briefly to pick up one point which was raised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about the station at Ashford. Of course Ashford will be an international station, but I can confirm that British Rail are looking at a number of alternative locations for the international terminal and platforms at Ashford. All of those alternatives are within the wider area which includes the present station's facilities, the proposed international car park beside the diverted A.2070 and the former British Rail Ashford works; that is to say, within a quarter of a mile east or west of the position described in the Bill.
If British Rail decided to go ahead on a site other than the one in the Bill, the alternative scheme would have to be authorised either by a private Bill or by a planning application to the borough council. But a private Bill would only be necessary if it were not possible to accommodate the station on British Rail operational land.
So I am grateful once more to all who have taken part in our debates on this Bill. The Bill should now pass with the good-will of this House and much improved by this House. We have debated the issues fully and constructively and I believe that we are sending forward a piece of legislation of historic importance and with exciting prospects for the country as a whole.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

British Railways (London) Bill [H.L.]
6.4 p.m.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As many of your Lordships will be aware, I had the privilege of moving the Second Reading of this Bill when it was debated by your Lordships' House on 18th March last. Little did I think that it would be necessary to be troubling your Lordships yet again, but I must crave your Lordships' indulgence while I explain once more the provisions of the Bill and, in addition, provide an indication of what has happened to the Bill since it was given a Second Reading. I do so because I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, intends to press his objections.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with more information than is necessary for the purpose of this debate, but I need to explain that the purpose of the Bill is to empower the British Railways Board to construct works as part of an exciting new scheme to provide a rail service across the River Thames and to institute what is known as the Thames Link. The effect of this would be to demolish most of the existing viaduct between Holborn Viaduct station and Blackfriars station which at present carries the railway by means of a bridge over Ludgate Hill.
The proposed new railway would drop below ground just north of the existing viaduct at Blackfriars and follow a route just east of the viaduct

1201
and so connect with the Snow Hill tunnel to King's Cross by way of a new station immediately to the north of Ludgate Hill. Holborn Viaduct station would no longer be required and, with the demolition of most of the viaduct, there would be a considerable enhancement of the amenities of the locality to the west of St. Paul's and improved potential for development of an increasingly important area, much of which has lain derelict since being destroyed by bombing during the war.
That will permit the introduction of through-passenger services from the Midland lines to the north of London, and from north of the river to destinations in the southern region. So for the first time there will be regular through-trains through London from places like Bedford and Luton to places like Gatwick and Brighton.
The Bill attracted 18 petitions in Select Committee, many of which were lodged by those objecting to the effects of the board's proposals so far as their own properties, or properties which they leased from the Railways Board, were concerned. Several had a particular interest in the arches beneath the viaduct which will be demolished under the terms of the Bill. Negotiations with petitioners resulted in the withdrawal of all but one of the 18 petitions. In consequence, only the petition of a brewery company, Whitbreads, was referred and considered by the Select Committee which met to consider the Bill on 5th, 6th and 7th May.
Whitbreads are the owners of a freehold pub called the Old King Lud public house which stands at the corner of Ludgate Hill and Farringdon Street, overlooking Ludgate Circus, and, in conjunction with this property, they occupy part of the railway arches immediately to the east as tenants of British Rail. Whitbreads also occupy arches nearer Blackfriars and use these as a wine bar known as Ludgate Cellars. Whitbreads use both sets of arches as part of their business and they strongly objected not only to the acquisition of the freehold of the Old King Lud, but also to the loss of their leasehold interest in the adjoining arch accommodation and Ludgate Cellars.
Notwithstanding the arguments which were advanced by the petitioners to the Select Committee, the decision of the committee was not in their favour as they had been unable to demonstrate to the Select Committee that the relevant portion of the arches should be preserved or that they, Whitbreads, should have any form of special protection or, in relation to the arches, any compensation additional to that provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
It is my understanding that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is intent on pursuing in debate tonight the same arguments as he deployed on Second Reading. These are founded on the grounds that those who occupy the various arches and have leases from the Railways Board, under which their right to occupy can be terminated in a way which does not provide full compensation under the statutory land compensation code, should be, and ought to be, entitled to some special treatment. It is alleged that the particular circumstances under which those tenants entered into the arrangement to occupy led them into spending money on the basis of a
1202
commercial judgment as to the future use of those arches and how long they could be used for. The tenants now find that they are not going to have as long a term of enjoyment of the accommodation as they originally expected because of the decision of the Railways Board to repossess for the purpose of the scheme which the Bill seeks to authorise.
The terms of the various leases by which the arches are occupied fully entitle British Rail to recover possession of its property, if it is required for operational purposes, by first giving six months' notice and on payment of the compensation so provided.
During the course of the debate on Second Reading I, and indeed the chairman of the committee, explained to your Lordships that if the Bill were to be given a Second Reading it would be referred to a Select Committee, where all matters in dispute would be investigated and where a decision would be made. It is astonishing that out of the 18 petitions lodged, 11 of which were concerned with the consequences of the proposed demolition of the arches, so many of them should have been withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioners without them securing any special terms in their negotiations with the board. It strikes me, and may strike other noble Lords, as singularly strange that with the opportunity having been presented for opposition to be pursued before a Select Committee, not only was that opportunity abandoned at the last minute but also the petitioners' objections are apparently to be rehearsed once again this evening.
I understand it to be the intention of the noble Viscount to press the case on this Third Reading, and I also understand that the occupiers of the arches have every intention of pursuing their opposition in another place, so delaying the passage of the Bill and the ability of the railways board to start work on this imaginative project.
On the one petition which was before the Select Committee that committee discharged its obligations to the full. It produced a decision which is clearly relevant to all those who claim that they will be adversely affected by the repossession of the arches which they occupy. Those tenants, on whose behalf I understand the noble Viscount will be speaking, entered into freely negotiated leases containing clauses providing fur their early determination in certain circumstances which have now come about. All those tenants must have been aware of the possibility of their leases being determined prematurely and they took possession of their premises in the full knowledge of the compensation which would in that event be payable.
With that possibility now becoming a reality, they seek in my view to persuade Parliament to renegotiate the terms of their tenancies. Why should Parliament intervene to rescue tenants when their commercial judgment of the risk freely taken has been shown to be flawed? Nothing which has happend since we debated the subject on 18th March has in any way led me or British Rail to feel that there has been any alteration of circumstances to justify a change of attitude by the board or by Parliament. The case is quite the contrary. The decision of the Select Committee has indicated that the attitude and

1203
policy adopted by the board is the correct one and I shall be doing this House no service if I were now to do more than commend to your Lordships the words spoken by me on Second Reading. I hope that your Lordships will now endorse those words by allowing the Bill a Third Reading tonight. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Marshall of Leeds.)
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has said on the question of compensation and the objections that have been raised. They were listened to most patiently and ably by the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the other members of the committee, and we were completely satisfied that the case had not been made.
My main purpose in speaking is to raise in general terms two points on the scheme which lies behind the Bill. It will be common knowledge that British Rail has recently increased its share of the daily commuter traffic coming into London at the expense of road-borne traffic, principally cars. Some figures were published recently which showed that to be the case.
I have no doubt at all that the scheme will enhance that process which all of us feel is very necessary in view of the traffic conditions in London. It will provide an access by rail both from North and South of the city which will go virtually direct into the City of London or into a new station very close to it. That will provide good and easy access to a large number of places of work. I have no doubt at all that it will increase the process of people abandoning their cars and coming into London by rail.
Having said that, it is right to point out that this link across the City of London is a rather unique facility. As is well known, the railways developed in private hands and came into London from different quarters. All the railway companies built their terminals in London, and even Brunel failed to realise that eventually the network would grow and that an interchange between the systems would be required. At the end of the day he had to alter his gauge to meet that of the others.
However that same situation applies in other capital cities in Europe and in the circumstances which are now arising the lack of a direct route through the city for through traffic is becoming a relevant factor. Indeed the Bill which we have just passed in this House—the Channel Tunnel Bill—will in my view create just such necessary conditions.
In debating that Bill we heard a great deal about the need to overcome the North/South divide. In practical terms that comes down to allowing the free-est possible access for trains, both passenger and freight. I emphasise freight because that has emerged as being even more important than passenger traffic in general financial terms in the traffic going to and from the Channel Tunnel.
British Rail in its wisdom has felt that it would not be justified and it would cost too much to bring this
1204
link up to a gauge and to a standard of operating which would allow Channel Tunnel traffic to pass through London. British Rail is justified in making that point at this stage as on the traffic forecasts which have been made it will undoubtedly be able to manage with the rather less useful facilities it has going round via Olympia. However I feel that that traffic, particularly the freight traffic, has been underestimated. Only last night a report commissioned by Transport 2000 was published which gave some very interesting figures of potential freight traffic as well as the traffic which will naturally come to the railways if they simply do nothing further about the link or continue to operate with their existing technology.
The report gave details also of potential traffic that would accrue if rather more advanced technologies were developed. Approximately three times as much freight traffic could accrue if these methods of working were adopted. They will obviously be considered by British Rail in the six-year period, which, I emphasise, is none too long for doing the kind of work that is necessary. I refer to combined transport operations, which are quite common on the Continent and not yet common here because the conditions do not at present exist.
One interesting figure in the report is that 40 per cent. of the road traffic originating in this country—imports and exports to the Continent—travels more than 800 kilometres and 21 per cent. travels over 1600 kilometres. This is an extraordinarily long haul. That level of traffic must be well within the grasp of British Rail if it takes a forward-looking attitude. I refer not only to its technology—it will need a certain amount of improvements and new methods of working—but particularly to its rating policy. As is well known, railways can make a very aggressive attack on long-range traffic of that order and should be able to capture it.
On the technical side I think that it will eventually become clear that British Rail must try to get a route from Folkestone via London to the North that has been brought up to a better standard, one more comparable to the continental loading gauge, so that at least traffic can be channelled to and from the North. At that point the link through Snow Hill tunnel, which could give good interchange facilities to the east and west coast mainline, should be looked at again to ensure that the divide between North and South at least is bridged in that way.
6.32 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, said that I intended to press my objections. I hope that no one was led to believe by that that I intended to divide the House. I have never given that impression, no one has asked me that and it would be improper for me to do so. The noble Lord also told the House and me what kind of speech I was going to make, and that I would repeat the arguments of Second Reading. Again, that is not the case, as will be seen. I hope to make a constructive speech based on what has happened since Second Reading and on information that emerged in Committee.

1205
It is proper for someone like me to speak on Third Reading. This time last week, on Third Reading of a private Bill, the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, we had a very good debate which went on for two hours with about 10 speakers. It was most productive. We also had an interesting speech just now from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth. I hope that the House will take my speech in the spirit in which it is delivered.
To make my position clear, as I stated on Second Reading, I am concerned with a group of arch-holders under a line being redeveloped. I am a friend of one who uses three of these large arches as a restaurant with snooker tables. I give now my own interpretation and understanding of the present situation.
The group of arch-holders whose side of the case I am trying to expound are running their businesses on a minute scale compared to the might and muscle of British Rail. They have nothing approaching the back-up resources and expertise of British Rail. It is not surprising that they do not choose to step into the ring with British Rail at every possible opportunity.
At one time the intention was to argue their petition upstairs before the Select Committee of your Lordships but, as events unfolded, a perfectly proper decision was taken to withdraw the petition. One main reason was the prospective cost. I personally was rather astounded at the likely cost of appearing in this way properly represented before your Lordships' Committee. It seems a reasonable decision to await the outcome of a petition submitted to Messrs Whitbreads, which had similar although, I stress, not identical elements to those of the arch-holders with whom I am concerned. Whitbreads, unlike my friend, is an example of a large firm which would not have to think twice about the cost of matching legally the big guns of British Rail.
When we see on the Order Paper of our House a private Bill with the words "British Rail" in the title, we might think it fair to assume that this was British Rail trying to rationalise, to tidy up or to improve small parts of its network. If one looked at the more detailed preamble in the case of this Bill, one might still hold that belief. However, by far the largest part of the Bill is concerned with property development—over £450 million-worth of it in the neighbourhood of Blackfriars and Holborn Viaduct stations. I have it on the highest authority in a letter that I shall mention later written by the chairman of British Rail himself that,
"the development is in effect speculative".
That is the nature of the vessel that is sailing before us named so disarmingly and simply "British Railways (London) Bill."
Parliament is entitled to look very closely at what it contains. I shall try to avoid going into too much detail but shall deal mainly with matters that have come to light since Second Reading. I have three main points to make. They are all concerned with the Blackfriars/Holborn Viaduct element. That is where the arches with which I am concerned are sited.
In brief, the problem arises from the fact that a six-month break clause in the leases of the arch-holders has been invoked as a result of the claimed
1206
need for redevelopment by British Rail under the Bill. Investment and goodwill in these businesses, built up over many years, often with the encouragement of British Rail, is likely to evaporate, the compensation offered being minimal, often barely enough to meet redundancy requirements of staff.
The first of my three points centres round the speculative nature of the developments. My estimate on Second Reading was that, out of a total of £400 million, only about £30 million was concerned directly with the British Rail work. I now revise both those figures upwards, the first to a total of about £500 million, of which £40 million is directly for British Rail work. It turns out that almost all that £40 million devoted to British Rail work is to be found from the developers who will then reap the whole gain or, in very unlikely circumstances, loss, whatever the outcome of the scheme.
It follows from that—this is my central point—that the level of compensation paid to arch-holders is directly, that is, 100 per cent., reflected in the level of profit to the developers. British Rail would not gain or lose at all by what compensation is paid. If British Rail can evict all arch-holders with minimum compensation, the consequent gainers will be the developers.
My evidence for this is clearly to be found in a letter written by the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, to the right honourable David Howell, who had forwarded the concerns of the constituent, who was also an arch-holder. The letter is dated 15th December 1986, but came to light only after Second Reading of the Bill. Perhaps I may quote two sentences from that letter:
"I turn now to the allegation of 'speculative property development'. As I have explained, this scheme is not being carried out at BR or public expense so that whilst the development is, in effect, speculative, only Rosehaugh Stanhope stand to lose or gain, whatever the outcome of the scheme".
That is my clear evidence from the top that to the extent to which any compensation to arch-holders for their investment and goodwill is kept down the sole beneficiary will be the developer.
The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, quoted some words of mine at Second Reading when I said:
"This Bill provides for what is essentially a private property redevelopment mainly for the benefit of private investors". [Official Report, 18/3/87; col. 1503.]
The noble Lord said:
"That is not so and is seriously denied by British Rail". [Official Report, 18/3/87; col. 1506.]
I leave others to judge the nature of the development.
The extent to which others are able to judge the nature of the development brings me to my second main point. Although this vast development is predicated on British Rail's requirements being funded by a developer, we learnt from what was said in Committee that BR has not reached any written agreement with a developer. Thus it could be maintained that not only is the development speculative but also that this whole Bill is speculative. It is not unreasonable to say to British Rail that no further progress should be made with the Bill until it has a developer firmly committed in writing. In principle, it is still possible that any existing developers involved could withdraw or be forced by

1207
totally other considerations to withdraw. Much of the time spent on the Bill by this House would then be wasted.
My third main point emerges partly from what happened in the committee when the question was raised regarding whether the whole project was developer-led and also what status evidentially should be given to the declared requirements of a developer in absentia. It would seem desirable, when a developer is found and committed in writing on the project, that the promoters should give us an assurance that a senior representative of the developer should be available to give evidence about his intentions, his requirements and his financial forecasts.
Finally, may I repeat that I am in favour of British Rail creatively developing sites such as the Blackfriars-Holborn Viaduct site. I am in favour of that being done as speedily as it properly can be done. As everyone knows, some of the sites have been derelict for far too long. However, I am not in favour of British Rail using its considerable power and muscle to clear such sites of small businesses in haste and handing the benefits of so doing directly to developers.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also approved the general thrust of the Bill and was in favour of development. I hope that he will be sympathetic to the problems of small businesses. In the case of the arches, they are occupied by small businesses with no vast resources or other branches to fall back on. They have generally been encouraged by BR to invest and develop and to serve the locality. I hope that British Rail will consider its position over the summer months and feel able, in a reasonable manner, to offer fair compensation to the arch-holders.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise that I did not have my name down to speak. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for allowing me to do so. I declare an interest in that I shall be in receipt of a pension from British Rail, and I am also a member of the Press Club which will be disenfranchised if this Bill goes through. I know the owner of Duffers, in which the Press Club has premises.
I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this debate and assure the noble Lord that I had no intention of showing any discourtesy. I only wish to say that I fully endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, has said.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have only a few remarks to make. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, has referred to what he regards as my general support of the project. At Second Reading I made it quite clear that I fully agreed with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, when he said that this was an imaginative enterprise and an exciting project. There is not the slightest doubt that providing the link from the Midlands to the South-East has the support of everyone, including that of the noble Viscount. When he first began to speak of the development, I thought that he was going to criticise British Rail for linking
1208
with development schemes. I was very pleased, as his speech unfolded, to see that he is not at all critical of the general attitude of British Rail in arranging developments on such sites. Travelling to your Lordships' House, I pass Liverpool Street every day and there is massive development going on there. That is good for British Rail and I hope its finances will be assisted at the end of the day.
The other point that I made at Second Reading was that I hoped that the Select Committee would give general approval to the project (as they have) and I hoped that it would give the most serious consideration to the question of compensation for the persons to be removed from the arches. From what I have heard today it would appear that the committee gave consideration to that matter. However, I believe that I heard the noble Viscount say that the petition was withdrawn.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, the petitioners withdrew to fight another day. There is no direct comparability with the Whitbread case; there was similarity but not direct comparability. It was said that there was a test case, partly of how Whitbreads got on. However, my petitioners did not come to any agreement with the promoters. They are coming back to fight another day.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the petition was not before the committee, that places my second point in some difficulty. I wished to ensure that adequate consideration was given by the committee to the problem of compensation. I have great sympathy with the position of the tenants of the arches. We have heard, not only from the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, but also from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, as to procedures of the committee. If the whole question is really one of procedure, whereby certain persons find it difficult to meet the cost of coming before the committee, that is another matter entirely. That would have to be dealt with elsewhere.
My first point was that the general project should be approved. However, on my second point it would appear that the onus is on those who withdrew their petition and that removes any criticism I might have made.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be helpful at this point if I briefly intervened to restate the Government's view on the Bill. I apologise to noble Lords that my name was missed off the list of speakers.
As my noble friend Lord Davidson said at Second Reading, the Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the board. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified.
The Department of the Environment has one outstanding point on the Bill in connection with the impact of the development on Export House, 50 Ludgate Hill, on which negotiations are continuing with the promoters. It is hoped to resolve the matter satisfactorily. Those business and other interests which remain dissatisfied with the provisions of the Bill will have a further opportunity to petition against

1209
the Bill in another place. I recommend that the Bill be allowed to proceed.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. Lord Brabazon of Tara, for his statement. I am also obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth. I believe that the points he raised will he noted by British Rail and I am sure that it will give proper regard to them.
It is true that British Rail has increased its carryings in this particular area, as the noble Viscount said. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill will be welcomed by many of the commuters who pour into the City every day to work. That matter was touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth.
I listened very carefully to the case put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, but I could not detect any new matter which appeared in his Third Reading speech compared with his Second Reading speech. Certainly, he advised that Parliament is entitled to look very carefully at what is going into the Bill. It comes a little hard to listen to such a statement when the friends he represents were given every opportunity to explain and plead their case to a Select Committee. Yet of the 18 petitioners no fewer than 17 withdrew unconditionally and rather suddenly without securing any special terms for their withdrawal. In fact they abandoned their petitions.
Noble Lords set up a Select Committee to consider these matters and expect that they will be treated with proper respect by those who have objections to the matters referred to in a particular Bill. However, if the great majority of petitioners unconditionally withdraw and disappear, it comes a little hard to hear today that Parliament is entitled to look very carefully to what is going into the Bill. One might almost say that they have had their opportunity but we know they are taking the opportunity in another place.
I do not wish British Rail to be thought to be guilty of any misleading intention in regard to this Bill or any site which is affected by it. I was quite open a few moments ago when I said that Holborn Viaduct Station would no longer be required, and with the demolition of most of the viaduct there would be a considerable enhancement of the amenities of the locality to the west of St. Paul's and improved potential for the development of an increasingly important area much of which has lain derelict since being destroyed by bombing during the war. Those were my words.
However, I said at Second Reading, and I repeat now, that property development is not the prime reason for the Bill. The prime reason is a matter of operational requirement. The name Whitbread was again canvassed after I had mentioned that point. There is a significant difference in the position of Whitbread in that it was the only freeholder. Of course none of the tenants who were tenants of the arches was a freeholder at all.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, spoke first, second and third about compensation. Compensation rules and codes are laid down and British Rail will abide by its obligations under those codes. If the Select Committee had thought it was
1210
being unfair and should offer more, it would have included a recommendation that that should be so. I repeat that I see nothing new in the three matters raised except that they all refer to compensation.
To put the matter very shortly, if anybody takes a lease or a tenancy of an arch from British Rail in all cases they sign a lease or tenancy agreement, one of the provisions of which provides that British Rail can re-possess by giving six months' notice without compensation, if it requires recovery of possession for operational purposes. When you enter into an arrangement of that sort you must be slightly out of your mind if you take a commercial risk to spend a vast amount of money on the arch which you occupy.
At Second Reading I remember that the noble Viscount alleged that a friend of his had spent probably half a million pounds. All I can say is that anyone who does that is in my view committing a grave commercial error. He cannot expect that British Rail will compensate the amount of money he has very unwisely spent. It is a sad case, but he is on six months' notice, no more and no less. It is a matter for commercial judgment. If your commercial judgment is wrong it is a matter for the person who made the mistake. I am sorry to say that.
I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who did no more than support the arguments of the noble Viscount on the basis that friendship was one of the arch tenants. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the responsible way he treated this matter not only on Third Reading but also on Second Reading. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1987
6.47 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements of the three services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval for the special legal position of the serviceman, subject as he is to the constraints of military discipline as well as to the rule of civil law, is a long-established one in British constitutional practice. As your Lordships are aware, every fifth year the opportunity is taken to review in depth the needs of the service disciplinary systems and an Armed Forces Act is passed making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. The most recent such Act was passed in 1986.
It is now well established that the procedure under which such Bills are introduced quinquennially, with annual continuation orders in the intervening years, is the right way to ensure that the working of the

1211
service disciplinary Acts is kept under review by Parliament.
This debate gives us the opportunity to discuss matters affecting service discipline and welfare. However, it also provides me with an opportunity to pay wholehearted tribute to the skill and dedication of our Armed Forces underlined this very day by glowing references to their performance during the Falklands conflict in a report from the defence committee of another place. The professionalism of our Armed Forces is founded in part upon a sound disciplinary system, which will be continued by this order. I have deliberately spoken very shortly in introducing this order, but naturally I am very willing to deal with individual points at the end of the short debate.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, the order provides an opportunity for us to keep under review the annual Army Acts. It enables us to seek a progress report from the Minister. I should like to join with the Minister in the tribute he paid to our forces. We require from our serving men and women that they give us some of the civil liberties that we enjoy as private citizens. They give up some of their civil liberties to protect the civil liberties of the rest of us. In turn we should see that the conditions in the services in which they carry out their activities are fair, reasonable and just.
I want to raise one or two questions tonight and I hope the Minister will be able to provide some answers. One of the problems in the armed forces is morale. It is an integral part of an efficient force and can only be neglected at our peril. In recent years we have seen a 25 per cent. increase in the number of skilled personnel leaving the armed forces, as well as a substantial number of pilots whose training has cost in excess of £3 million. About 70 per cent. of RAF married quarters are regarded as substandard. Those factors are bound to have an effect upon morale. We have had five reports of bullying and malpractice in training establishments, but the Home Secretary has refused to hold a broader inquiry into these tragic circumstances. Junior soldiers are minors and they are a special responsibility of the Army as it is in the position of in loco parentis.
Last year the Select Committee on the armed forces recommended that Queen's Regulations in respect of courts martial be reviewed with particular regard to the right of servicemen and women to be represented at summary proceedings by a friend of the accused. Will the Minister tell us what is happening about the proposal of the Select Committee which recommended that service personnel should have the right to be defended by a senior NCO if the defendant thought that to be appropriate? It is thought that the use of an NCO in these circumstances might afford the court the opportunity to hear someone with more direct experience of the life of other ranks than can be provided by a commissioned officer. It might be difficult to ensure that NCOs are given legal training,
1212
but the Minister should consider whether some NCOs can be used in this way. Will the Minister comment on that matter?
The services have done a great deal of work on the problem of drug abuse. The Army is to subject its soldiers to routine drug tests and a number of pieces of equipment have been purchased. Can the Minister say whether that is working well and, if so, will similar equipment be purchased for the RAF and the Royal Navy? Has the Army carried out any tests yet, and if so, what are the results of those tests? We congratulate the alcohol abuse team of the Royal Navy on its excellent work and we hope that other services will set up similar specialist units. Alcohol abuse is a major problem in our society.
On the question of AIDS, will the Minister say what will be the fate of men or women who have been diagnosed as having AIDS? Will they be discharged or retained as they are in the United States? There is a difference of emphasis and attitude among our allies. Will the Minister say what his attitude is to the problem?
Our object in raising these matters is to recognise the high standards maintained by our armed forces and to ensure that those standards continue to be maintained. As I have said, we recognise that we demand a loss of civil liberties from our voluntary forces so that our own civil liberties and freedoms can be maintained and protected. That is why I raise these points here tonight and hope that we can have some satisfactory replies from the Minister.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response to my proposal in respect of this order. I shall deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, but I fear that I may be unable to deal with them all now. I shall very happily write to the noble Lord with further information where I can.
On the first point that the noble Lord raised about morale in the armed forces, I can tell him that morale remains high. One of the indications of morale is, of course, the rate of applications by people to leave the services. I can tell the noble Lord that the rate is not at a level which I regard as worrying. Indeed, there have been some recent signs that the rate is edging downwards and naturally that is very much to be welcomed.
Having said that, some individuals will always wish to terminate their service earlier than would normally be the case, for whatever reason. Clearly, that is very much to be regretted. One of the reasons often cited is so-called turbulence, where a man may be posted from one place to another at comparatively short notice. That is naturally disturbing and unsettling for his family. I fear that is a feature of service life, whatever arrangements one seeks to make. Naturally, we do not welcome any more PVR cases, as they are called, than there have to be. We shall certainly do everything we can to keep the rate to the minimum. As I have said, it now appears to be edging down slightly. We do what we can to help to solve the turbulence problem; for example, by providing what are called harmony warrants and by lengthening the tours of servicemen in a particular

1213
post, thus reducing the necessity for frequent family moves.
The noble Lord also referred to AIDS. With the growing evidence of the threat posed by AIDS we recognise that members of the armed forces are no less at risk than other members of the community. As a result, an intensive and thorough programme of education and prevention is pursued by the services. An MOD working party including medical, legal service and policy staffs was established in March 1986. Its main function is to make proposals for preventive education, publicity and personnel policy aspects of AIDS. As a matter of urgency, it first concentrated on preventive education and publicity. It recommended the wide distribution of posters to service units to be prominently displayed; the wide distribution of the Health Education Council booklet; comprehensive briefing by medical staffs of units serving or about to be deployed overseas; and the incorporation of AIDS warnings into all drug education briefings.
I hope the noble Lord will be ready to accept that we are not standing idly by in the face of this problem, and that we are doing as much as we possibly can to see that it is kept under control so far as concerns the armed forces.
The noble Lord raised a couple of other points, particularly about he composition of courts martial and the possibility of non-commissioned officers appearing before courts martial on behalf of accused persons. We discussed this matter during the passage last year of the Armed Forces Bill, as it then was. If there is anything further that I can add to what I said during that time I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, are the Government accepting the recommendations of the report?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my recollection is that we have not yet reached a conclusion on the matter, but perhaps I might be allowed to take further advice and write to the noble Lord. My recollection might be at fault.
I think that I have dealt with the main points that were raised by the noble Lord. I shall carefully study what he said and I shall respond to him more fully in writing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
6.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which was laid before your Lordships' House on 7th May this year be approved. Your Lordships may be aware that the order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
1214
The order provides the balance of the money necessary in this financial year for the services provided by Northern Ireland departments and certain other public bodies. On 24th February this year your Lordships approved a total of £1,483 million as a "sum on account". Today I come before your Lordships to seek the balance of £1,945 million and this makes a total estimate for 1987–88—which is this financial year—of £3,428 million. The estimates volume, which gives full details of the projected expenditure, is available in the Printed Paper Office and I have no doubt that your Lordships will have obtained all the necessary copies.
The order also appropriates some £115,000 to cover excess expenditure in the 1985–86 financial year by the Department of the Environment. That excess Vote has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, which I am pleased to report has raised no objection to it being voted. Details of the excess expenditure are set out in the statement of excess pamphlet, which is also available from the Printed Paper Office.
I shall start with one or two words about the general economic position in Northern Ireland. The latest economic indicators provide some grounds for encouragement. The United Kingdom as a whole is about to embark on its seventh year of continuous economic growth. Output of growth in the Province has responded to growth at national level with total industrial production now within 8 per cent. of its 1980 level. Manufacturing production has now almost recovered to its 1980 level, while construction industry output is now 31 per cent. higher than that recorded at the same time last year. Future prospects are brighter.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor recently announced in his Financial Statement and Budget Report, growth this year is expected to be higher than in 1986. The unemployment picture in the Province remains somewhat uncertain. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the fact that there has been some fall in the underlying numbers of unemployed during 1987. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen by an average of 300 per month over the past six months. Although April and May this year showed a slight increase in the underlying numbers unemployed, I am glad to say that the figures for June, announced today, show a drop in the headline total and in the seasonally adjusted number. The number of people without a job is lower than at the same time a year ago.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some changes in the structure and presentation of the Estimates. The Department of Finance and Personnel has taken the trouble to review the structure of Northern Ireland Estimates with a view to presenting a much clearer relationship between the Government's published public expenditure plans and the Estimates which are presented to your Lordships'. Table 2.2 of page 6 of the Estimates volume illustrates what has been achieved in the relationship between public expenditure plans and the Estimates. We have also taken action to improve the clarity of the estimates by removing unnecessary clutter. To that end, some small Votes have been amalgamated and others restructured to reflect as far

1215
as possible, departmental management structures. There will be some further improvements next year. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have made a useful start.
I turn to the opening Votes in the Estimates. I shall start at page 28. It covers the provision for my department, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Department of Agriculture's Vote 1 provides for expenditure in Northern Ireland on measures of national agriculture and fisheries support which apply throughout the United Kingdom. That expenditure of some £42 million was formerly voted as part of the Supply Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. With effect from 1st April this year accounting responsibility was transferred to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland under the Agriculture and Fisheries (Financial Assistance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. That handover of responsibility does not affect the level of public expenditure on various measures. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, with his great interest in agriculture, will accept that this is a technical change. I shall have more to say about it later.
The largest element within that Vote, which accounts for about £30 million in Section B, is for structural improvements to the agricultural industry by way of various capital and other grants. Approximately £12 million in Section C is for support for agriculture in special areas through, for instance, headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
The Department of Agriculture's Vote 2 on page 33 seeks total provision of some £81 million; of that, £35 million in Section A is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. The balance is made up of three elements: about £10 million in Section B for various agricultural support measures; £23 million in Section C on land and resources, which in the main cover expenditure on drainage and the forest service; and in Section D there is nearly £12 million for administrative services including accommodation.
Your Lordships will then find the Estimates for the Department of Economic Development and the Industrial Development Board, which are covered by the Department of Economic Development Votes 1 and 2. Under Vote 1 (page 42) industrial support and regeneration, the main provision sought is for some £12 million. That is to fund the Industrial Development Board's factory building and estate development work.
Industrial infrastructure in Northern Ireland has rightly a key role to play not only in attracting investment from overseas but in providing for the expansion of existing industry. In addition, under subhead C1 on page 43 almost £4 million has been earmarked for public relations and advertising campaigns. That has the proper aim of promoting Northern Ireland as a good investment location. In Vote 2 Section A (page 45) over £78 million is being provided for selective assistance to industry, including support for research and development work.
Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development relates to miscellaneous support services. The details can be found on pages 48 to 50.
1216
About £93 million is sought. Of that, £42·6 million has been earmarked for Harland and Wolff for areas such as trading operations, excluding of course the auxiliary oiler and replenishment contract. That is a large Harland and Wolff contract. Within that £42·6 million, funds are also provided for the recently announced redundancies and expenditure incurred by Harland and Wolff Enterprises. That company was set up to provide practical advice towards retraining and redeployment opportunities for Harland and Wolff's redundant workers. Of the balance, £21·2 million has been allocated to local enterprise; £18·2 million for standard capital grants and £7·6 million for Short's to provide grant assistance for a number of major aerospace projects. Those figures are on pages 49 and 50.
Under Vote 5 (page 55) of the Department of Economic Development a net total of £108 million is sought. A significant proportion of those resources, some £30·7 million is for the youth training programme. In addition on page 58, £29·5 million is sought for the action for community employment programme which will provide some 6,200 jobs in this financial year.
Page 72 covers a new department, Vote 1, in the Department of the Environment. Here we seek a total provision of £136·4 million for the roads service budget. This includes the operation and the maintenance of the road system in the Province.
Vote 2 in the Department of Environment covers housing. Housing remains the Government's top social and environmental priority following law and order and industrial development. I wish to stress to noble Lords that the public expenditure allocation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, together with rental income and capital receipts totalling some £502 million, will be sufficient to finance the gross expenditure plans for 1987–88 as proposed by the Housing Executive in its 1986 housing strategy review. In addition, there will be £41 million for Northern Ireland housing associations. That is broadly in line with the level of spending last year.
The Housing Executive's plans for 1987–88 will include a programme of new housebuilding starts in line with last year and increased expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of the public sector housing stock. The provision of over £48 million on renovation grants for private dwellings in Section B of Vote 2 of the Department of the Environment, on page 81, reflects the continuing efforts being made to target these resources on those properties and households in greatest need.
I now come to Vote 3 of the Department of the Environment on page 85. This covers the services which deal with both water and sewerage. Of the total provision sought of £86·5 million, some £36 million is for operational and maintenance purposes and about £27 million is for new construction works, including the servicing of new housing. The Department of the Environment is also engaged on a long-term programme of improvements to sewage facilities in the greater Belfast area which will in time, we hope, improve the quality of the River Lagan.
Turning to education, the five votes covering the expenditure of the Department of Education seek a provision of approximately £743 million. This level

1217
of spending reflects the priority which the Government continue to give to the needs of Northern Ireland schools in terms of both teaching and other resources. Some 40 per cent. of the total relates to the payment of school teachers' salaries. I am pleased to say that the agreement was reached on 18th May of this year at the Northern Ireland negotiating committee on pay and conditions of service for school teachers in Northern Ireland. The agreement is fully in accord with Government policy but there are minor differences in detail from the arrangements in England and Wales to reflect existing differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Overall teacher numbers in primary and secondary schools will be increased by 150 posts for the 1987–88 school year above the numbers required to maintain the existing pupil to teacher ratio. There will also be some 200 teachers for special care schools, reflecting the transfer of responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Education which took place on 1st April this year. The estimates for this department also provide for total capital expenditure in excess of £47 million. This will provide for a substantial programme of new building projects together with provision for ongoing major works, minor works and equipment. There are a total of 28 new major works which will be released in 1987–88, and this will be at an overall cost of £26 million. Twenty-four of these are schools projects which cost £21 million.
Vote 2 in the Department of Education, on pages 110 and 114, covers higher and further education. This vote provides continued funding of the two Northern Ireland universities on the principle of parity with comparable institutions in Great Britain. Vote 3, again for the Department of Education, on pages 115 to 119, makes provision for enhanced spending by the museums on purchases and on conservation. There is also increased aid for the Arts Council and for the establishment of a business sponsorship incentive scheme for the arts. I stress to your Lordships that this is to be a national scheme. Nevertheless, there is some provision in our votes this evening.
On pages 120 to 123, in Vote 4 of the Department of Education, the recurrent grant of £231·5 million to area boards out of which are met the running costs of controlled and maintained schools represents an increase of almost 5 per cent. above last year's initial allocations to boards.
Turning to health and social services, we find a total of £715 million is sought in Vote 1 on page 128. This vote is sought to maintain and further improve Northern Ireland's health and personal social services. The largest single element within this total is the Health and Social Services Boards' revenue expenditure which we estimate at £583 million. This is about 6 per cent. more than the equivalent figure for last year.
Perhaps I may rush—if that is the word—to page 140 of the estimates volume. In Vote 3 of the Department of Health and Social Services we find that £65.3 million is required to meet the cost of administration and miscellaneous services in the
1218
Department of Health and Social Services. Finally, in the social security programme, a total of £785·1 million is required in Vote 4, of which £739·7 million is required to meet payments of non-contributory and family benefits.
I have sought to take your Lordships through the estimates volume. Noble Lords have been very patient in bearing with me while I tried to point out the most illuminating figures that we felt should be presented to your Lordships this evening. I have endeavoured to cover the main features of the draft order that we feel to be important. I certainly look forward to listening to all the remarks which noble Lords may wish to make. I commend the draft order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, a week ago tonight in the debate on the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 I referred to a paragraph relating to Northern Ireland in the Queen's Speech. Unlike the previous speeches, it contained no commitment to tackle unemployment and the economic difficulties of the Province which remains the poorest region in the United Kingdom with very high unemployment even though it is slightly lower than a year ago.
One has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. However, it appears to me that his judgment was summed up in his statement that the position remains somewhat uncertain. It seems to me that the Government have nothing new to offer the Province or the unemployed of Northern Ireland.
I notice that the Minister did not refer to the pathfinder interim report which was mentioned by one of his colleagues in another place a week ago. I have not seen the report. It is not available in our Library. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could arrange for a copy to be sent at an early date at least to those of us in your Lordships' House who usually participate in Northern Ireland debates. I should be grateful for the report because, from the description given in another place, it may be testimony that the Government are adopting a fresh approach to the problems of the Province and to the measures which have been adopted in the past. It may be too early to be sure of that but at least the Government, if we place reliance on the pathfinder report, are questioning certain basic assumptions which they have taken for granted for years. If that is correct then the report may be an important step in the right direction.
The economy apart, if the Government are to make life easier for a significant number of people in Northern Ireland there are sectors which need to be reinforced. There are three such sectors—health, education and housing. The tenure of life depends very much upon those three sectors. I was particularly pleased that the Minister acknowledged the important role of housing and the health service in the Province. The housing executive has been very much under attack. I should make it clear that we on these Benches acknowledge the achievements of the housing executive. Yet its accounts for the year ended 31st March 1986 together with the observations of

1219
the local government auditor cause some concern. There have been substantial write-offs of rent arrears, district heating arrears and home loan repayment arrears. There have been difficulties in processing housing benefit claims while at the same time one of the divisions remained overmanned for far too long. Then there is the remarkable case of the Microfilm Commercial Company which was paid for its services at twice the rate of its estimate.
I have read the response published by the housing executive. It is a helpful response and places one or two of the items in the auditors' report in their historical perspective. We note that some remedial action is in hand. We also note, in fairness to the executive, that there may be technical difficulties of a legal nature beyond the control of the executive in enforcing arrears repayment. However, given the report of the auditor, what view do the Government take of the local government auditor's report and of the housing executive's response to it? Are they satisfied that the executive is implementing the necessary corrective procedures to meet the deficiencies identified in the auditor's report.
I now wish to turn to the education sector, or to part of the education sector, in particular to the integrated schools which appear to be so promising. It is all very well and very easy to make speeches full of rhetoric about the need for reconciliation in Northern Ireland but rhetoric achieves very little unless we give practical encouragement and support to people who, midst all the tensions, are seeking to work together to realise the vision of reconciliation. Against that background the integrated schools, as yet few in number, are full of promise. We must acknowledge that two Members of your Lordships' House—my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—have been closely associated with the principle of integrated education.
In the integrated schools in Northern Ireland pupils from Catholic and Prostestant homes alike in approximately equal numbers are educated together. In that kind of school parents drawn from different backgrounds are brought together. They work in parent/teacher associations or in school friends' associations to build a school with a sensitivity, a school which succeeds in cutting across issues with a history of centuries. Indeed, the willingness of parents drawn from different backgrounds to give their kids access to integrated education is at least a token of the capacity for co-operation and compromise. These integrated schools are beginning to evolve.
I understand that the first such school was Lagan college which was opened six years ago with 28 pupils. It can be very proud of its achievements. In September there will be 500 pupils on its roll. It is now hard at work raising £700,000 for new school buildings. That college has led the way. I understand that by next September there will be six other integrated schools in the Province but only two will enjoy grant-aided status, which qualifies them to receive some public funding. The remaining four will be financed entirely by parents and friends of the schools, friends at home and abroad, on the
1220
continent of Europe and in the United States of America.
One immediate problem—but only one out of a number—is presented by Hazelwood College which opened with 17 pupils in September 1985. By the end of last month it had 75 pupils. By next September it will have 150 pupils. I am told that the school applied for grant-aided status last March and although the new term is only six weeks away it is still awaiting the department's decision. Surely parents, staff and pupils should know by now what financial assistance they can expect to receive from the Government. I appreciate that the Government have not as yet been able to take the lead with integrated schools. We understand their difficulties. The lead is coming from parents who are demanding integrated education. Lagan college has demonstrated by now that the integrated school is well past the experimental stage. These schools must be worth encouraging. We therefore urge the department to expedite decisions not merely on the Hazelwood college application but on all other applications from integrated schools that are on the education Minister's desk.
There is another area where we believe we can perceive a meeting of traditions and where recognition and encouragement by the Northern Ireland Office would be helpful. I refer to the numerous women's groups which have emerged amidst the tensions and explosions during the last 10 years. Between them they cover a wide range of issues. There are many such groups such as the Women's Centre for Advice and Information; the Falls Women's Centre; the Women's Education Project; the Rape Crisis Centre; and the Women's Committee of the Northern Ireland TUC.
Some of those organisations have received small financial help from such bodies as the Belfast City Council, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, the Carnegie Trust, the Rowntree Trust, and one or two of the banks. Those groups have at least three things in common. They have strong roots in their local communities; they cut across sections and across classes; and they have shown, given one or two difficulties, that their members can work together. So here again we see an endorsement of the principle of co-operation and reconciliation which must be good for Northern Ireland.
We should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could persuade his ministerial colleagues—if they require persuasion—to look with sympathy at these organisations, assist with resources if resources are required, and ensure that there is a framework, possibly within the terms of the Social Need Order 1986, within which they can co-operate with the relevant public bodies.
The appropriation order before the House deals with billions of pounds, and we have heard immense detail from the Minister, and of course he was right to parade the detail before us. To invest but a minute portion of this money in the integrated schools movement, in the women's groups, and other voluntary organisations which cut across sections, or seek to cut across sections and issues, could bear fruit.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. Before going on to put my questions perhaps I may be allowed to make some general comments. There are many good, intelligent people in Northern Ireland but, unfortunately, a proportion are intransigent, stupid and even positively evil. Whatever else one might think about the result of the recent general election, many can accept that it is a good thing that the Unionists cannot exert a disproportionate influence in a hung Parliament and that the Government are not going back on the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
For all but such as the misguided Mr. Ken Livingstone the IRA is beyond the pale, and I believe some Unionists also have much to answer for. I hope in any negotiations that may now take place that, while they may be critical of the Government, they will understand that a great proportion of the British public can be critical of them. The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, may later wish to refute this.
Direct rule cannot be a good, permanent system for long-term government, and this was made clear in the debate last Thursday. Orders in Council involve a process that is often frustrating. Normally when the 1,100 Peers not interested in the Province have gone home a small group of about eight dedicated Peers meet in this Chamber to discuss Ulster affairs, sometimes joined by a couple of Peers who have dined too well and do not know quite where they are or why, and the business proceeds.
I wrote this down, but something seems to have changed. I said, "The hoods are on the television cameras", which they normally are, "the lights are dim, the press reporters have gone home, and the general feeling of the public is one of disinterest". Things seem to have changed tonight.
Considerable effort, however, goes into the debate despite the fact that what we do seems little to matter. In the time I have been involved I think it is true to say that we have not changed a single order by one word or one comma. These orders are often as lengthy and complicated as Acts and they range from electricity to agriculture to licensing, and over the whole field of life in the Province. But despite the apparent futility of much that we do I think that the mere effort is appreciated over the water, and I have been very grateful for the cross-party feeling of comradeship among the small faithful band of speakers involved.
The present system of rule from Westminster is far from perfect, particularly when Unionist MPs chose to cut themselves off from the proceedings. But when people in Ulster can more widely accept the value of compassion, conciliation and co-operation things will proceed apace. Until then they bring on themselves a loss of control of their own affairs that makes little sense and places an undue burden here.
Against the view widely held on the mainland I believe there are grounds for cautious hope. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, in a moving speech on the third day of the debate on the Address had much to say about this. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat his closing words in col. 193 of Hansard 30th June. He said:
1222
"There can be no doubt that a commitment to Northern Ireland by the Government is going to be difficult to fulfil. I have tried in my speech to indicate that there are positive signs of change and hope. From this side of the House we wish the Government success in the stated aims concerning Northern Ireland".
We on these Benches would like to be associated with that.
Again the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, another Peer who knows the problems from personal experience, said on 9th July at col. 813 of Hansard, if he will bear with me:
"I think that now there is probably more hope than there was this time last year because the report of the Unionist Task Force, An End to Drift, indicates at least a willingness to talk, which is a major advance and perhaps the most hopeful sign we have seen in the 20 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed".
It will need great patience, but I recall the words of the poet:
"Say not the struggle naught availeth, the Labour and the wounds are vain".
In the long term, and indeed it may be a very long term, good will triumph over evil.
I now turn to the questions of which I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, notice. First, can the Government confirm what they subscribed to the organisation Co-operation North last year, and now state what they propose to contribute this year? I put down a Written Question on this latter point earlier this year but the reply was entirely non-committal. I would only say here that spokesmen for the organisation made a considerable impression on a meeting of Peers last year and that the encouragement of cross-border meetings seems to be money well spent if the climate of opinion is thus improved.
On the order itself I have just a few questions. Under the heading Department of Economic Development, Vote 3, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, touched on this, how much of this sum is going to Harland and Wolff—I was not quite clear—and how many ships does the yard have on its stocks? On Vote 4 can the Minister give any details of the state of tourism in the province at the present time and any proposal for encouraging and improving it.
Under the heading Department of the Environment, Vote 2, I was going to ask the Minister to give details of what is meant by "housing services" but I think he dealt with this. The last question was under Department of Health and Social Services, Vote 4. Can the Minister give any details as to whether demand for the severe disablement allowance is particularly high in the Province due to terrorist activity? With those few comments and questions we of course accept this order.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, because I shall be unable to stay for the further two orders on the registration of clubs and licensing. They are pretty controversial subjects, but if it is any consolation to him, I thought on reading the papers about them earlier this year that the Government have probably got the balance about right.
I go on to support and welcome every single word that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said from his

1223
Front Bench on integrated education. It just so happened today that I was having lunch with somebody living near the new town of Craigavon, where parents are once again coming forward and demanding an integrated secondary school, and I very much hope that they obtain it.
This evening I should like to confine my remarks to discussing present and future policy on Action for Community Employment, better known as the ACE scheme, together with implications for government departments, voluntary bodies and community relations. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned this scheme in his speech and reminded us that over 6,000 jobs depend on it and that they cost £25 million a year. We are talking of something quite major. More people are employed under this scheme than currently work in Harland and Wolff shipyard and the number is only a little less than those currently working at Short Brothers.
There are some 700 ACE sponsors, which are voluntary or community groups acting as agents or employers on behalf of the Government. Those sponsors organise into the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE Sponsors, known as NIFAS, with an office in Belfast. To qualify for employment under ACE a person must have been unemployed for one year or more. The job that he is given will last for only one year. The scheme has made a modest impact on the number of long-term unemployed people. However, it has been of benefit in the worst black-spots of unemployment, where male unemployment can easily exceed 50 per cent. The scheme is valuable because it gives local communities a certain degree of initiative and control over their own affairs which they might not otherwise have. They may therefore feel less alienated and less powerless.
We need to see the scheme against the background of social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland. That subject was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In March 1987, nearly 127,000 people were registered as unemployed; that is, 18.7 per cent. of the working population. Unfortunately, about half those people fall into the category of long-term unemployed and this year half the total were living in Greater Belfast. That is bad enough, but even the earnings of those in work tend to be lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, while fuel costs are distinctly higher. In 1985 the Greater Belfast household survey showed that 39 per cent. of the housing stock still needed major repairs, and the survey estimated that one-third of the heads of households had incomes below £60 a week.
These facts indicate a major problem of poverty and dereliction, made worse by cuts and tight budgets in health and social services. This situation, combined with high unemployment, with its obvious incentives to political violence, crime and addictions of every kind, has driven voluntary bodies and ACE sponsors to grasp at whatever government help may be available. They see urgent needs and feel compelled to meet them as best they can.
What then are the drawbacks to ACE? By itself it is not a sufficient response to long-term
1224
unemployment. Secondly, many ACE workers revert to unemployment when their year is up. By now I know a certain number of ACE sponsors and in the western part of the Province I have seen a huge playing field and community hall built almost entirely through ACE. All the sponsors tell me that the one-year period is insufficient because the worker's contract ends just when he or she begins to be really useful. In my view, a two-year ACE would be more than twice as effective and it would allow for built-in education and training, as is now the case with the two-year youth training programme in England. A two-year ACE would also allow for proper induction and better continuity of experience for the younger workers. It should be backed by leaving certificates giving details of the work done and the training given.
Already the Government have recognised the need for a transition to permanent or self-employment by providing a pilot scheme for ACE enterprise. This allows ACE workers to begin self-employment during the last months of their year and then to qualify for an enterprise allowance. Unfortunately, this scheme now has only 100 places available. It must be recognised that ACE presents a mild threat to some existing jobs, especially in the environmental and social services; for example, to home helps and other ancillary workers. One therefore understands the anxieties of some trade unions.
It is important that there should be clear definitions of what kind of work is suitable for ACE and what is not. I suggest that any deferrable work is suitable for ACE; for example, local improvements to the landscape or the street scene, or decorating and gardening for the elderly and frail. On the other hand, jobs demanding exactitude and continuity, especially where long-term human relationships are concerned, are more suitable to either unpaid long-term volunteers or permanently employed staff. This qualitative distinction should be made even if, as I hope, ACE is extended to a two-year period.
A further anomaly occurs because it is the Department of Economic Development which administers the scheme, although much of its activity lies in social and welfare work. This is so at a time when the Department of Health and Social Services has committed itself in its regional strategic plan to community care and to the switching of some resources from institutions to the local communities. I do not know to what extent, if at all, the Department of Agriculture is involved. I suspect that rural ACEs may be needed just as much as urban ones.
However, I ask the Minister to bring the whole matter to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should like him to do so under at least three headings. First, there is the aspect of governmental organisation and departmental responsibilities. I have already mentioned the Department of Economic Development and LEDU, if small businesses emerge, together with the Department of Health and Social Services. There is also the Department of Education in Northern Ireland which is responsible for community relations and adult education and which is able to make grants of 75 per cent. to local authorities. There is the further possibility of drawing in additional funds from the

1225
EC via the regional and social programmes, and the special measures to combat poverty. Only the Secretary of State can have sufficient detachment to be able to harmonise the special interests of the various departments.
Secondly, there is the question of the best way in which to support and encourage the vital innovative and essential work of voluntary bodies. There is a circle that somehow or other needs to be squared. How does one ensure adequate public accountability—as, for example, in the case of housing associations, which I know of old in this country—without throttling initiative and flexibility by imposing over-bureaucratic control?
Finally, I must mention the dimension of community relations which, as always, is so important in Northern Ireland. ACE has potential (which is probably not yet fully developed) for improving public relations. Cross-community work should be more encouraged, and whenever possible activities should be arranged on an inter-community basis so as to build up the middle ground of consent. There is ample precedent for this. For example, in children's holiday schemes in social welfare and in integrated education at all levels. It is, nevertheless, a dimension which I ask the Secretary of State to look at personally and in depth since the ways in which government departments and local authorities carry out their normal day-to-day functions inevitably affects community perceptions and relationships.
In considering these matters, I ask the Secretary of State to study with care the recent report on improving community relations by Hugh Frazer and Marie Fitzduff. That was produced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I first mentioned this matter in the debate on the loyal Address on the 30th June (at col. 196 of Hansard) and I am sure it is a matter to which we shall have to come back on future occasions.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the appropriation order. I apologise to him in advance for the fact that I have not been able to give him notice of what I am about to say. I hope and believe he will find it to be in such general terms that it will not set him a problem, and I will certainly excuse him if I get no reply.
I do not know if this is an appropriate moment to raise this matter—it is of course an old chestnut—but following the appropriation order we have two more quite lengthy orders tonight. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any hope that legislation to do with Northern Ireland can be dealt with in the same way as for the rest of the kingdom. It really does seem idiotic to come over from Northern Ireland to discuss these various orders, knowing full well that one has no opportunity to amend or alter them in any way. I should like to say to the noble Lord that I hope he will be able to give me some hope that there is going to be a change and that Northern Ireland can he legislated for in exactly the same way as the rest of the kingdom.
I want to touch on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am afraid I cannot like it any better as the months go
1226
on; I find great difficulty in seeing what good it does. In fact, I honestly feel that if anything it has the reverse effect. I was somewhat astonished by the optimism by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, over the economic situation of Northern Ireland. I am bound to say that while I in no way would attempt to dispute his figures or to suggest that they are wrong, I am bound to say that I cannot at all share his optimism. Quite a lot of my pessimism must be blamed on the violence which has ensued as a direct result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has created not only violence but a feeling of political instability. It has increased instability even more because of the talk, however wild it may be, that we now hear of independence.
I am bound to say to the noble Lord that it is worth wondering—though one cannot answer these questions—how many jobs have been lost as potential employers have decided not to come to Northern Ireland and have decided that it is no place to be. We can ask how many business expansions have not taken place because people do not want to invest in the country because of what is going on. For the same reason, how many houses remain unsold? How many house agents are no longer accepting houses on their books because they cannot get rid of them, simply because people are in a state of misery over the way things are going in Northern Ireland? We may just as well ask how many people have left the Province. I know lots who have and I do not doubt that many of my colleagues in Northern Ireland know just as many. How many businesses have been hit by the fact that many shops no longer keep the same stocks as they used to? I know from my own experience, for example, that when I want agricultural equipment I very often have to go miles to find it whereas a few years ago I would have got it in my own area.
I cannot see at the moment, the way things are, that there is any incentive for people to want to come to Northern Ireland to work or live or to bring up a family there. I cannot see that there is any incentive for tourism when the television shows almost nightly pictures of the police or the army either guarding a march or trying to prevent one.
The noble Lord may say to me that the people of Northern Ireland have brought this on themselves. I am not in any way trying to deny that. I am myself a democrat and I do not agree with the way opposition to the agreement has been carried out. But it is important for the people in England who criticise us for what is going on to remember that all these things have only happened because we wished to stay a part of the United Kingdom and to be governed by the United Kingdom without interference from anyone else outside. I do not think it is totally illogical to say that if Kent or Sussex had suddenly been told that the government in Paris was to have some influence on their affairs, their reaction would probably have been very much the same as it has been in Northern Ireland.
I am painting a very gloomy picture, and I feel very gloomy about it. I think the country is going downhill fast. I believe that something needs to be done, and done urgently. Of course I accept that treaties between sovereign governments cannot be

1227
abrogated, and I am not asking for that; but what I would ask Her Majesty's Government to do, in the light of the new climate and of the talks which I hope will take place, is to make the way easy for those talks. I hope that they will give every possible encouragement to what is now happening and I also hope they will do their best to hurry these talks along.
It was very depressing when on Tuesday night the probing talks, as they appear to be called, took place and lasted 20 minutes. I was depressed a few days earlier when I was told that these probing talks might go on for months. I was depressed again last night when I watched the Northern Ireland news and saw that it was not expected that there would be another meeting until September. That is extremely depressing because at the moment, in my view, in the view of many of my friends and of many people in the business world, enormous damage is being done to Northern Ireland. This whole process is ludicrously slow and I cannot for the life of me see why there have to be probing talks when every single one of us who takes any interest in Northern Ireland politics knows perfectly well what the points at issue are. I certainly hope that my noble friend will convey to his colleagues the fact that we badly need an olive branch and something from their side in order to give impetus to these talks.
It also worries me to consider what will happen should these talks fail—which brings me to the somewhat wild threat of independence. I cannot find any logic in the suggestion that there should be independence unless it is that the people who are proposing it see in independence an opportunity for their own aggrandisement. It is certainly not logical for them to have spent 20 months resisting the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the grounds that they want to stay part of the United Kingdom and be governed without interference from outside and then to have gone off like whipped schoolboys saying, "We shall have nothing if we cannot have it our way".
Very many people in Northern Ireland do not want independence and would be absolutely appalled at the thought of it. I certainly would be. Frankly, I would rather soldier on under the Anglo-Irish Agreement (bad as I think it is) than have any part in an independent Ulster.
There are two things that we need in Ulster from which most of the other benefits will spring. We need peace which comes from the defeat of terrorism, and stability with some kind of prosperity by the establishment of a lasting system of government. No one can believe that it will be easy, but it is all-important that we should make a start. Somehow or other the talks, which are in their embryo stage, should be given every possible encouragement and incentive, because in my view, if we do not do that, Northern Ireland will go down the drain economically and in other ways a great deal faster perhaps than anybody realises.
8 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I was sorry to hear that the morale of the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, is so low. I should like to be able to say something to cheer him up. I wish he had heard the comments of some
1228
Americans who came to visit me a few weeks ago. They went away exclaiming what a marvellous country we have, that the birds sang, that they could hear the sound of the sea breaking on the shore, how lovely it was and how everything seemed so normal and everyone seemed to be so friendly and happy. It is easy for visitors to gain an impression of that kind but I hope that for a moment the noble Lord was encouraged by hearing what the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hylton, had to say about integrated education in Northern Ireland.
There are bright chinks in the picture and until such time as the noble Lord can bring himself to join the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, perhaps he will use his considerable influence to persuade his colleagues and ex-colleagues to try to implement the observations of the task force report entitled An End to Drift; namely, that compromise and barter are a two-way matter and that, given a degree of reasonableness and magnaminity on both sides, the talks which are only just now getting under way can surely bring us to some solution. I am not as depressed as the noble Lord seems to be at the moment.
Once again we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having introduced the order. Turning to the Department of Agriculture and Votes 1 and 2, when the original appropriation order for this year was debated on 3rd March I pointed out that there was a loss of over £10 million to the Northern Ireland beef industry, and indeed to the public purse, as a result of the smuggling of cattle from the north to the south of Ireland. At that time the Ulster Farmers' Union was urging that the green pound should be devalued by at least 15 per cent.—indeed, they would have preferred 20 per cent. In the event it has now been devalued by 5 per cent. for the United Kingdom and 3·1 per cent. for the Republic of Ireland, which will reduce the cross-border price differential from 13·5 per cent. to 8 per cent. That is a move in the right direction because it will reduce the monetary compensatory amounts and thus reduce the incentive to smuggle. Unfortunately, it does not look as though it will eliminate it, much as one hoped that it might, because the negative gap between the green rate and the spot rate (known I believe as the monetary percentage) remains in the United Kingdom at 10·6 per cent. whereas in the Republic of Ireland it is 2 per cent. In France it is only 1 per cent.
It was gratifying to read recently that the Customs had been able to apprehend some substantial consignments of smuggled cattle. Even so, I am afraid that the incentive still remains because there is about £45 to be made on each smuggled animal. If that practice continues it will fatally bleed the cattle industry in Northern Ireland and also the meat processing industry, which is already under extreme pressure and far from secure. It should also be borne in mind that the agricultural income in Northern Ireland last year went down by 20 per cent., in contrast to the overall trend in the United Kingdom.
I should like to look at the subject of alternative crops, which I suggest could also come under Votes 1 and 2 of the Department of Agriculture. As regards forestry, we welcomed the incentive scheme for broadleaf planting but I should like to observe that

1229
that incentive is much undermined by the absence of suitable young plants available from the forestry division's nurseries. In view of the fact that in order to approve the planting grant the forestry division insists on a minimum planting density—which, in my humble submission, does not take account of the way that young trees can be reared using grow-tubes—the number of young trees which have to be acquired from other, private sources, gives rise to such expense that the advantage of the incentive is negated.
The other alternative crop that I should like to mention is horse breeding, a subject of which I profess a profound ignorance. However, I am told that, unlike conventional enterprises such as cattle breeding and the production of milk-based products and cereals, which are now in serious surplus in the EC, there is in fact a demand for half bred and Irish draught progeny—to such an extent that at many times the supply is unable to meet the demand. It was a disappointment that the Government paper on farm diversification did not mention horse breeding as an enterprise to be considered. Indeed, at the moment reaction to the McGee Report is awaited. It is hoped that in that report horse breeding will be recognised as an agricultural enterprise and will thus enjoy the advantages and incentives of the relief on VAT and rates that that would entail.
Ireland was famous for centuries for the quality of the horses that it was able to export. Those horses earned international respect in many fields of equestrian activity and, indeed, in war before the cavalry was mechanised. How sensible it would be, in circumstances where we have too many cattle, too much milk, too many pigs and too many eggs, for horse breeding to become once again an internationally respected enterprise in Ireland and for horses to be exported all over the world.
If I may now turn to the Department of the Environment, Vote 1, the noble Lord told us in March that, in his opinion, the Strangford Ferry was generally reliable. Unfortunately, since that date it has broken down once or twice. Perhaps he would very kindly ask his people to have a further look at that.
Turning to Votes 4 and 5, I should like to mention the Crescent Arts Centre, which is housed in the old Victoria College, dating from 1873–4. It is now a listed building in the Queen's University conservation area and is the property of the Department of the Environment road service. The position is that this very attractive Victorian building has now been spared from the threat of demolition as a proposed road widening scheme has been abandoned. The building having been saved for the time being, it was found that the main auditorium needed attention to the electrical equipment and the cost of this was met by Belfast City Council. Since that time, the arts centre has been told that, to make it safe, the entire building will have to be rewired. The Department of the Environment, the owners of the building, say that they cannot afford to do this and, wanting to sell on the open market with vacant possession, have given the arts centre notice to quit. It is obvious that any commercial purchaser in that part of the city will most certainly be interested in the site rather than in the building, and, even if he did
1230
want the building, he would not be interested in having an arts centre in it.
One knows only too well how sites which carry listed buildings can be turned to financial advantage. The way to do it it to use the four Ds in the developer's dictionary. They are: "deteriorate", "danger", "delist" and "demolition". That is the way to do it. You allow a building to deteriorate, you get it classified as being dangerous, you have it delisted and then you demolish. You then have a clear site on which you can build a new, profitable commercial building. Therefore it is not in the interests of the conservation of this building, or in the interests of the arts centre, that this building and site should be put on to the open market. I would add that it is not only thrusting developers who use the four Ds: government departments do so as well.
Therefore, though the arts centre itself, if pressed, would be prepared to find the £30,000 necessary to carry out the complete rewiring of the building, I seriously suggest that it should be the obligation of the owners, the Department of the Environment, to do this. After all, quoting from the order, Vote 4 states that it is:
"For expenditure by the Department of the Environment on conservation, environmental services, urban affairs and lands, environmental improvement".
That is what this vote is for and I suggest that this project comes under the heading of improvement. This is for amenity in the environment. If it is not possible for the department to keep the building, there is a public service company which would be prepared to purchase it and give the arts centre a long lease, but I still suggest that it should properly be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
Turning to the Department of Education, Vote 2, Queen's University is facing some problems. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was saying, the university has been integrated from the start. People from all sectors of society and of the community have always gone to Queen's University. Unfortunately, it is faced with the difficulty of not knowing in which direction to plan for the future. I do not have a full brief on this, but I think I can quote the vice-chancellor as having said that planning for the future at Queen's University is like playing football in the dark with the goal posts being moved around.
On the subject of integrated education, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to Lagan College and quoted some figures on the strength of pupils there. I would just add—he is probably aware of this—that Lagan College has for quite some time had a waiting list for pupils and will be able to accommodate many more once it moves into its new premises at Lisnabreeny. It is gratifying that now, when it seems such a short time since the college was founded, it has an established past pupils' association. With those few observations, I support the order.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always we are very grateful for the thought, the care and the passion with which your Lordships have debated this appropriation order. Also, I want to express my

1231
personal gratitude to all noble Lords who gave me warning of the subjects which they were going to raise this evening. Many of my colleagues tell me that this is a form of cheating and that I get an extremely easy ride. That may be so. Perhaps I do not reciprocate in the brevity of my remarks, but tonight I shall attempt not to detain your Lordships overlong. I think I shall be able to give a clear reply on the points raised. In a few minutes' time we shall be entering a far more typical and fascinating field, with the other two orders which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the pathfinder report. I hope that he has been able to find a copy. I am given to understand that copies were sent to the Library of your Lordships' House. I am very sorry and apologise if copies were not available in the Printed Paper Office. Certainly I shall take up the noble Lord's point and see whether there is anything we can do to ensure that such reports are available to those of us who take a constant interest in Northern Irish affairs.
As the noble Lord will know, it is a very valuable report. We believe that there is much content in it, and I hope that the temporary absence of the report from the noble Lord's reading has not made too much of a disaster of his discussion of the votes before us this evening.
The noble Lord also asked about the general economy in Northern Ireland and referred to the current level of unemployment there. He did not exactly take me to task for my over-optimism, but he asked a number of questions. Of course, the Government are very conscious of the need to continue to tackle urgently and vigorously this dreadful problem of unemployment, but first our policy is to bring about the circumstances in which lasting productive jobs can be created, particularly through growth in areas of expansion, by what we call the pursuit of excellence. Indeed that is spelled out in the pathfinder report. We want growth in the products and services which we find in Northern Ireland.
We also have to take interim action, which we do in several ways. One example is the Action for Community Employment which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. Higher resources have been allocated to that scheme this year as well as to the Enterprise Ulster scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the accounts of the Housing Executive and the auditing of those accounts. He asked about the last published set of accounts of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for 1985/1986 together with the reports of the local government auditor and the comptroller and auditor general. The matters which have been raised in those reports have been discussed between the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Housing Executive. On the current occasion the report is generally encouraging, but it identifies some weaknesses in the systems. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we shall be carefully monitoring any action which we think is necessary as a result of those particular inquiries. I thank him for raising that point because he is quite right that proper scrutiny of those matters is very much to be desired.
1232
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Dunleath and Lord Hylton raised the question of integrated schools. I was looking for the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his customary place but I am delighted to see that he has flown up to join the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned Hazelwood College. Of course anyone who wishes to establish a new grant-aided school, or indeed to have an existing independent school recognised as one which is grant-aided, must follow the normal statutory development procedures, as well as proving that the school will be viable educationally. Controlled schools and maintained schools under Roman Catholic management are subject to the same development proposal procedures as integrated schools, but the question of their viability will have been resolved before any proposal from the department is published.
However, the viability of integrated schools can only be judged on the basis of enrolments over a period of time together with the estimated demand for those places. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of Hazelwood College. Certainly a proposal for the development of Hazelwood College was published on 1st June of this year. That leads on to the statutory period allowed for any objections which may be made, and that period expires at the end of the month of July. Thus, I must tell the noble Lord that we are not able to give a commitment as to when any decision would be taken, but I wish to assure him and any others who might be interested in Hazelwood College that we shall make every effort to give any decision as early as we possibly can, and that may involve the next school year. However, I cannot say more than that this evening as the matter is under discussion with the relevant department.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made one particular point about the debates in your Lordships' House. I think he will be pleased, as I am and as will be many of your Lordships, that the little lights, as I call them, are on in the Chamber this evening. That shows that on an occasion like this, when we are discussing the broad sweep of Northern Ireland affairs, together with every single possible detail of Government expenditure in Northern Ireland, there is some interest in proceedings in your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Lord will know that interest in our discussions is very widespread in the Province and it is also widespread elsewhere, certainly in my home. I know that affairs which are discussed in your Lordships' House, particularly on Northern Ireland, are of considerable interest and people remark on the trouble that we take over them.
The noble Lord asked me about Co-operation North. I must tell him that three years ago the only thing I had heard as regards Co-operation North concerned the excellent Maracycle race or rally from Belfast to Dublin and hack, depending from which point one starts. So far I have not yet girded myself on a bicycle and taken part in that exercise, but there is always hope!
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about funding. We have paid Co-operation North a grant of £48,000 in this financial year. That compares with £40,000 in the last financial year, 1986–87. I wish to stress tonight how grateful we are to Co-operation

1233
North for the very valuable work which it does. That is recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and many others in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord asked me about Harland and Wolff. Earlier this evening I stressed that £42.6 million had been granted from the estimates and votes this evening for Harland and Wolff. As regards work in progress on its stocks, the company is finalising its work on the conversion of a roll-on roll-off ship to an aviation training ship for the Ministry of Defence. Other orders in the yard are for the sophisticated single well oil reduction system which goes by the happy acronym of SWAPS. This is being built for British Petroleum and is due for delivery on time in late 1988.
Also on the stocks at Harland and Wolff we find the first of the class, auxiliary oiler replenishment. That is the AOR vessel to which I referred earlier which is being supplied to the Ministry of Defence and is due for delivery in late 1990.
The noble Lord also raised the question of tourism. That matter is also of interest to my noble friend Lord Moyola. There was a drop of around 4 per cent. in the total number of visitors to Northern Ireland in 1986. However, the income from tourism rose by the same amount—4 per cent. So far as we can judge the income rose to around £82 million. That was in line with what happened in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Department of Economic Development is directing resources towards improving tourist accommodation in the private sector as well as assisting district councils with the provision of additional tourist amenities right across the Province. The department has increased by 18 per cent. its grant in aid to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in recognition particularly of the additional marketing activities which will be needed to achieve the target of 170,000 more holiday visitors by 1990.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised the question of severe disablement allowance. We have not found any evidence that activity by terrorists or anything to do with the security situation has contributed to the greater incidence of severe disablement claimants in Northern Ireland. In general there is a greater take-up of social security benefits in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is a reflection of the socio-economic position in the Province where proportionately more people are dependent on benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a number of points. The first one concerned the report of the standing advisory committee on human rights about the transfer of prisoners. I have nothing more to say tonight about that because my noble friend Lord Caithness gave an answer yesterday to the noble Lord and I do not have anything to add to it tonight. The noble Lord went into considerable detail when he presented his views on ACE—the Action for Community Employment. That was very welcome. He mentioned various aspects. As he will realise, funding for the ACE scheme has been substantially increased over the past two years. The figure sought in the current year is approximately £29.5 million. In my opening I indicated that approximately 6,200 places in more than 500 projects will be started by this
1234
sum. Eighty per cent. of those places are sponsored by voluntary bodies, community groups, tenant associations, churches and the like. There is, I believe, a meeting between the noble Lord's wishes and what we are able to do as a result of the expenditure set out tonight. The noble Lord is right, however, that we always wish to try to do more. I stress that the 500 or so sponsors promote a wide range of activity covering not just home decorating and gardening services for the elderly and handicapped but also the improvement of the environment, refurbishment of leisure and above all tourist amenity areas.
Given our proven resource level, I think that the noble Lord will agree that any changes in the conditions to permit up to two-year periods of ACE employment will drastically reduce the number of people who could benefit from the scheme. Nevertheless, we shall keep it under constant scrutiny. I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal more from the noble Lord in years to come.
I am grateful for the attendance of my noble friend Lord Moyola. Indeed, he was merciful in not picking me up on all the details since I have no doubt that in his previous incarnation he had all the figures at his fingertips and had to defend expenditure in Northern Ireland.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's comments about the legislative procedures for Northern Ireland matters in your Lordships' House. I stress that the Government are prepared to consider any changes to the procedures for legislation in Northern Ireland. These need to be considered in the context of any wider arrangement overall for Northern Ireland's government. We hope that it will be possible to start a constructive dialogue with the political parties in Northern Ireland about those and other matters.
As regards the renewal of direct rule, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place said:
"we are willing to consider changes in arrangements to determine whether it is possible to agree ways of improving the difficulties which we perceive."—[Official Report, Commons, 7.7.87; col. 202.]
From that I think that your Lordships will understand that our minds are not closed. We should like to make some progress but, of course, it has to be a two-way system.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, covered a number of points. First, as I think he would agree, violence is no basis for attracting industry. I am sure that would have the agreement of those of us who wish to represent Northern Ireland or seek to sell its products abroad. Occasionally I am keen to project the sale of Northern Irish food, meat and other products as well as its excellent beverages. I find that there is a wide acceptance of the marvellous quality of what we have to offer in Northern Ireland. My noble friend is right that, alas, what we read about the violence that reaches the headlines in the media is no basis for attracting industry or lasting jobs.
My noble friend raised the question of agriculture and farm machinery which is very near to my heart. I hope that the agricultural industry is in no way fading in Northern Ireland. If my noble friend lets me know of any problems of supply, I should do my best to ensure that we help to alleviate any problems,

1235
shortages or breakdowns. I can think of many producers of agricultural equipment. Indeed, one major producer no distance from my noble friend would, I am sure, wish to do anything that he could to help my noble friend.
My noble friend mentioned what he called the probing talks that are taking place. He will know that there is all kind of comment in the media—newspapers, television and radio—as to what probing talks might be, and between sundry persons. My noble friend wonders why these talks will not proceed until September this year. I cannot give him any answer—I do not think he would expect one. No doubt he will know that the summer is not always the best time to find all those who might wish to take part in talks. From the Government's point of view, I see no difficulty; but politicians tend to need a slight break in their endeavours, none more so than Northern Ireland politicians.
Finally, to reply to my noble friend Lord Moyola, I believe that Ulster's image is very high in Europe as well as around the rest of the world. My right honourable and honourable ministerial colleagues who travel throughout the world find a huge welcome and interest for everything that goes on in Northern Ireland and for the life in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend will accept that we need not feel in any way gloomy. I believe that there is a glimmer of optimism. My own experiences give me considerable cause for optimism whenever I go out beyond Great Britain and try to represent Northern Ireland.
I totally agree with my noble friend that independence for Ulster would be a complete disaster. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is merely intended to bring an end to terrorism and, above all, to create conditions for peace and economic progress, which are so much desired by everyone in Northern Ireland and, indeed, by my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, rightly raised many agricultural points. The most important one that taxes my patience considerably is the green pound. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to negotiate a 6·3 devaluation of the beef green pound at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting at the end of June. As he pointed out, the final agreement meant a 7 per cent. reduction in the United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts which was much higher than that achieved by the Republic of Ireland. That means that the green pound devaluation will increase producer prices. There will also be a small increase in the rate of calf premium. I hope that the increased support prices together with the reduction in MCAs will substantially reduce the incentive to smuggle cattle South from Northern Ireland to the Republic. I assure noble Lords that the authorities on both sides of the border are particularly alert to that problem. There is good co-operation between the respective authorities on both sides of the Border.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the Unionist task force report. We hope that the report will contribute to some movement towards dialogue in which one day the constitutional parties in
1236
Northern Ireland will be able to discuss their ideas and other prople's ideas with the Government. We have further noted the constructive tone and, indeed, the comments of the Unionist Members in the debate on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 in another place. I stress that the Government want to be able to talk to all the parties about the form of any future government in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised two other points, the first of which concerned horses. I am afraid I am only able to tell him that we are considering the Queen's University report. The financial and legislative issues involved are complex even for Northern Ireland, which is saying quite a lot. We must scrutinise the report further and it will be some time before we can give any final comment.
The noble Lord also mentioned forestry. I think he was concerned at the absence of young plants for broad-leaved planting. He also mentioned required density. Perhaps I may write to him on that particular point.
The noble Lord spoke of the Crescent Arts Centre. As he knows, the arts centre occupies premises which are owned by the Department of the Environment in the Lower Crescent, Belfast. I understand that the property is not yet on the market but it is likely to be so in the next few months. The building is in need of extensive repair—so much so that it is a fire risk and a safety hazard for the occupants. The department, which has to take steps to protect itself from future liability and also to eliminate any prospect of injury or death to users, advised the arts centre in December of last year of the safety hazard and of the fact that it would have to leave the premises immediately. Since the arts centre has not been able to comply with the request of the department, it had no option other than to commence court proceedings. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that £30,000 would cover the complete rewiring of the building, which is the alleged safety hazard? Will he accept that the arts centre is prepared to raise that amount voluntarily if given permission?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I should have been aware of the figure mentioned by the noble Lord but I was not. I shall take on board what he has said and if we can help him, I shall write to him on that particular point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, had a comment to make on that?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, concerning the Crescent Arts Centre, the Minister may like to know that I have written to his colleague, Mr. Needham, with a copy to Dr. Mawhinney, and I hope that between the department, the Belfast City Council and the Arts Council a solution for the continuity of the centre in its present building can be worked out.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always, we live in hope. I shall look forward to seeing a copy of the noble Lord's letter. I have not yet seen it but I shall endeavour to read everything that he has said.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, mentioned the question of Queen's University,

1237
Belfast and the problems of funding which affect all universities and centres of learning. Universities all over the United Kingdom are subject to the Government's aim of reducing public expenditure. Universities in Northern Ireland will be part of that syndrome. However, Queen's University, being an autonomous institution, is quite well able to match the resource provision which we provide. The noble Lord will be aware that such problems have been faced by a number of institutions in Great Britain. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that no university in Great Britain will be allowed to close as a result of the University Grants Committee changes in funding. I think it is equally unthinkable that a university in Northern Ireland would have to close. However, as the noble Lord has pointed out, its priorities and budget might have to change.
I am afraid that I have taxed your Lordships' patience. I hope that I have replied to all the queries. I note that I have some letters to write. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
8.45 p.m.
Lord LyeIl Lord LyeIl rose to move, That the draft Order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this evening I shall be dealing with two orders, which taken together form a package of reforms. This one deals with the registration of private clubs in Northern Ireland to permit them to supply alcohol to members. The second order deals with the licensing of premises such as public houses and hotels.
This draft order repeals the existing Northern Ireland law which is contained in the Registration of Clubs Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. It consolidates some of the existing law but adds many new provisions. It has its roots in the report of the Blackburn Committee, which made many recommendations for improving the law. Most of these are accepted by the Government and are in the draft order which is now before the House.
One of the significant changes of drinking habits in Northern Ireland in recent years has been a shift of trade away from public houses to off-licences and particularly to registered clubs. The number of clubs has grown dramatically. The total is now over 600, compared with under 400 in 1975. That in itself may be no cause for concern. People are entitled to be members of private societies and share their interests over a drink with friends. However, the supply of alcohol by these clubs has grown out of all proportion to the increase of the number of the clubs or of their membership. It is only too clear that some of them exist mainly to supply drink to all and sundry and are both abusing and evading the existing laws.
A second and more specifically Northern Ireland problem is that there is undeniable involvement by paramilitary organisations in the affairs of a small proportion of the registered clubs. It is essential to take strong measures to cut off any of the sources of
1238
finance for these criminal elements. Let me emphasise, however, that most of the clubs in Northern Ireland are law-abiding, respectable, responsible and free from any taint of criminal involvement. Unfortunately, we cannot make one set of laws for them and another for the more doubtful organisations. I am confident that the law-abiding clubs will accept possibly reluctantly the more stringent rules for registration and renewal. But they will also accept and understand that they are necessary for a well ordered society.
I now turn to the contents of the order. Part I is introductory and formal. Part II deals with the registration of clubs for the first time. Article 4 and Schedule I describe the general requirements for registration. They also ensure that the courts must take account of any arrangements which restrict a club's freedom in purchasing of alcohol and of any provision in its rules by which it can spend money except for its own benefit or for charitable purposes.
Article 6 and Schedule 2 deal with the grant of registration and the issue of a certificate of registration. They introduce a two-tier registration system, as is already used for the licensing laws. The county court will deal with the first grant of registration and the magistrate's court with renewal applications. At present the lower courts deal with both initial grants and renewals. A very important provision is that in future a club intending to apply for its first registration must give the court notice two years in advance and must copy that notice to the police and the appropriate district council. The purpose of this is to ensure the court can satisfy itself that clubs can exist without having to rely on income from the supply of a drink. Applicants will also have to give the court more information than at present and in addition to copy it to the police and the district council.
Article 6 also lists the grounds on which the courts must refuse the application for grant of registration and it contains the grounds on which a court may turn down an application. Your Lordships will find that on page 8 in paragraphs 5 and 6, "A court shall" and "A court may refuse" et cetera. These two provisions relate to the conduct of the club, the nature of its clientele, the fitness of the persons holding office in the club and whether it has been convicted of an offence under the order.
Turning to Article 8 on page 10, this deals with the renewal of registrations. The procedure which goes with Article 8 is set out in Schedule 3. Article 8 and Schedule 3 will place equally stringent requirements on existing clubs to maintain their registration status. In particular the court must satisfy itself that the club is being conducted in good faith as a club and not mainly for the supply of drink. Renewal may be refused on grounds similar to those applied at registration stage.
Part III of the order, covering Articles 20 to 26, provides for the hours during which clubs may supply drink. In future the clubs will have the same hours as licensed premises. This means that they will lose about four hours each week from their total permitted hours.
Part IV of the order relates to the conduct of registered clubs. Article 28 provides that drink can be

1239
supplied only to a member or his guest or an employee of the club. Anyone else found drinking in the club will be guilty of an offence under Article 29 and could be fined up to £1,000. I think your Lordships will agree that that could make the offender teetotal for a good period of the future!
Article 30 in Part IV is intended to restrain the increasing practice of clubs running in what are virtually commercial enterprises. Examples which we find and which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will be aware of are dances or discos attended by members of the public and are blatantly and openly advertised. This goes far beyond the spirit of the clubs law. The article therefore prohibits holding functions in club premises unless they are for the benefit of the club as a whole and controlled and run by it. These functions must relate clearly to the objects of the club and must be run exclusively for the club members and their guests. Exceptions may be made for functions in support of charity or private functions for the benefit of members.
The Government are very concerned about drinking by young people. They are therefore strengthening the clubs law to bring it in line with the provisions applied to licensed premises. Articles 32 and 33 contain the relevant provisions which largely repeat current restrictions on young people in clubs. The proposal went further by excluding minors from the bar areas of clubs, as Blackburn recommended. However, sporting clubs and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland pointed out that this ban could seriously restrict the involvement of minors in sport. Some sporting clubs would have been faced with the difficulty of either banning them completely from their premises or carrying out expensive and complicated structural alterations to segregate the drinking area. Because of these representations and the value of involving the young people in sport, the order provides that those under 18 years old will be allowed in the bar area of a sporting club until 7 p.m. This I emphasise, will apply only to sporting clubs and it most certainly does not mean that young people will be able to drink alcohol. Any club which supplies it to youngsters or allows them to drink on their premises will be liable to heavy penalties.
Police powers are being extended to enable them to enforce the new laws. Article 37 contains very significant changes to police rights of inspection and rights of entry into registered clubs. The Government are determined in particular to strengthen the hand of the police in investigating club accounts, including the right to inspect books or documents on the club premises and to take them away to make copies or extracts. The police have been consulted about these provisions and will be greatly assisted by them in investigating the affairs of clubs and in particular where their money goes and whether it is being put to legitimate uses.
Part V contains various miscellaneous provisions. Article 41 requires clubs to keep proper books of accounts and maintain a satisfactory system of control of accounts, cash, receipts and payments, and to send the accounts to the police promptly. The remaining provisions deal with such items as proceedings against clubs, proof of consumption of
1240
intoxicating liquor, appeals, amendments, transitional and savings provisions and repeals.
As I explained at the outset, there are two main reasons for tightening controls. The first was the growth in drinking clubs, and this is countered by the stricter checks at both registration and renewal stage. The second was the risk of paramilitary exploitation, and this is countered by those additional checks and by the strengthening of police powers.
I stress again that the vast majority of clubs in Northern Ireland are orderly, well conducted and operated entirely within the law. It is unfortunate that there is another element that requires this strengthening of the law. I also stress that these opening remarks cover only half the overall package of reform. I hope that your Lordships will accept that together with the licensing order, which I shall be introducing in a few moments, we shall try to bring about sensible codification of the law. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
9 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having described the background to this important order and for explaining many of the provisions, some of which are without parallel in Britain, certainly in England and Wales.
Nevertheless, for the reasons advanced by the Minister we support its main thrust. I have two or three questions for him which I trust he will be able to answer tonight or perhaps later in a letter. It will now be very difficult in Northern Ireland to register a new club for the supply of intoxicants. That is one of the two main objectives of the order. The applicant will have to overcome a number of obstacles before he can be successful with his application.
By virtue of the order the court may refuse an application if it is satisfied that the chairman, the secretary, an officer or a member of the management committee is not a fit person to hold office. That provision has no parallel in the law of England and Wales to the best of my knowledge. Bearing in mind that the presence of a single unfit committee member can lead to the refusal of the application, that is a sweeping veto.
Will the Minister tell the House on whom the onus of proof falls. If one applies the well known principle of natural justice the onus should fall on the objector. As far as I can see this principle is not reversed by the order. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
The second main objective of the order is to submit the club accounts to close scrutiny. Again this is a new power not applicable in England and Wales. We are told that the club accounts are to be audited annually by a person described in the order as being a qualified accountant. Who is a qualified accountant for the purpose of this order? Does it suffice if he holds a diploma, a degree or has relevant experience in accountancy, does he have to be a professionally qualified accountant? I welcome the Minister's guidance.
The integrity of the qualified accountant is of primary importance. Should the order not have

1241
provided for the audit to be conducted by an accountant independent of and not a member of the club? Possibly the failure of the order to insist upon his independence, particularly if he is not to be a professionally qualified accountant, may be a weakness.
A copy of the audited accounts has to be delivered to the police who will proceed to examine them. That must be right, but one wonders why the order does not require the club to send a copy of the audited accounts to every club member, or at least provide that a copy should be made available to every club member. The club members in general meeting can be a powerful shield against the abuse of power by officials and a committee. It is a basic theory of club law that the club is accountable to its members and the members in general meeting are ultimately answerable for the club. Therefore, should it not be a requirement of the law of Northern Ireland that the audited accounts should be delivered or made available to a member on demand unless, of course, that provision is embedded somewhere within the order?
There is one other point in connection with the accounts, although it does not arise either directly or indirectly out of this order. I have been told that there is in existence within the department, or possibly elsewhere, an independent accounting scrutiny division with the necessary skills and experience to examine and scrutinise club accounts but that it is shortly to be dismantled. Is that right? If so, then without some convincing explanation that appears to be an odd development; but possibly that is an unfounded rumour.
At the end of this long day I have one final, brief question for the Minister. Under Article 37 the police are given wide powers to enter and inspect premises and documents and to remove documents from club premises. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether it is contemplated that inspection by a constable in the RUC will take place as a matter of routine and without warrant during the currency of the registration certificate? I am not concerned about the inspection of the premises in connection with the application for registration or renewal of the registration, but I am concerned about the position during the currency of the registration.
I have no further questions for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. It is our earnest hope that the order will meet and overcome the difficulties which the noble Lord outlined in his speech.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As always, I am intrigued to know why these rules are to apply specifically to Northern Ireland, but the Minister has mentioned the terrorist problem.
I propose to say little. I am fascinated by the rules covering the supply of intoxicating liquor in so-called nightworkers clubs. This is referred to at pages 6 and 7. The order states that these hours shall:
"(a) not exceed the total of—

(i) on week days, other than Good Friday or Christmas Day, 11½

(ii) on Good Friday, 6;

(iii) on Sunday (not being Christmas Day), 5;

(iv) on Christmas Day, 9½",

1242
and so on. That seems highly complex but in general I see no reason to oppose the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who for the second night running when I have been here has attended our debates. I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful that she has taken the trouble to attend because Tuesday was quite a long night and I recall support from the noble Baroness and her colleague. I am very grateful that she came.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, listened to my tale of what might happen and the drinking habits that are endemic in Northern Ireland. I hasten to add to your Lordships that any alcohol that I have taken, apart from one small tot, has been legitimate and I have no knowledge of these bad institutions or clubs about which I have spoken. 1 have first-hand knowledge only of the good clubs and I do not think they will find these regulations and articles unduly onerous.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was good enough to give me some indication of his queries. The first concerned the onus of proof that a member is not a fit person to be a member of the club or of its committee.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I think the point is that unless the court is satisfied that he is a fit person then the registration certificate will not be issued.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to refer to Schedule 2, paragraph 3. He will note that,
"any person owning, or residing or carrying on business in, premises in the vicinity of the premises of the club for which the registration is sought shall be entitled to appear at the hearing of the application and to object to the grant of registration of the club on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 6(5) and (6)".
The noble Lord will see that both give grounds for what the court shall refuse in an application and what the court may refuse in an application. The onus of proof is upon those who object to the grant of the certificate. Under paragraph 3 this can be the police, the district council or indeed any person who might have a legitimate, not frivolous, grievance. They can object to the particular club being opened.
The noble Lord asked about the termination of the department's role in the scrutiny of any club accounts. Under the order the club accounts will go to the police—that is dealt with in Article 41—as well as the district council. A copy will also be sent to the clerk of the petty sessions who is the responsible authority for renewing the registrations. These bodies have the right to object to club registrations. Any scrutiny involvement by the department is no longer necessary. That is coupled with the noble Lord's other query as to who may audit the accounts.
Article 2 on page 5 defines a "qualified accountant". I have forborne to bring the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to the House because it goes way beyond 397 articles. We maintain that a qualified accountant is someone who is a member of a professional body of accountants. There is nothing in the order which precludes an accountant being a member of the management committee. An accountant is a professional person and we would rely on

1243
him. The police, the district council and the clerk of the petty sessions would be able to rely on his professional integrity and on him acting independently of the club. I hope that Article 41 will not cause any major difficulties.
The noble Lord asked about Article 37. I do not believe that there will be a major difficulty over it. I do not think policemen will turn up at extraordinary hours to victimise or irritate club members by asking for books of account. In most cases the accounts will be kept in a reasonable way. The provisions of Article 37 are a longstop. I hope they will only be used in the few cases to which I referred in my opening.
The noble Lord asked about sending audited accounts to club members. I have scurried through Article 41 and sundry other schedules, and I do not think that that will be necessary. It is a matter for the club's internal management, because the club exists primarily for the benefit of its members.
We are grateful for the study made of the order by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I was interested in nightworkers clubs. The advice that I was given was that the only nightworkers club, as set out in Article 5, known to any officials in my department, is one which caters for bakers who work long hours during the night. I understand that there may be such an institution which is classified as a nightworkers club. I cannot explain why there should be six hours' drinking on Good Friday or nine and a half hours on Christmas Day. In my opening remarks I said that with this order we were bringing the permitted hours for the consumption of alcohol into line with those applying to licensed premises. Article 5(3) states:
"The rules of the club shall prohibit the admission of guests of members to, or their presence in, the club primises between the hours of midnight and 10 in the morning next following."
If the noble Lord was thinking of visiting Northern Ireland to sample alcohol during the night he should perhaps take some advice, because I do not think that he will be able to make use of that loophole. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his interest in the matter. If I find any further information on nightworkers clubs I shall write to him. I think that I have said enough on this order, and I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
9.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: The order amends existing liquour licensing legislation contained in the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. This is the second part of the package of reforms and is equally as important as the order with which we dealt a few seconds ago. I have already explained the difficulties of the licensing laws and how clubs have mushroomed at the expense of public houses. There is a balance to be struck between public houses and clubs. The order is based, by and large, on the Blackburn Report which endorsed the structure of the existing licensing law but proposed limited changes aimed at improving and strengthening the licensing system, as well as some relaxations,
1244
including Sunday and late-night drinking and the range of premises that can be licensed.
I should like to deal first with Sunday opening. The existing law on that subject is unsatisfactory. I am being polite, as I should want to be in your Lordships' House. It is also virtually unenforceable. Hotels and restaurants are permitted to sell drink on Sunday provided that the drink is ancillary to a main table meal. I shall not take your Lordships down the thorny path of what is a main table meal. Even if we settle that question, there is then the problem of detecting when the law is being broken because the law allows drink to be sold before, during or after the meal. Which enforcing authority would be able to say whether the person drinking has had a meal or whether the intention to have a meal is merely in his mind as he settles into alcoholic beverage?
That does not do much for the licensing law in Northern Ireland, but it is patently out of touch with what happens in Northern Ireland on Sundays. The fact that drink can be obtained on Sundays in Northern Ireland in various ways is evident. Some methods of obtaining drink are legal and others illegal. There are many people who belong to clubs and, as I set out earlier, clubs have mushroomed in number by 50 per cent. in 12 years. The members can drink legitimately in these clubs. Many other people in Northern Ireland go to hotels and restaurants on Sunday. However, the law is widely breached. Hotels often sell drink without meals. I also understand that in some parts of the country pubs quietly open their doors. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that that has not occurred in front of me. However, I accept that the law is in disrepute and that it should not remain as it is.
As noble Lords, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will understand, there are conflicting views as to what the remedy should be. Some in Northern Ireland say that all outlets should be closed on Sundays. However, I think that they and many noble Lords will agree that that is not practicable and would create even greater problems for the police. Some surveys have been taken. They show a distinct trend favouring the liberalisation of the licensing law and that opinion on this subject is now fairly evenly divided. In the light of this trend the only sensible answer is to allow pubs to open on Sundays for the same hours as hotels, restaurants and clubs. The new law that we shall be moving and considering this evening is more in line with what is happening, not only in Northern Ireland, but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it will be easier for the police to enforce, and we shall certanly look to the police to enforce this law.
Of course, it is natural that some people in Northern Ireland have expressed fears that opening the pubs on Sunday will lead to increased drinking. We have to view this in the context both of the reforms contained in this order and the earlier Registration of Clubs Order. Not all the pubs in Northern Ireland will open because publicans will have the choice. Clubs will also lose four hours a week. These extraordinary institutions that I am advised are called "Bring-a-bottle" clubs, which allow very late drinking, will be closed. Therefore the effect of Sunday opening of pubs on overall availability of alcohol is likely to be small.
I mentioned a survey in Northern Ireland. Surveys have been carried out in Scotland on the changes in the licensing laws there in 1976. They included the Sunday opening of pubs. The surveys show that these changes had not directly led to increased drinking, adverse health effects, more alcohol related crime, or more drunken driving. I hope that the changes set out in the order before us this evening will lead to better quality pubs and perhaps, as has been the experience in Scotland, will encourage a move from clubs to pubs.
Perhaps I may go briefly through the main provisions of the order. Article 3 bans the "Bring-a-bottle" club which is outside both the licensing and clubs law. They tend to be open until fairly late—three or four in the morning. Many young people flock to them. These institutions cause law and order problems and the Government have decided that the only answer is to ban them.
Article 4 makes some minor additions to the ancillary items that can be sold in off-licences and pubs. These include crisps, lighters, corkscrews and some fascinating edible snacks known in Northern Ireland as pork scratchings. I am not able to bring any this evening: it would be against the rules of order. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, is beaming; he clearly knows what I am talking about.
Article 5 makes changes in the application procedure for licences. Under Article 5 a publican will be allowed to decide whether or not to open on Sunday and will be able to obtain a direction from the court accordingly.
Article 6 allows a court to grant up to 13 occasional licences on one application. At present the licensee has to make a separate application for each time he wishes to open and have a special licence. The new provision in Article 6 is to help bodies such as the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society. I am delighted to bring this provision forward tonight. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will agree with me. This excellent society runs a large number of exhibitions. We think that Article 6 will reduce the work of the courts and save both the licensee's and the court's time.
Article 7 refers to extension licences which enable a licensee to sell drink at certain functions held after the normal permitted hours. An important change here is that these licences will now stop at 1 a.m. instead of at 1.30 a.m. as at present. Also the extension licences will only be granted for premises that a court regards as suitable for functions.
Article 8 provides for the rules for Sunday opening. The permitted hours on Sundays will be from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Further, no off-sales will be allowed either for pubs, hotels or off-licences on that day. Neither pubs nor hotels will be required to sell meals as a condition of serving alcoholic drinks. However, the meal and other conditions will continue to apply to licensed restaurants, as they do on week days.
Article 9(1), on page 14, amends the provisions of the 1971 master Act relating to alternative hours for off-sales. The Government are concerned about the growing problem of late night drinking in public places, especially by young people. We have received
1246
many complaints on this subject, and clearly part of the problem is that young people can obtain their drink from off-licensed shops as late as 11 o'clock at night. The effect of the amendment is to allow off-sales shops to open only from 9.30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Article 9(2) amends Section 45 of the 1971 Act, and will put pubs on the same footing as hotels and restaurants when applying for additional hours orders, provided that they meet the required standards. Again, this should improve the quality of pubs. The additional hours will end at 1 a.m. instead of 1.30 a.m. as at present.
Article 10 bans young people under 18 from off-licensed premises, except when with a parent. This will be generally welcomed. Article 11 provides the new right of entry and inspection by the police, something akin to Article 37 of the previous order. Articles 12 and 13 deal with amendments to the 1971 Act. Article 13(6) brings ballrooms and horse or dog racing tracks within the range of facilities which can apply for licences. Article 14 deals with the maximum penalties for a number of offences, in particular those relating to young persons.
That concludes the detailed description of the provisions of the order. I am grateful for your Lordships' patience. The order is the second part of the major licensing reforms. I hope that the changes in this order, including Sunday opening, together with the new controls on clubs, will represent a sensible package of reform which will command widespread support in the community and, far more important, be capable of enforcement and will in fact be enforced. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again we thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining the order and showing that it involves an issue of principle as well as law enforcement. I propose to be brief, but I want to say a word or two about the main issue of principle, the extension for the first time since 1923 of the permitted hours to enable a public house, at the option of the publican, to open on Sundays.
This amendment has been warmly welcomed by the licensed trade and others. At long last they see that the public house will enjoy equality of facilities on a Sunday with the licensed hotels, restaurants and registered clubs. On the other hand—and this has been acknowledged by the Minister—the extension has been opposed by a significant number of people who believe it wrong in principle to allow intoxicants to be sold and consumed in a public house on Sundays.
Knowing a little about the Welsh legislation on Sunday opening and about the Welsh experience, I believe that there is at least a case for the legislation on Sunday opening in Northern Ireland to be of an enabling character, leaving the issue to be determined locally on a district basis by a referendum. It has been suggested that it would be difficult to formulate the correct question, but this difficulty has not been experienced in Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate what were the considerations which led the Government to reject the local referendum solution.

1247
Others are much concerned that the relaxation of licensing hours may lead to an increase in alcohol-related health risks. The Minister has been reassuring on that point, resting his case on the experience of Scotland. But I noticed that when the draft order was circulated for discussion it was then indicated that the effect of the order would be closely monitored by the Department of Health. I do not think that the Minister referred to this commitment in the course of his speech. Is he in a position to tell the House how, and by whom, the monitoring will be undertaken? With those few questions, we are pleased to give this order our support.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, again, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this order, although my honourable friends voted against it in the other place. I shall of course not suggest such a course here, but perhaps I may be allowed just to say why they did so. It had nothing to do with drinking laws in the Province but with the fact that the suggested proposals are purely unacceptable to many people, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, and the order has been, as has been said, rammed through.
I earlier tonight pointed to some of the weaknesses in the use of Orders in Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, also mentioned this. My colleagues in the other place made a formal protest. The position is not satisfactory, but alternatives are hard to see at present. Probably the best would be the setting up of a special Northern Ireland committee which could do greater justice to complicated legislation. There would be much greater incentive to effort if amendment were possible.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining this order with such clarity. Having said that, I hope he will accept that no personal criticism whatsoever is intended when I say that while, as a libertarian and strong believer in the maximum degree of individual liberty and choice, I warmly welcome the liberalisation of the licensing laws in Northern Ireland, as a believer in equal democratic rights and equal democratic procedures applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom I have to deplore the manner in which it is being brought about.
A few months ago the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery—whom I am glad to see in his place this evening—introduced a much more modest and incidentally much less controversial measure slightly to extend the hours during which drinks could be obtained in restaurants in England and Wales—a measure which, naturally, I wholeheartedly supported. We had a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading, all on separate days and well spaced out to give plenty of time for reflection and consultation.
Amendments were proposed, some were withdrawn for reconsideration, some were resubmitted, some were passed and some were rejected. All this is as it should be, and we are all aware of the highly satisfactory outcome. Incidentally, I doubt whether the covers would be on
1248
the television cameras if we were debating a major reform of the licensing laws in England and Wales, however late in the evening it might be.
I suppose there is a faint ray of hope in what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said when replying in our debate on the first order to the characteristically low-key criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and to the slightly more forthright ones made by the noble Lord, Lord Moyola. I do not suppose that anything I say is likely to make much difference: however, I should like to put on record the fact that I think it is wrong that major changes in the law in Northern Ireland—many, rightly or wrongly, controversial within the Province—should be rushed through both Houses of Parliament, almost invariably late in the evening.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, this is the first time that I have intervened in a matter concerning Northern Ireland and I do so for two reasons. First, as my noble friend knows, for several years I have been campaigning for reform in the licensing laws and in my humble belief this forms part of that general reform. The second reason is hereditary in as much as my great great great grandfather, Samuel Montgomery, a direct ancestor, was a wine merchant in Londonderry in the 18th century. I may say that he prospered in that profession.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his kind remarks about our efforts in connection with licensing reform in restaurants, but I take issue with him on the second part of his remarks, and likewise with those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
1 congratulate my noble friend on his initiative. In reading the orders, and in listening to what was said by my noble friend, it seems to me that there has been widespread abuse of the licensing laws in respect of clubs and that that needs to be rectified. There has also been widespread abuse of the existing laws in respect of public houses, inasmuch as the law is being flouted. It is commendable that Sunday drinking should be legalised and permitted in this way. If the law is in disrepute it needs to be altered.
However, the law is in disrepute in connection with many facets of Sunday activities which we have debated at great length in this House. Our efforts were frustrated in another place but it is to be hoped that in another Session of Parliament we shall return to the matter; it is not for this evening.
The matter that we are considering this evening allows public houses in Northern Ireland to operate on the same basis as hotels and restaurants. It is a desirable and sensible measure. It is setting a good example and I think that my noble friend has been right to introduce the measure in this way. I agree with what he has said and I hope that the order will be agreed by your Lordships.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have had a brief debate on the second Northern Ireland order. I am immensely grateful for what has been said and for your Lordships' patience because this order is more complicated than the clubs order.

1249
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, expressed concern about two interconnected matters. The Government consider important the monitoring of the effects of any proposed change in licensing laws in Northern Ireland. I stress to the noble Lord that this monitoring will be carried out by a system of surveys commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Services. The department will look at drinking matters, drinking behaviour, late night drinking and so on, both before and after the new laws take effect. I hope that that survey will be on the same lines as that which was carried out in Scotland after we—I speak as a Scot—attempted to liberalise our drinking hours. I am not too sure about the behaviour; I shall leave that matter to your Lordships. However, we shall be conducting a survey before and after the new laws come into effect.
The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of a local referendum. We felt that there should not be a local referendum on this issue, first, because the cost of a referendum on a district council basis throughout Northern Ireland would be well over £ 1 million. Secondly, local polls would result in some interesting anomalies, such as occurred in Scotland and of course also in the United States, because local polls would result in "wet" and "dry" areas. I do not think 1 need spell out to your Lordships that the result would be that everything on two wheels would be moving across the boundaries between such areas. In the United States they have what they call "brown bagging". Anybody who has seen cyclists on the roads in Northern Ireland will realise that we can do without the additional problem of people carrying supplies.
The views of the community have been expressed in surveys. These show that the matters we have discussed in connection with licensing on Sundays divide the community but on a much more equal basis than was the case 10 or 15 years ago. I think the last survey showed about 51 per cent. of those polled thought that Sunday opening should be permitted. The order before us this evening attempted to set those wishes into some form of legislative order—above all, into some order which we think could be enforceable.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as we know, comes from Wales. I am given to understand that Welsh local authorities have permission to hold polls on the question of Sunday opening, that is, every seven years. There must be something in their Bible, but I shall not go into that this evening because it might open up lengthy debate in Northern Ireland and indeed in another place. Incidentally, I am told that you need to have at least 500 electors in the local authority area. The advice I have is that all but two of the 32 Welsh local authorities now have elected to open pubs on Sundays. I shall not tease the noble Lord, but perhaps I may just wonder aloud whether his own local authority is on one side or the other of the divide. Perhaps he will be able to advise me on that afterwards.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, felt there was no question of his honourable friends in another place voting against this order. How could I, or any right-thinking Member of your Lordships' House, believe that his honourable friends in another
1250
place would be against Sunday opening en bloc? I am sure that they took the decision they did for good reasons. Happily, the noble Lord and his colleague, the noble Baroness, will not be causing a problem tonight by drinking or voting—certainly not by voting.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, brought in a ray of hope. I was not quite sure whether he thought the ray of hope was directed to the first of the three speeches I have made this evening or whether it was directed at alcohol abuse in clubs or licensed premises. I hope I have been able to spell out for him that we think it is important that we have had more than a modicum—in fact a great deal—of agreement on the steps proposed to be taken in regard to clubs and licensed premises in Northern Ireland.
As my noble friend Lord Montgomery pointed out, there is a first time for everything, certainly for speaking on Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House but perhaps not for speaking on a matter such as alcoholic consumption. I believe he is currently engaged with a measure of his own and perhaps it will have an easy journey through your Lordships' House. I am very grateful for his support and I commend him for his courage. I am sure that his ancestor, like many others, was proud to be a Derry man, and indeed proud to be a prosperous Derry man. It goes to show that in Northern Ireland everybody is quite able to enjoy alcoholic beverages in a civilised way. We hope that both the orders I have moved this evening will help towards allowing people to consume alcohol reasonably when they want and in a civilised fashion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Waterways Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  CROWN SUPPLIES: STAFF PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  CROWN SUPPLIES: STAFF PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  GOVERNMENT CAR SERVICE AND INTERDEPARTMENTAL DESPATCH SERVICE
  GOVERNMENT CAR SERVICE AND INTERDEPARTMENTAL DESPATCH SERVICE
  WATER AUTHORITIES: PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS
  WATER AUTHORITIES: PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS
  CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS: STATISTICS
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS: STATISTICS
  PRISON DISTURBANCES 1986: REPORT
  PRISON DISTURBANCES 1986: REPORT
  DETENTION CENTERS
  DETENTION CENTERS
  YOUTH CUSTODY: ACCOMMODATION OF OFFENDERS
  YOUTH CUSTODY: ACCOMMODATION OF OFFENDERS
  SHEEP ANNUAL PREMIUM: UNTUPPED SHEARLINGS
  SHEEP ANNUAL PREMIUM: UNTUPPED SHEARLINGS
  NON-ALCOHOLIC DRINKS IN PUBLIC HOUSES: PRICES
  NON-ALCOHOLIC DRINKS IN PUBLIC HOUSES: PRICES