Sitting of 5 December 1988

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

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  Mr. Michael Neubert (The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address 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.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Housing Waiting Lists
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of people on the housing waiting list in (1) Carmarthen district and (2) Wales for 1979 and at the latest available date.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Information on the number of people on housing waiting lists is not held centrally.
    Mr. Williams: Why will the Government not provide us with that information? Are they covering up and deliberately withholding embarrassing information? Does
    2
    the Minister agree with the housing organisations SHAC and Shelter that the estimated number of homeless people in Wales has doubled since 1979, and that more than 6,000 families and single people are now homeless?
    Is the Minister aware that 2,000 people are on the housing waiting list in the Carmarthen district? The Government's policies do not allow the district council to build houses even though it wants to do so. Why are the Government so heartless and irresponsible towards the homeless?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman does the Government an injustice with his first question. The figures are produced by different authorities in different ways and are not comparable. That has been so for a long time. Indeed, local authorities prefer to produce their own figures in their own way.
    During the past two years 61 local authority houses and 398 private houses have been built in the Carmarthen district, compared with 35 and 187 respectively during the last two years of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: What estimates does my hon. Friend have for additional rented accommodation that will come on to the housing market as a result of the new Housing Act?
    Mr. Grist: We expect that a great deal of money will be made available through various means—for example, pension funds, insurance companies, housing associations and others—to expand the private and public rented sectors for socially rented housing.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not daft that no central figures are available so that the Welsh Office can assess the overall need? Will the Minister consider with some humility the figures for Swansea, where more than 4,000 people are on the waiting list—a three-year high—where there has been no new build because of Government policies and where there is a reducing housing stock because of council house sales? Is he aware that increasing numbers of people are falling behind with their mortgage payments and are having their houses repossessed? They look to the council

    3
    to provide them with houses, but it cannot do so. What advice does the Minister give the council in those circumstances?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is new build in his city. His council should find the means to use flexibly the powers that other councils use for new build. It is not true that there has been a fall in the housing stock because of the right to buy? The housing stock remains exactly where it was—it just happens to be owned by people who were previously its tenants. They have a stake in the hon. Gentleman's city that they never had before.

    Nurses (Grading)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the new grading structure for nurses.
    Mr. Grist: I have received 11 letters from Members of Parliament, a trade union, individual nurses, and members of the public.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister acknowledge that, despite the total increase in funding available for the new wage settlement, the Government have made several strategic errors? First, in the pay review, they did not make any allowance for midwives' extra training. Secondly, they influenced health authorities, at least those in Wales, to review their own review of the pay structure. That has resulted in some nurses in the Mid-Glamorgan health authority area receiving altered forms giving their new gradings, and their gradings being reduced because of the cash limit imposed by the Welsh Office? Will the Welsh Office confirm that such an exercise did take place and that Mid-Glamorgan had to reduce the gradings that were offered to many of its nurses?
    Mr. Grist: First, all the demands that were made on the grading structure were met by the Government. There was no cut at all. Every penny was paid that was agreed by the grading structure. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned midwives. Of the midwifery sisters on G grade, 86·7 per cent. have a rise of £1,925 to £3,025, which is rather above that of charge sisters and those with whom they are compared. There has been a slight mistake in thinking that, under the agreements that were reached with the unions, midwives have actually been done down. They have not.
    Sir Raymond Gower: What use has been made of the appeals procedure that was agreed by the various unions at the onset of this matter?
    Mr. Grist: The appeals system has been started. Each health authority is organising it, according to the agreement that was originally reached. I urge all trade unions involved to abide by that, not least because a warning has been given by most health authorities that they will not consider appeals while people are striking and demonstrating. Quite reasonably, most hon. Members would agree.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that severe problems are arising out of the regrading? However the grades were set out, and however fair they might appear, the allocations within grades are creating anomalies. Many people, particularly those on lower grades, have
    4
    received pennies in rises, not the pounds that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Will the Government look at that matter? Will they remember that the appeals procedure is so long-winded that few appeals have been heard in Mid-Glamorgan?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate—I hope that he will pass this on to others—that the appeals procedure should be carried out with good will. There is no intention of doing anybody down. Nobody is being paid pence. Nursing auxiliaries on A grade are getting a rise of between £435 and £445 a year. That is the very bottom level. Many nurses and staff have been somewhat misled about what to expect and about what they will receive in their pay packets any day now.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of nurses are getting substantial rises, many well in excess of £1,000 a year? Would not almost every profession in the public service regard such rises as very generous?
    Mr. Grist: The rises are not merely remarkable—rises of 45 per cent. in real terms, on average, since the Government came to power—but they compare quite astoundingly with the 20 per cent. real fall in value under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Michael: The figures sound nice, but, as the Minister has given such inadequate answers to hon. Members, will he answer a nurse who has written to me? She asks:
    "Where is the 18 per cent. rise the nurses are supposed to have had? As one of the NHS nurses I can assure you I have had 4 per cent. along with the majority in Cardiff royal infirmary."
    She goes on:
    "We feel that Maggie Thatcher or the south Glamorgan health authority"—
    [Interruption.] She went on to state that she felt that the Prime Minister
    "or the south Glamorgan health authority has trampled on the nursing profession yet again."
    We know who is trampling on the nurses. Will the Minister answer her?
    Mr. Grist: I am happy to congratulate my neighbour on his new position, but I cannot congratulate him on his question. Even if his correspondent were to have received the 4·2 per cent. rise, she would have had a rise of about £500 a year. She would have been at the top of her grade. The lady who wrote to the hon. Gentleman should wait until she gets the next pay settlement. Perhaps she will be surprised.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to provide housing for local people in rural Wales.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced an increase to £1 million in the funds available to local authorities in rural areas with a high concentration of second homes to purchase homes for sale or rent to local people. Housing for Wales will devote a substantial proportion of its development programme to rural areas, as the Housing Corporation has already done in Wales.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister acknowledge that £1 million is wholly inadequate to tackle the problem, but merely acknowledges that there is a problem? It will provide only 50 houses at £20,000 each, and it is impossible to find a house at that price in rural Wales. It is impossible for local people either to buy or rent them. Does the Minister agree that there should be a crash programme of building of affordable housing for first-time buyers and for those in the rented sector? In the Brecknock area 1,000 people are on the housing list, and in Crickhowell alone there are 100. Urgent action is needed. Will the Minister join me in calling for a housing forum in rural Wales next summer, and will he come to it?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one aspect that he might like to explore further, and that is that his local authority should be more flexible and adventurous in the use of its powers. I was disappointed the other day when his planning officer made it clear that the authority seemed to have underestimated the powers which the various Acts had given him. If the local authority used the money available, mixed it with private money and worked with Housing for Wales, it could provide many more houses for rent than it may appreciate.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When representatives of Pembroke council come to see my hon. Friend, will he bear in mind proposals for a rural housing initiative, similar to that already introduced for the Valleys by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales? Will he point out to rural authorities that in many cases their restrictive planning policies are stopping derelict buildings from being brought back into use because of the conditions that they impose on those who occupy such buildings?
    Mr. Grist: I hope that that will not be the case, but I agree that we would be sympathetic to an approach from any local authority that wishes to be designated under this scheme.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Minister join me in condemning all forms of violent action allegedly on the issue of housing problems in Wales? Will he consider the need for a concerted housing policy which takes account of the needs both of those who wish to purchase property and those who wish to rent it? Does he realise that his Department, by failing to have an integrated policy, is contributing to the housing crisis? Will he look to England, where the work of the rural development organisations with the housing associations has produced a much more coherent policy than has the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Grist: Housing for Wales understands—as the Housing Corporation before it did—the differences between Wales and England, in that 25 per cent. of the funding was invested in rural areas of Wales as opposed to England, so England has a long way to go to catch up with our record on that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the stupid but mainly criminal activities of certain individuals or groups. They do immense damage to the good name of Wales, they harm the cause which their perpetrators purport to support and they are wholly foreign to the peaceable welcoming attitude of most Welsh people. I am glad to have his support.
    Mr. Raffan: In order to increase the supply of start-up homes for local people in Wales, will my hon. Friend discuss with housing associations the introduction of a
    6
    building and selling at cost policy, provided that land can be made available at a reasonable price? Is he aware that under such a policy the difference between the cost and market value of a property, if sold on to an outsider, can be retained by the housing association to generate yet more low-cost housing?
    Mr. Grist: Entry into low-cost home ownership through such flexible methods is exactly what we seek to encourage, and Housing for Wales will be taking a similar line. We hope that local authorities will join in this programme.

    Local Authority Associations
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of local authority associations in Wales; and what topics were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I met representatives of the Welsh Counties Committee and the Committee of Welsh District Councils at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 24 October. The main topics discussed were the provision of Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1989–90, the 1988 report of the grant distribution sub-group, the Rate Support Grants Act 1988, provision for community charge preparation costs, and the consultation paper on capital expenditure and finance.
    Mr. Murphy: Why will the Secretary of State not listen to district councils in Wales, which have told him that his capital allocations for the implementation of the poll tax fall well short, by many millions of pounds, of the amount required and which are, in any event, loans, the repayment of which will place a great burden on future community tax payers in Wales? Does the Secretary of State not realise that the money would be better spent on reducing housing waiting lists, improving school building and helping to improve road systems? When will he admit that the poll tax is an imposition on the people of Wales and is deeply resented by all who live there?
    Mr. Walker: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and wish him a long and happy life there. He mentioned the allowances for the poll tax. In fairness, if he speaks to the district councils, they will inform him that when they put forward their original proposals on revenue I not only listened to them but pointed out that I thought that they had not requested enough. They applied for more because they had made a mistake in their calculations, which I pointed out. No one could accuse me of not listening. I not only listened, but told them how they should change their applications. The capital assumptions will be reasonable. The total per head allocation in Wales compares favourably with what is being provided in England. I can understand differences of opinion on the poll tax, but the hon. Gentleman will find that many people in his constituency and elsewhere will be considerable beneficiaries from the change.
    Mr. Morgan: What is the right question to produce the now standard Cabinet answer that Cardiff, like Edinburgh, is a flourishing city? In seeking to find out which question will produce that non-sequitur, I shall ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks that the

    7
    Chancellor's high interest rate policy will have a devastating effect on the efforts of local authorities in Wales to bring in industrial development.
    Mr. Walker: The effect will be nowhere near as adverse as it would be if we returned to the level of inflation under the last Labour Government.

    Roads (Expenditure)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Expenditure on the improvement and maintenance of trunk roads and motorways since 1979 exceeds £1 billion. In addition, over £290 million has been provided to Welsh local authorities as transport supplementary grant for improvement of their roads. Twenty-two miles of motorway and 112 miles of trunk road have been provided.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend expect that expenditure will remain at a high level during the coming year? Does he expect many new contracts to be let during that year?
    Mr. Roberts: We expect expenditure on roads to remain at a high level. Twenty two miles of trunk road are under construction at an estimated cost of £290 million. We expect to let a contract for one scheme costing over £10 million before the end of the current financial year.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister give a guarantee that the M4 will be completed by 1992?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is aware that one section of the M4 to which we have yet to attend—the stretch between Baglan and Lonlas—will be attended to as soon as possible. We shall probably put the contract out in sections, starting next year.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the Government's massive investment in the A55 to be cost effective, adequate access or link roads to the expressway must be constructed? Does he agree that such roads are top priority, and will he do his utmost to impress that point on Clwyd county council?
    Mr. Roberts: I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend is making and of his interest in the connecting roads in Clwyd. We are discussing road programmes with Clwyd county council and I shall ensure that his point is borne in mind.

    Sheepmeat
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit Brussels to help secure the future of the European sheepmeat regime.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am well aware of the importance of sheep production to the rural economy and, in particular, to the hill and upland areas of Wales. I intend to play an active part in assisting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the important negotiations on the review of the sheepmeat regime.
    Mr. Howells: Is it not regrettable that the Government will not allow our Secretary of State, who has full responsibility for agriculture in the Community, to go to Brussels? However, there is one ray of hope—I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of this—in that the French sheep breeders have at last seen sense and are keen to introduce a sheepmeat regime, similar to ours, in France. As the Secretary of State is responsible for our present sheepmeat regime, will he now go to Brussels to talk to the French and others to safeguard the present scheme?
    Mr. Walker: I should be perfectly happy to go to Brussels and, indeed, may well go to Brussels—there is no difficulty about my going there. As a tolerably old hand at negotiations in Brussels, I advise the hon. Gentleman that there are considerable advantages in having one negotiator rather than two. However, there are also advantages—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods agrees with this—in my being present and if for certain talks and negotiations in Brussels he would like me to be there, I shall certainly be there.
    The position of French sheepmeat producers has changed from time to time over the years, but that of the French Government has not changed. So far in negotiations there is not much sign that the French Government are changing their view. What is vital is that a scheme emerges that will ensure that, if anything, we get better access to the European market for our sheep production; that there is no discrimination against United Kingdom producers; that the income, especially of sheep producers in the hill areas, is maintained at a sensible level so that they remain viable, and that any transitional changes will not create difficulties during the transition.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the present sheepmeat regime will do nothing to meet the estimated £200 million that will be lost to Welsh farmers this year as a result of the current high interest rates? Given the Secretary of State's reported speech to the Carlton club, when he referred to the Chancellor as "incompetent" because of the impact of high interest rates on industry, and if the Secretary of State is to represent the true interests of the people of Wales, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he has any honourable course of action other than resignation?
    Mr. Walker: While I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will ever gain admission to the Carlton club, had he done so, and listened to my speech, he would have found that the version of my speech that appeared in The Observer was totally an invention of The Observer.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the wide publicity that yesterday's press gave to his criticisms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We agree with him in that. In relation to sheepmeat, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh farming fraternity want to see him in Brussels more often, standing his corner, fighting hard and being on guard against opportunistic continental farmers?
    May I ask him, as our Agriculture Minister, what advice he is giving to the people of Wales on eggs and salmonella? Does he agree that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), should be relieved of her office following her

    9
    careless remarks at the weekend? Is the Department of Health not worried and is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not rather complacent?
    Mr. Walker: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that we are all relieved that at long last the Labour party has a Welsh spokesman in the shadow Cabinet.
    I should like to thank him also for his kind and generous remarks, which have given me great confidence in my negotiating skills when I go to Brussels. I am glad that the view of the Welsh farmers is that I would negotiate well on their behalf, and I am also glad that that view is so enthusiatically supported by the hon. Gentleman.
    It is vital to get a good sheepmeat regime for the future, in the same way as we have had a good regime in the recent past. I have no reason to believe that we will not be successful in that endeavour.

    Professional, Industrial and Commercial Programme
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons have benefited from the professional, industrial and commercial programme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I refer to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in March this year, when I said that some 6,800 individuals were receiving updating or retraining and that the past two years had seen a 40 per cent. increase in the number of PICKUP courses and a 100 per cent. increase in the number of students benefiting from those courses.
    The programme continues to have considerable impact, and the numbers of persons benefiting are steadily increasing. A survey of short vocational courses in the public sector further and higher education establishments in England and Wales is being carried out and the results will be available in 1989.
    Mr. Jones: I know from my hon. Friend's answer that he fully appreciates the importance of the PICKUP programme. Will he take this opportunity to say what more will be done in the future to promote it?
    Mr. Roberts: We have spent about £380,000 promoting the PICKUP developments in 1987–88 and we expect to spend another £261,000 in 1988–89. We are certainly giving PICKUP courses a high priority in Wales. We have two full-time PICKUP development agents and their support staff are funded by the Welsh Office. Funds have been provided for every local authority higher education institution and university college to appoint a PICKUP co-ordinator—[Interruption.] I am sure that the entire House and Wales will have noted the hilarity with which the Opposition regard training and retraining in Wales.

    Council House Rents
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to advise local councils to increase the rents of council tenants in Wales.
    Mr. Grist: It is for local authorities to determine actual rent increases according to their own circumstances.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister recognise that Wrexham Maelor borough council is a good, value-for-money oriented, efficient housing authority, with a good standard
    10
    of repairs, low rents and a housing revenue account which stands on its own and is not subsidised by the general rates fund? That being so, why is the Minister threatening to make that local authority increase its council rents by, in effect, threatening to withhold housing benefits and thus risking the poor subsidising the poorer?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman must explain that to me, because, as I said in my answer, it is up to local authorities to set their own rent levels. That is so both under the present regime and under the regime that we propose to introduce.

    Environmental Problems
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on his priorities in dealing with environmental problems in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Our aim is to prevent undue risks to human life and health, to protect the natural environment and to improve public amenity, particularly in those areas with the worst environments.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the worst industrial polluters remaining in Britain is in the Cyrion valley? Is he aware of the considerable anxiety felt by the local council and by local people because the company intends to introduce the mild heat treatment process, which it claims will improve the environment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that process, which operates in Hamilton in Scotland only, has caused considerable environmental difficulties? Will he also confirm that planning permission is needed before the process is introduced in the Cynon valley?
    Mr. Walker: I am fully aware of local feeling about pollution from the phurnacite plant. I gather that the worst of the remaining Disticoke batteries were closed down last week and will remain so permanently. I understand that that will bring about some immediate improvement.
    The company's applications regarding its future methods will, of course, be a matter that the inspectorate must consider fully. If the method has been used elsewhere and has failed, obviously that will be within the knowledge of the inspectorate, which could then impose its views as to whether the proposed method is desirable.
    The hon. Lady is aware that I have previously discussed this matter with her. There always has been a balance of view in the locality as to the importance of the jobs involved as opposed to the environmental situation created by the phurnacite plant. I have to seek the advice of the inspectorate on these matters and, obviously, to listen to the opinions of the local authority. I shall do that.
    Mr. John: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Queen's Speech contained no promise of legislation to impose tough controls on industrial polluters? Does he accept that, on the jobs front, our experience is that if firms want to produce, they will? If they do not, no amount of anxiety among local people about pollution will stop them. In the past nine years, no firm has ever given a damn about the well-being of the locality when trying to preserve jobs.
    Mr. Walker: To take the example that we have just been discussing, shortly after I became Secretary of State I

    11
    discussed with the Coal Board what it intended to do about improving the environment. It had committed itself to a heavy capital investment programme to do that. I took that attitude to get both the improved environment and the jobs. A balance must always be struck, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the environmental consequences can have not only an adverse effect on the immediate locality but a long-term adverse effect on inward investment in the locality.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Department not failed to meet the challenge of the 30 per cent. Club, the importation of poisonous waste and the filthy condition of many of our beaches? Why should my frightened constituents see poisonous soil from Rotterdam dumped at the bottom of their gardens, and why should the citizens of Torfaen grow ever more apprehensive about the Rechem smokestack? Does the right hon. Gentleman plan to stop the import of poisonous waste into Wales? I remind him that the Karin B wanted to dock at Neath. We want an end to these matters.
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his ministerial experience, the disposal of waste is under strict independent and impartial control, and no waste that fails those controls can come into this country, be used in this country or have any application in this country.
    On the state of the beaches and the water, I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine the capital investment programmes to improve the rivers, beaches and water systems of Wales that have taken place in the lifetime of this Government. We should compare that with the total stagnation in investment under the Labour Government.

    Housing
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of Wales what action he has taken to ascertain the views of Welsh local authorities on the future of housing in Wales.
    Mr. Grist: Local authorities have been extensively consulted about the Government's policy proposals, and I have regular discussions with local authorities in the forum of the Welsh Housing Consultative Committee.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that, according to the new voting rules approved by the Government in the Housing Act 1988, the Labour party won the general elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987? That is especially true in Torbay, where non-voters are counted as having voted in favour of Government policy. The non-voters are the lazy, the apathetic, the sick and the dead. In Torbay, 2,200 voters were outvoted by 700. Is that not a breach of democracy as serious as the selective franchise, the 30-year Parliaments and the rotten boroughs of the previous century? The same thing is happening in Wales. Is the Minister on the side of democracy, or on the side of vote-rigging?
    Mr. Grist: I think that I speak not only for this side of the House when I say that other hon. Members may believe that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party know more about rotten boroughs than we have forgotten about them.

    Wales Railway Centre
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to visit the Wales railway centre in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I wish to visit the centre. I am pleased that it has received financial support from various public bodies and that this has enabled good progress to be made with the project.
    Mr. Adley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcoming the efforts of Cardiff Bay development corporation and the local authorities in renovating south Cardiff, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take note of the fact that if the Wales railway centre is to achieve its objective it must maintain a rail link, not only with Cardiff city centre, but with the new heritage park in the Rhondda, which he has supported substantially, and with the Big Pit at Blaenavon? Will he ensure that that vital point is not lost as discussions proceed?
    Mr. Walker: Given my hon. Friend's expertise on railways both here and overseas, I shall of course take careful note of his points.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's latest estimate is of the amount of council house rent arrears since April; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: The only figures held centrally on local authority rent arrears refer to the end of the financial year. Local authorities' projections for the end of 1988–89 are incomplete but currently stand at £5·3 million.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that there has been a dramatic increase in arrears since April—50 per cent. in some of the communities that I represent—mainly as a result of cuts in housing benefit? Does he agree that those cuts in benefit are hitting some of the poorer tenants? What additional new action do the Government propose to alleviate the disadvantages of those people and the growing arrears of local authorities?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the estimated figures show a 2·1 per cent. shortfall of arrears compared with the total rent bill. It was 1·9 per cent. in the last financial year, 1987–88, 2 per cent. in 1986–87 and 2·6 per cent. in 1985–86. It is currently 2·1 per cent. There has been little, if any, change in arrears as a percentage of the total rent bill.

  THE ARTS

    Ethnic Minority Arts
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish a table showing detailed expenditure by the Arts Council on ethnic minority arts by the Arts Council in (a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87, (c) 1987–88, by (i) department, (ii) client and (iii) type of funding, whether revenue, annual or project.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The Arts Council report on ethnic minority arts, now due in the new

    13
    year, will contain details on these matters. In the meantime, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 28 April to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
    Mr. Grant: Is it true that a paltry sum of less than 2 per cent. of Arts Council grants goes to black-led arts companies'? Is that not a disgraceful undervaluing of those companies'? Does the Minister agree that the abolition of the GLC and the Government-inspired cuts in local authority funding mean that black arts companies are finding increasing difficulty in getting funding, and what does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Luce: I think it is true that the ethnic minority arts, principally the Caribbean and Asian arts, have an important contribution to make to the diversity of arts in this country. The Arts Council has a clear objective, which is to set aside 4 per cent. of its resources to help sustain that development. At the moment it is undertaking a review of its support for ethnic minority arts and is planning to hold a seminar in the new year, which I plan to attend.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the GLC has had a remarkably beneficial effect on the funding of arts in London? Secondly, does he agree that, although it is true that the Caribbean arts have much to offer to the rich diversity of arts in our national life, nevertheless the question of ethnic funding is not the one to he considered? What matters is whether it is a worthy subject to be funded.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point. Many Asian and Caribbean minority arts activities are worthy of being funded and the Arts Council is moving in that direction. The decision must be taken on the grounds of artistic merit and on those grounds alone. My hon. Friend mentioned the abolition of the GLC. I recall that three years ago there were prognostications of gloom and despondency by the Opposition about what would happen on the abolition of the metropolitan authorities. The opposite has been the case and the arts have been sustained in all those areas.

    Mappa Mundi
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to take action to ensure that the Mappa Mundi is retained by Hereford cathedral for public display in Hereford; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: I am keeping in close touch with developments. In particular, I note that Hereford city council has taken a positive approach to the problem of the potential sale of the Mappa Mundi. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in his capacity as chairman of the all-party heritage committee, has had an informal meeting with the dean of Hereford, Lord Charteris, chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, Lord Gowrie, chairman of Sotheby's, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who I know is playing a constructive role in all this. I now understand that the dean and chapter of Hereford cathedral have met today to consider the situation. In the light of all this, I hope that it will be possible to find a solution acceptable to all the parties.
    Mr. Hughes: As a Herefordian, may I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that less than an hour ago the dean and chapter decided that until the matter is resolved they have no plans to revoke the decision to sell? In that event, what is needed from the Minister is a clear announcement that the Government support the retention of the Mappa Mundi in Hereford. They must say that they will work with the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the British Library to ensure that the moneys are forthcoming and that no stone will be left unturned to ensure that the map returns to where it was created and where it belongs. The Government must ensure that the heritage of our cathedrals is not sold off through auction rooms to the highest bidders no matter where they might be in the world.
    Mr. Luce: I have yet to learn precisely what was discussed today by the dean and chapter. I have no shadow of doubt about the importance of this object to our heritage and the importance that the people of Hereford, let alone the cathedral authorities, attach to it. I recognise that fully. The chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund has already said that he would be prepared, because he has taxpayers' money at his disposal, to consider playing a role on behalf of the taxpayer, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that all past experience and practice in this sector have shown that where an object deserves retention in this country the most sensible basis for a solution is an effective partnership between the public and the private sectors, and one that is acceptable to all parties. I will do whatever I can to help reach an effective solution along those lines.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: The close interest that my right hon. Friend is taking in this matter will be well received in Hereford, and on a far broader basis than that, because this is an important matter. I am not aware of the outcome of today's meeting of the Hereford chapter, but if the dean and chapter seek a meeting with my right hon. Friend. will he respond favourably to requests from me to arrange such a meeting?
    Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend is playing in all this. If the dean and chapter ask for a meeting I shall he happy to meet them and to hear their viewpoint.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not time to define certain treasures which must not be sold abroad, whatever the circumstances, by people who simply want to raise money? Italy and other countries with considerable treasures do better than we do in this respect by preventing the export of certain treasures. Should we not define certain categories to fit into that?
    Mr. Luce: Each European country has a different procedure to deal with this matter. Italy places an almost total ban on the export of nearly all objects of heritage importance. I am not sure that I believe that to be the right way to proceed. We have to preserve the ability of people to sell their own objects, to preserve an element of market forces in all this, and to allow trade across national boundaries. History shows that in the past 200 years the number of objects that we have imported is a factor to be taken into account. Against that, it is important that we have procedures which allow us to preserve heritage items of the greatest importance. For that reason, it is important

    15
    that we have in existence the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has substantial amounts of taxpayers' money at its disposal to help in this direction.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was clear, not only from the meeting that we held last week, to which he referred, but from conversations that I had yesterday and today with Lord Charteris and the chapter clerk, that everyone concerned is desperately anxious to see a solution which leaves the map in Hereford cathedral, but also does something to help the cathedral's real problems? Is not Lord Charteris in an extremely difficult position while the map remains on offer? Would it not be exceptionally helpful if, accepting the real desire to help, the dean and chapter would withdraw the map from public auction, at least for the time being?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful for the constructive role that my hon. Friend is playing in this, with all his knowledge of these issues. I must leave it to the judgment of Lord Charteris, as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. What is the point of establishing such bodies unless I take their advice? If I were to ignore their advice, that would be wrong. I have no shadow of doubt that it is important to preserve the Nappa Mundi in this country —it is an important object of art and it is also important to the people of Hereford—and I shall play a prominent role in helping to achieve just that.
    Mr. Fisher: The House will have heard the Minister's fine words, but will he respond to the very moderate and constructive remarks made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)? If he fails to do that, and in the light of his reply to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the House will have no alternative but to realise that the Government are introducing market forces even into this area of policy. The House will consider that a disgrace.
    Mr. Luce: I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can make that deduction from my remarks about the Mappa Mundi and its importance. I have no difficulty saying that I hope that a solution can be found that will lead to the map's withdrawal from auction on the market. It is important to preserve the map in this country and all parties concerned must work to that end. I have already pledged to do my best in that direction.

    Secondments
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will give the latest number of secondments between the Civil Service and industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): A significant number of serving civil servants now have experience in the private sector as a result of secondments. There were nearly 500 secondments of three months or more between the Civil Service and industry in 1987. I hope that the recent White Paper on releasing enterprise will continue this process.
    Mr. Chapman: I very much welcome the increased number of secondments between the Civil Service and industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the numbers are still too few? Given the understandable
    16
    practical difficulties that can exist, will he take further initiatives to encourage part-time secondments between industry and the Civil Service, and encourage civil servants to take non-executive directorships in businesses, to the mutual benefit both of business and of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in these matters for some time. The answer to the problem does not lie in one solution; for example, simply in two-year secondments between the private sector and business, which is already doing well. The answer lies in a number of solutions, including short-term loans, Whitehall and industry schemes and part-time executives, of which there are 45 at the moment. The answer lies in a package of means whereby there can be a greater interchange between the private sector and the Civil Service.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what matters he discussed.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.
    Mr. Barnes: Did the Minister discuss the basic principles of trade unionism with the Civil Service trade unions which are to negotiate wages and conditions on behalf of their members under agreed and established procedures? Why are those rights denied to workers in GCHQ? The Government present themselves as dynamic and thrusting, but again they are reactionary in going back to legislation which this House got rid of some time before 1824, which had banned combination of workers.
    Mr. Luce: Over the last four years the position on GCHQ has been made absolutely clear. It is only with security and intelligence organisations that the rules apply with regard to trade unions. GCHQ depends on continuity of service 24 hours a day flowing at all times in the national interest and in the interests of our national security. From 1979 to 1981, 10,000 working days were lost as a result of action. That was not acceptable in the interests of our national security. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team have been taking pains over four years to deal with the real individual problems that have arisen as a result of the decision.
    Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister heard from the Civil Service unions whether they intend to tell Mr. Gorbachev when he visits Britain that they are very much in favour of the basic rights being introduced in the Soviet Union at long last, while the Civil Service unions are trying to defend our existing rights, including the rights of people at GCHQ to belong to a trade union?
    Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw an exact parallel between the conditions of trade unions in Britain and in the Eastern bloc, he had better go and live in the Eastern bloc and find out for himself.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister comment on the scandal of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce computer programme—the private programme introduced for intervention board pricing? Will he make a statement in the very near future on how people who have been unduly affected by that computer catastrophe will be assisted?
    Mr. Luce: As I understand the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom such questions should be directed.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has discussed the relocation of Civil Service departments in the north of England, particularly in the light of the report produced in June last year by two middle-ranking officials stating that in their opinion senior civil servants would not wish to live in the north of England?
    Mr. Luce: Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out the framework of the Government's broad policy towards the relocation of civil servants in other parts of the country. As my hon. Friend is aware, four out of five civil servants work outside London, and there is now considerable encouragement to Departments, most of which are taking seriously the possibility—on the grounds of recruitment and retention and on other grounds—of moving more civil servants to other areas.
    Mr. Soames: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he pass on to them my admiration for the immense tact, discretion and thoroughness with which the DHSS office in Crawley deals with various matters? Will he tell them that it would be greatly in their interests to concentrate on trying to get their other members to behave in the way that their members in Crawley behave?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said and for the tribute that he paid to offices in his constituency and the high standards of conduct of the civil servants there.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister cannot get away from the great gulf that exists in the minds of the public in relation to GCHQ when they perceive their Prime Minister preaching and supporting free trade unions in Poland but abolishing free trade unions in Britain. If the free trade unions in Britain went to the Minister and said that they wished to negotiate a no-strike deal, with no holds barred, so that, to use the Minister's words, information could continue to flow and there would be no interruption in service, in return for being able to organise GCHQ freely, would he talk to them?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the reasons for that. It is quite clear that the rule on trade unions applies only to security and intelligence institutions. GCHQ did have disruption, losing 10,000 working days between 1979 and 1981. The continuous free flow of information from that institution is essential in our national interest. It was on those grounds alone that the decision was taken. The decision applies only to security and intelligence institutions.

    Agency System
    Mr. French: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress towards establishing agencies within the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question and question 56 together.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do that. We have already passed question 56.
    Mr. Luce: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will answer question 58 alone.
    Two agencies have been set up, about 30 more have been announced and more are in the pipeline, 1 shall be making a progress report to the House before too long.
    Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agency system will greatly improve the managerial abilities of civil servants, but only if adequate provision is made for management training? Will he tell the House what provisions he has in mind?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the main purposes of the establishment of the agencies is to devolve decision-making down the line of management in the Civil Service, and to give managers in the Civil Service greater authority and enable them to take more decisions themselves. It is essential that we should have proper training policies to enable them to become even better managers. To that end I have earmarked an additional £1 million, which will be used as a form of challenge funding with Departments to stimulate better training.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister take action to ensure that the agencies do not place contracts with the Economic League—the jobs blacklisting organisation? Will he ensure that they do not place security contracts with the Securicor group or Group 4 Total Security Limited, which have had Government contracts for many years and subscribe to the Economic League?
    Mr. Luce: The important point is that members of the agencies will be members of the Civil Service, under the direct control and overall responsibility of the Secretary of State, with delegated responsibility to the chief executive. Broadly speaking, the standards maintained by the Civil Service and the Departments will be maintained by the agencies.

Salmonella and Eggs
3.30 pm
Sir Hal Miller(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on salmonella and eggs.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My Department issued guidance on 26 August and 21 November concerning salmonella and eggs. I am advised by the Government's chief medical officer that up to the end of October there had been 46 reported outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning in England and Wales, involving about 1,000 cases in which the most likely source of the infection was uncooked or partially cooked eggs. Recent studies show that some sporadic cases of salmonellosis have been caused by eggs. It is likely that these figures underestimate the total number of people affected.
The chief medical officer is today repeating his advice to the public not to eat raw eggs or uncooked foods made from them. He has advised caterers to use pasteurised egg instead of uncooked egg.
Some of the 46 outbreaks were assoicated with the consumption of lightly cooked eggs or foods containing them. Although the risk of harm to any healthy individual from consuming a single egg is small, it is advisable for vulnerable people, such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women, to consume only eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is in his place alongside me, is this afternoon publishing details of a voluntary code agreed with the poultry breeding industry to reduce the risk of salmonella infection in poultry breeding flocks.
To put the problem in perspective—30 million eggs are eaten every day—the risk of an individual becoming ill is very small. Nevertheless, there are grounds for concern, and my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the poultry industry are working closely together to tackle them.
Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reiterate that the 46 outbreaks relate to a consumption this year of 9 billion eggs? Is he aware of the consternation and anger that have been caused by the rather rash statement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health? Does he realise that there are signs in Birmingham market advertising Dutch eggs that are salmonella-free? The woman at the pub in the Cotswolds at which I stopped for breakfast over-cooked the eggs because of the salmonella scare. Is it not time that something was done to put an end to this uncertainty?
Mr. Clarke: We are all agreed that we must keep this matter in proportion. There is no doubt that there is genuine concern in this country and abroad about the increased incidence of salmonella poisoning from eggs. It is right that particularly vulnerable people such as the frail, the sick, the elderly and young children should be protected from eating raw eggs. I agree with my hon. Friend about the vast consumption of eggs in this country, but the risk of infection to any individual is small, and the risk to a healthy adult is small indeed. This is an international problem, so anyone advertising overseas eggs as being safer than our own is plainly wrong.
20
I noticed that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health drew attention to this problem this weekend. The House should reflect on the fact that my hon. Friend was talking about a serious matter on which my Department had already issued public health advice twice this autumn. My hon. Friend's words have sought to draw further attention to the problem and, I trust, to warn people who are vulnerable to infection if they eat raw or uncooked eggs. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) that I shall carry on eating eggs, as I am sure he will. The chief medical officer tells me that he had egg sandwiches for lunch. Every healthy individual need not be too worried about an unreasonable scare.
Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State recall that when his Department last issued guidance on eggs and salmonella, on 21 November, it stated:
"the risk of any individual egg being infected is likely to be very small"?
How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman square that with the claim at the weekend by the Under-Secretary of State that most of the egg production in this country is now infected? Which of those two statements reflects the Department's view? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman content to preside over a Department that issues two totally and utterly contradictory views in the space of two weeks?
Is not the lesson of today that the Government will let the hon. Lady insult pensioners, caricature northerners and threaten child benefit, but that stubbing the toes of the National Farmers Union is going too far? Surely it must now be clear to the Secretary of State that the hon. Lady's embarrassment quotient exceeds her entertainment value? Is it not about time he removed such a major obstacle to our taking his Department seriously?
Mr. Clarke: The Department's position has been consistent throughout. There is a growth risk of salmonella. It is obviously right that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my Department and the industry should tackle it together. The risk of any individual being infected is quite small, but it is right that we should draw the public's attention to the need to be careful in the way that they handle and cook food. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health is an extremely valuable member of the team in this Department and the Government. It may be that many hon. Members are a little envious of her natural gift for obtaining publicity. This is not the first occasion on which she has obtained great publicity on a serious matter and drawn the public's attention to something that might otherwise have passed their notice.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that unsubstantiable remarks by anyone must be denied by Secretaries of State? Will he make it clear to the House that there is no scientific evidence that there is any salmonella in an uncracked egg, one that is still in the shell? Therefore, statements made over the weekend which have a major effect on a large industry in agriculture are to be condemned.
Mr. Clarke: I do not hold myself out as having any scientific expertise. I obviously rely heavily, and with total confidence, on the advice that I receive from the chief medical officer to the Government and his staff. My understanding is not the same as my hon. Friend's. I do

21
not think that it is true that an uncracked egg can be guaranteed to be salmonella-proof. The advice that we are giving is that the public should be careful about how they handle uncracked eggs, that they should cook them thoroughly and use them sensibly. The remains relevant advice until the industry's efforts have reduced the present level of infection.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister acknowledge that the statement of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has created a tremendous loss of confidence in the egg industry? How will he give more confidence now that that statement has been made? There is no question but that there needs to be an investigation and thorough inquiry into what has gone on. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if the facts are established and there is a problem, he should discuss with his hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the possibility of a thorough eradication programme, should that prove necessary?
Mr. Clarke: My Department put out information in August advising the public not to eat raw eggs. That advice was followed up in November with advice not to eat raw or lightly cooked eggs, together with a recommendation in caterers to use pasteurised eggs for any food that required raw or lightly cooked eggs. All we are doing is reinforcing that message.
As I have said today, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is putting out a code that has been drawn up with the industry and will be followed by the industry to reduce salmonella infection to acceptable, minimal proportions. At the moment there is a source of anxiety which is being tackled by all concerned. Meanwhile, the public will simply have to be sensible and carry on eating their eggs in a way that ensures that the risk to health is the absolute minimum.
Mr. Robert Key: I would hazard the guess that millions of people will be infinitely depressed at the prospect of hard-boiled eggs and no fresh mayonnaise. What practical steps are he and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food taking to investigate the cause of salmonella in poultry and to eliminate it?
Mr. Clarke: I agree that I would miss my mayonnaise, but, personally, I shall probably not desist from eating it. I imagine that that is true of most people in this Chamber who regard themselves as healthy adults and therefore the risk of infection to be acceptable. However, we have a duty to warn the public that salmonella infection is rising and appears to be poultry-based. The Ministry of Agriculture, my Department and the public health laboratory service will all be seeking to find more information about the full extent of the infection and the steps that can be taken to reduce it. We are sure that steps can be taken to get British poultry and eggs back to the high quality that we are accustomed to receiving.
Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister unequivocally and strongly support the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend was quite right to answer a question put to her on another occasion, stressing the
22
concern that we feel about infection in eggs and drawing attention to the advice that the Department had already been giving over the previous few months.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that even the fact that he has come here today and said that there is a very small risk is doing damage? The risk is minuscule, but we have witnessed today, in this House, some embarrassment and laughter, and, outside this House, a fall in consumption of 1 per cent. or more, which may put egg producers out of business. My right hon. and learned Friend must address that matter.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that, despite the undertone of hilarity in the House, there is a serious problem. We must steer the proper course between, on the one hand, the ridiculous scares that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) described after his experiences, and, on the other hand, undue complacency which might leave some of the very elderly and the very young and the sick and frail at risk. All the public have to do is cook their eggs carefully—fry them or boil them properly—and for any frail person to make sure that they are hard boiled. I am sure that the industry and ourselves can tackle the risk together.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The half-baked, half-boiled irrational statement by the Under-Secretary of State has caused tremendous concern in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that no outbreak of salmonella has been identified in connection with any eggs or poultry products produced in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the sweeping allegations, which, from what we hear today, are largely unfounded, threaten egg production in Northern Ireland farms as we are virtually totally dependent on exports? Does he agree that greater attention should be paid to imports of foreign eggs into this country in future? Does he acknowledge the excellent health record of Northern Ireland poultry flocks and of Northern Ireland eggs exported to this country?
Mr. Clarke: I shall take advice on whether any of the cases involve Northern Ireland eggs, but it may not be possible to discover that.
We all realise the concern of egg producers, and I am satisfied that nothing that I have announced today or that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said at the weekend need threaten egg sales or egg consumption in this country. On the other hand, there have been one thousand cases of salmonella connected with eggs. Much as I would wish to give the industry a totally clean bill of health, we cannot suppress the advice of our own chief medical officer and his staff. That advice is sensible and balanced and need not worry any housewife or healthy member of the public and merely warns us all to be prudent until this sudden and worrying upsurge in salmonella is brought back under control.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, according to the public health laboratory service, the majority of cases of salmonella in eggs are due to mishandling by caterers because the eggs are stored in high temperatures? Is he further aware that the British Poultry Federation has carried out a check on eggs throughout the country but has not found one case of salmonella?
Mr. Clarke: I was not aware of my hon. Friend's first point. I know that many poultry producers are making careful checks—and if they continue to do so, they will eventually discover salmonella in poultry flocks. The code is being drawn up with the industry to eliminate that risk. I appreciate the egg industry's concern and I am saying all that I can—it is the right thing to do—to reassure the public that they can continue to buy eggs. However, we cannot ignore the public health advice. There have been 1,000 cases, which is 1,000 too many. A little more care is required in the cooking of eggs to avoid infection. People should be warned not to eat raw or lightly cooked eggs. My hon. Friends should not consume prairie oysters in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Does not the adverse publicity during the past few days, especially that created by the Under-Secretary, emphasise the lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Are there not conflicting statements from the two Departments? Is not one reason for the current problem the reduction in research funding?
Mr. Clarke: There has been the closest co-operation between my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Government's chief medical officer. We all agree on our statements and on our message to the public. Whenever there are minor public health worries, it is inevitable that people will exaggerate. Some of the reactions to my hon. Friend's statement, including all the publicity-seeking stuff this morning about dismissal, rebounded on those making the claims because it has drawn more attention to the problem. I hope that the House will get the matter in proportion and will accept that there is a health problem, which we are tackling, and that the average member of the public is not at risk.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon and learned Friend agree that it is the obligation of any responsible Government to inform and not to alarm? Do not the Under-Secretary's remarks this weekend fall into the latter category?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the next time that we attend a football match together we will have our customary lunch of beer, cigars and a couple of Scotch eggs—none of which our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary approves of?
Mr. Clarke: I accept that it is the Government's duty to inform and not to alarm, and we shall follow that course. The House must accept that we have a duty to inform people that the risk of salmonella is higher than it was and that we are tackling that. I shall continue to consume my customary fare when I attend football matches with my hon. Friend. I am sure that that will alarm a number of hon. Members, but I intend to persist in that habit.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on available statistics, there is a one in 350 million risk of salmonella poisoning from eggs? Was not
24
the remark made on the radio this morning—that it was as likely as being hit by a meteorite—probably true? Was it not highly irresponsible to put the egg industry at risk and to jeopardise the long-established eating habits of this nation?
Mr. Clarke: As I have already said, I do not have scientific experience in this matter. I shall consult on some of the propositions being made to me. I agree that nothing has been said that should put the egg industry at risk or justifies exaggerated public alarm. There is no point, however, in going too far the other way and exaggerating the minuscule nature of the risk. There have been 46 outbreaks of salmonella and 1,000 reported cases, and there may be others that have gone unreported. That is why we have taken action and made some comments. We do not believe that the public should be put off buying eggs.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why both his statement and that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agree, when the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture—which is an agent of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—has made a clear statement that the egg industry in Northern Ireland has a clean bill of health and that there is no poisoning? Does he realise that the Under-Secretary's statement has greatly exacerbated an already difficult position in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland are better informed about the Irish situation than I am. I would certainly rely on their advice on the industry in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food put out a statement this afternoon, which states:
"The industry are aware of the need to take effective action. And action is being taken on several other fronts."
The action is in proportion to the risk, which is not too grave. All we are giving is some sensible advice to the general public and, meanwhile, taking steps for the industry to get the situation back to normal.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. No doubt the House wil be able to return to this matter when we have health questions next week.
Sir Peter Emery: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I will attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as humanly possible.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it afterwards.

"Employment for the 1990s"
3.52 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" which I am publishing today.
Over the last five years, almost 2 million new jobs have been created in this country. Unemployment has also fallen in each of the last 27 months. Since the 1987 general election, unemployment has fallen by almost 700,000, and there has been a particularly significant reduction in long-term unemployment. Our unemployment rate is now below that of the average in the European Community, and, with an estimated 700,000 job vacancies in the economy. there is no reason why unemployment should not fall further.
One of the main reasons why unemployment has fallen so far and so fast is that, over the last nine years, this Government have sought to remove some of the main barriers that stood in the way of employment growth. The theme of this White Paper is the need to tackle barriers which could impede employment growth in the 1990s.
Ten years ago, one of the most serious barriers was poor industrial relations. In the 1970s we lost an average of 13 million working days a year through strikes. As a result, British job after British job was exported overseas, and, all too often, our industries had a record for unreliability. We have moved decisively away from that position.
The number of strikes today is lower than at any period since 1940. There is no doubt that one of the major reasons for this improvement has been this Government's reform of trade union law. The White Paper makes it clear that we will take any further legislative steps which may be necessary and that, in particular, I will be reviewing the operation of the pre-entry closed shop.
There is a clear link between pay and jobs. Pay arrangements need to be more closely linked to local labour market conditions, differences in performance and the continuing profitability of the individual company. The Government also believe that the time has come to reconsider the future of the wages councils.
There are real questions about whether a statutory system of this kind is relevant to pay determination in the 1990s; about whether, even now, wages councils give sufficient weight to the impact of settlements on jobs; and about whether a system which is so shot through with anomalies should be preserved. I am therefore publishing, together with the White Paper, a consultation document inviting views on the future of the wages council system.
As we move into the 1990s, the greatest obstacle to employment growth is likely to be lack of skills. Over the next five years we shall see a significant slowing down in the growth of the labour force and, in particular, a dramatic fall in the number of young people in the work force. The number of people in the work force under the age of 25 will fall by over a million between now and 1995.
Therefore, employers will not be able to rely solely on young recruits to meet their new skill needs. They will need to look increasingly to other sources of recruitment, such as women, unemployed people, and older workers. Above all, employers must train the people they already employ. If we are to have the skills our economy will need, employers must undertake a massive retraining effort.
26
This White Paper describes the radically new training framework to which the Government believe we must now move. The key element in this framework is the establishment of a network of local employer-led training and enterprise councils. These councils will be responsible both for promoting training by employers and for operating the Government's existing training programmes. They will also become responsible for the day-to-day operation of most of my Department's small firms and enterprise programmes. I shall be inviting employers to come together at local level and contract with my Department to set up these councils.
Two thirds of the council members will be drawn from private sector companies at chief executive level. Chambers of commerce, the CBI, and local employer networks will all have a vital part to play. The other council members will be drawn from organisations in the local community which want to play an active role in promoting training. The Government's aim is to establish a network of about 100 councils throughout Great Britain over the next three to four years, and I expect the first councils to be in operation before the end of 1989.
The training and enterprise councils differ from the present training framework in two important respects. First, they will be executive bodies, not advisory. They will give the leadership of the national training system to employers. It is employers who are the customers for training and they are also the main providers of training. Secondly, the establishment of the councils will move the focus of planning and delivery of training to the local level. It is in the local labour market that training needs can be best assessed and practical steps taken to meet them.
To help and advise me during the transition to these new arrangemens, I am setting up a national training task force. The task force will have up to 12 members. drawn primarily from leading figures in industry and commerce. The chairman will be Mr. Brian Wolfson, the present chairman of the Training Commission.
The White Paper also describes other steps I propose to take to improve the effectiveness of our training arrangements. These include consulting the remaining industrial training boards about the steps they need to take to become independent non-statutory organisations and determining the future of the Skills Training Agency. The agency is currently loss-making and over-dependent on Government training contracts. It would be in a better position to win more employer business if it were to move into the private sector, and the Government are therefore taking advice on this.
The changes I have set out mark a radical change in our training arrangements. International competition is fierce and the old ways have not been successful. People are this country's key resource. Seven out of 10 of the work force in the year 2000 are already in the work force now and therefore will be unable to benefit from the changes taking place in education. What is needed is the fundamental reform of our training arrangements so that they are employer-led and based on the local labour market.
Over the past five years, we have had dramatic success in creating new jobs and reducing unemployment. For the 1990s, success in training is the best guarantee of jobs and continued growth.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully accept that a major new training initiative is urgently needed, when the

27
CBI is now reporting that a huge and growing skills gap is limiting output in one third of companies and constraining investment in nearly half, and that more than two out of five companies expect it to worsen? Is he further aware that half of the total work force got no training last year and that one third has never had any? Yet he is now proposing that employers, who have shown little or no foresight or will in meeting their own training needs, for which they have the strongest private incentive, should be the very people to be put into the driving seat to meet the training shortfall for the nation as a whole. Is it not perverse that employers who have persistently refused to spend enough of their own money on training their own employees are now being put in undisputed control of £3 billion of public money to train others—rather like putting Barlow Clowes in charge of investment protection?
Is the Secretary of State aware that our most successful competitors are moving in the opposite direction by adopting a national training strategy, based on an overall skills audit to meet the needs of industry, by ensuring that employers invest adequately in training their own employees and by having Government investment in high quality skills training for the unemployed? This Government, in their fourth restructuring of adult training in nine months, are now passing the buck to a series of unrepresentative and unaccountable local quangos. How can the Secretary of State justify giving employers absolute control, when the Government, local authorities, trade unions and the voluntary sector have at least as much, if not more, commitment and expertise in achieving high training standards?
I shall now deal with funding. It is widely acknowledged that employment training is grossly under-funded. Will the White Paper add a single extra penny of new money to that budget? Given the parallel organisation, for several years, involving retaining ET while switching to the new training enterprise councils, will the Secretary of State not be cutting the level of training, unless he also increases funding? What provision is there in the White Paper to ensure that employers will be spending a penny more on training? Will not the removal of the training levy, through the abolition of the statutory powers of the industrial training boards, actually reduce employers' spending?
The proposals are based on the experience of the United States, but is the Secretary of State aware that, while he has lifted American ideas, he has omitted the legal safeguards that exist there against job substitution, the duplication of training provision and exploitative pay rates? That is one reason why the Opposition totally oppose the abolition of the wages councils.
These proposals come from a Government who largely created the skills gap by abolishing the grant levy system for training those in work, by chopping three quarters of the industrial training boards, by axing one third of the skill centres and by decimating apprenticeships. Is it not clear that the White Paper is motivated far more by ideological dogma that favours the privatisation of training than by a desire to build a new national consensus to confront and overcome the huge skills gap facing the nation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has often spoken about a low-pay, low-skill, low-tech economy. The White Paper will help to deliver that objective.
Mr. Fowler: I cannot bear to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on training. When he spoke about a national consensus, one remembers his own performance on employment training. He, the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress turned their backs not only on the unemployed, but on training. His own record on that was lamentable, and he is in no position to lecture anyone about training incentives.
Our aim is to achieve a well-trained, professional work force for the 1990s. In essence, we want more training of staff to be carried out by employers. The hon. Gentleman made international comparisons, but he should consider West Germany's programmes, which are based on the chambers of commerce. In this country, it is employers who understand the local needs of the labour market and the local needs for training. The training enterprise councils will be employer-led and they will involve local organisations. Why are they to be employer-led? The reason is that they are training for industry. Employers know what the skill needs are because they are the customers for training and the providers of training. Everything that I have been told by organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the chambers of commerce has led me to have confidence that employers will take the opportunity with both hands.
There will be no cut in resources. A new programme—the business growth through training programme—is proposed. It will unify 10 existing programmes and will have £55 million to help to encourage training for small firms.
The position of the wages councils has changed fundamentally since their inception in 1909. The system is out of date. There are, for example, still wages councils that look after coffin furniture workers, flax and hemp workers and ostrich and fancy feather workers. Those councils are still in existence. There is no evidence that the changes that we made in 1986 affecting young people had any impact on the position of young people, except that unemployment among the 16 to 19-year-olds has come down by no less than 62 per cent.
The Opposition have no credibility in their views on training and unemployment or on programmes to bring down unemployment. The White Paper will bring about more employment now and, above all, more employment in the 1990s.
Mr. Jim Lester: I assure my right hon. Friend that I welcome the system of local delivery, for two principal reasons. First, it will minimise the number of free-loaders, who have been a problem in training for as long as I have been involved. Secondly, what is needed more than anything else is a period of continuity, so that those who are involved in training can convince local communities that training is an essential part of any company and essential for the future of this country. We need a period of continuity so that people can get on with the training.
Mr. Fowler: I accept what my hon. Friend, with all his experience, has said. The training and enterprise councils will be responsible for encouraging and promoting training. For the first time, we have brought together training for the employed and for the unemployed and training and development for small businesses. It is crucial to the proposals that training is carried out at local level,

29
as that is where progress will be made. I have no doubt that proposals will be put forward that will have the effect of transforming training in this country.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Now that the Secretary of State has admitted that we are facing a training crisis, will he also admit that the Government abolished three quarters of the industrial training boards and closed down skill centres, which were making profits? Is it not a fact that one of the most successful skills training organisations is the engineering industry training board? Will the Secretary of State ensure that it will have an assured budget which will provide some continuity because at present it does not know where it stands from one year to another? What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure the quality and standards of training under self-regulation? Can he guarantee that we shall not have the bad standards of the past few years?
Mr. Fowler: The Training Agency will continue to monitor standards for the training of unemployed people. We shall also seek to guide and examine the training that is provided for employed people, so that there will be monitoring and checking arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the industrial training boards. There are now only seven training boards, which have progressively reduced their dependence on levies and exempted most companies. The clothing and allied products industry training board levies under half of the relevant companies and receives 90 per cent. of its costs from training services. We want to move all the boards in that direction, while keeping the good qualities of the training boards.
I must point out to the House that, at the moment, the Skills Training Agency is making a loss of about £20 million on a turnover of about £55 million. I put it to the hon. Gentleman—the Public Accounts Committee has already raised this point—that in the face of those figures the Government have no alternative but to seek a way of satisfying and finally reconciling that position.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for many of us, the sooner the wages councils are done away with the better? However, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the West German scheme, to which he has referred, produces a much greater number of people with vocational qualifications as opposed to vocational training? Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a good idea to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether there is cause for joint action in producing more people with vocational qualifications than is the case at present?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made a strong point. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I will work closely together on this. The basic case for seeking to take action on training is that seven out of every 10 people who will be in the labour force in the year 2000 are in the labour force now, so unless we act on training in employment now, those people will miss out on any improvements that take place in the education system.
It is right to consult on the future of the wages councils. They are full of anomalies and date back to 1909. Looking at the position today and comparing it with what it was in
30
that period, one sees that today's circumstances would not lead anyone to set up the kind of wages council system that we have at the moment.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Although the Secretary of State is correct to identify the need for greater local sensitivity in the organisation and delivery of such services, will he concede that the absence of any commitment on the part of the Government to increase real funding is bound to be an impediment to the progress that he wishes to see achieved?
In looking at local sensitivities and regional disparities throughout Britain in the context of the abolition of the wages councils, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in many parts of the country—my own is an example—there is genuine rural deprivation because of distinct local geographic and economic factors? Surely the Government have a duty to maintain a tolerable minimum income that can be met on the part of the potential work force?
Finally, on education, will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite his statement, as a country we are still lagging woefully behind our main industrial competitors in gearing our education system to the available and potential labour market?
Mr. Fowler: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we have made a great number of strides in the past four or five years with, for example, the training and vocational education initiative and the new compact system., which has been an outstanding success and has taken off in a short amount of time.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that wages councils govern only 11 per cent. of the work force and that the two thirds of the work force who are governed by wages councils are part-time workers in any event. Therefore, by definition, the other 90 per cent. of the work force are not covered by wages councils at the moment.
As far as the task of the training enterprise councils is concerned, I must make it clear that training in employment is first and foremost a task for the employers themselves. It is not a task that Government can carry out. We are not in a position to double-guess the requirements and needs of employers. Training is essentially a task for employers, and I am confident that they will take up that challenge.
Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper will be widely welcomed by those who believe that the next stage in improving the employment position is to ensure that more people acquire skills? Is he further aware that there will be a particular welcome for the greater involvement of employers in the scheme? Will he take note of the points that have been made about education, and does he agree that to date the further education sector has played an important part in working with employers, in creating jobs and in helping people to acquire skills? Therefore, in what way does my right hon. Friend see that sector playing a full part in the future?
Mr. Fowler: I believe that our further education system will continue to play a part in training and it is important that it should—certainly the offer is there as far as the Government and the Training Agency are concerned In most local authorities, such involvement is taking place, and I hope that will continue.

31
The basic point about the involvement of employers is that training must be relevant to jobs. It is the employers who provide the jobs, so training must be relevant to their needs. We are following the logic of that in the new training structure that we are setting up.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Secretary of State must know that some of us who have had experience of training in engineering and other areas have been explaining to the Government for years that we were heading for a crisis unless we had proper training, carried out by the employers as well as by the Government, and with the involvement of trade unions. I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State has now come round to the view that some of us have been expressing for a long time.
How will the White Paper affect the position in the construction industry where there is the growth of lump labour and the decline of direct labour through the local authorities, which used to train people in the construction industry? What will this scheme do to ensure that we have proper training and apprentices in the construction industry? Will the construction industry training board be strengthened or diminished?
Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that training problems go back over many years. It is complete nonsense to say that training has suddenly become a problem in the past 10 years: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
As for industrial training boards, in general the most effective incentive for companies to train is an understanding of their own skills needs and not a centralised regulatory system, based on statutory powers. As I have said in the White Paper—the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of studying it—I recognise that particular issues affect the construction industry training board, and we shall be talking with the CITB about those.
Mr. Simon Coombs: To what extent are the new TECs modelled on the private industry councils in the United States, which my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of studying earlier this year? What encouragement or inducements will be given to the chief executives of companies in local economies to join the new councils? Does he have an answer to the problem that faces constituents such as mine where there are relatively few chief executives of large employers in our towns, but large numbers of plant directors, at lower than chief executive level? Finally, if my right hon. Friend is encouraged and stimulated by the PIC example in the United States, does he intend to give TECs any interface or mechanism to link them with local education authorities at secondary level to encourage employers to have some input into what is taught in our schools?
Mr. Fowler: Obviously, there must be a relationship between the training enterprise councils and the education system. Indeed, there must be a relationship and direct links between training and education and between industry and education. I believe that those links are developing.
My hon. Friend asked me about the origins of this plan. It certainly contains elements of the United States
32
experience and the West German experience, but above all it recognises that employers locally know the needs of their labour market and therefore the training needs to guide us.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the positions of chief executives and staff. One real advantage of the programme that we are putting forward is that we can get good people, top people, from local companies to come on to the boards of the training enterprise councils, but the work will be carried out by the professional staff who are now employed by the Training Agency, and who can be seconded to the training enterprise councils. I hope that in that way we can get the best of both worlds.
Mr. Frank Field: As the Secretary of State has commended the West Germany scheme to the House, will he tell us when, under his proposals, average skill levels in this country will equal those of West Germany? He need not be too precise in his answer: the year will do.
Mr. Fowler: During the 1990s we shall be able to catch up with the West Germans. If the hon. Gentleman considers my White Paper, he will see that comparisons with West Germany and with Germany go back not just 20, 30 or 40 years, but well into the last century. It is a long-standing problem and I believe that the TEC is the best hope that we have to catch up not only with Germany, but with our other major competitors. If we do not do that, our prospects for the 1990s will not be as good as they otherwise would be.
Mr. James Paice: As somebody who has worked closely with the Training Agency, will my right hon. Friend accept how pleased I am that its excellent staff will be part of the new proposal and under the guidance and control of those at the front end of the consumption of training? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that it is the skills shortage, in part caused by the fact that employers have not been in control of available training, which has led to the present problems faced by industry?
Mr. Fowler: In the past, we have failed to attract the involvement and enthusiasm of all employers in the way that we might. That is not to say that some extremely impressive training is not already taking place. The aim must be to bring up the standards of every company in this country to the standards of some of the best. I believe that some real progress has been made in the past four or five years, and I want even more progress based on that.
Mr. James Lamond: Why should we have any confidence in employers leading the way in training, when the lack of apprenticeships in the past few years has clearly demonstrated that they cannot see beyond the end of their noses? We not only need to train people for the jobs that are available now: we also need a long-term strategy for training in the future. Employers who are concerned only with the present profits that can be made will not pay that factor sufficient attention.
Mr. Fowler: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the employers who provide the jobs. Whatever his own ideological hang-up on this might be, training must be relevant to the jobs that the employers are providing. He asks what evidence there is of employers changing; I believe that it is there for him to see. One example is that of the compacts that have now been formed between

33
education and industrial companies. Thirty of such compacts are up and beginning to run after a few months. That is an incredible rate of progress. There is new enthusiasm among employers and we should use it.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this kind of programme is vital and will be warmly welcomed by manufacturing industry? Does he also accept that the problem does not lie so much with school leavers, because within five years they will be able to get any job for which they have been trained at school? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great problem lies with the unions, which, last time, helped to kill off the apprenticeships that are the seed corn of all industry? Does my right hon. Friend believe that, this time, there is any greater hope that the unions will not just look upon people who are training as cheap labour and so scare them away, or make sure that they do not get the jobs that are vital to the country?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not just a matter of employers understanding the importance of training, but of the work force and the trade unions understanding its importance. I believe that the Trades Union Congress made a bad mistake regarding the employment training programme for unemployed people, and I believe that many members of the TUC recognise that. I hope that that mistake will not be repeated with training in employment.
Mr. Roy Beggs: In the absence of any reference in the statement to Northern Ireland, is the Minister indirectly complimenting us on the excellence of our education system and the training facilities already in place? Will he please convey to those industrialists who are fearful of not having an adequately trained work force in the future that we in Northern Ireland have lived with low wages and high unemployment and that there is a great appetite for employment opportunities in the Province? Will he commend those industrialists to look to Northern Ireland as a possible location for some of the new investment that they may require in the future? I am confident that the excellence and skills of our work force and the good relations that have always existed between management and employees will be rewarding for those who take up the opportunity of investing in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Fowler: I am glad to endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of Northern Ireland and also about the importance of investing there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is sitting on the Front Bench and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The reason why Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the White Paper is that it does not apply to it, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is presently consulting on this issue.
Mr. David Madel: In relation to existing skills and the need for new skills in the construction industry, will the new arrangements allow firms whose activities are factory production orientated, which do not have any construction site activities and which therefore, get no training or advice from the CITB, to withdraw from it, providing that they pay the levy that they would have paid towards their own training activities?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend will understand from my statement that we are seeking to move the statutory industrial training boards to an independent, non-statutory basis. The specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised is essentially a matter for the CITB and industry to consider under the new arrangements. Certainly, if my hon. Friend thinks that something is unfair, we shall be glad to look into it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business on the Order Paper and the fact that we have employment questions tomorrow. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.35 pm.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Although I acknowledge that we are facing a skills shortage in the economy and although I accept that we must change the way in which we train our young people and the unemployed, does the Minister accept that, particularly in rural areas and constituencies such as mine, it will be very difficult for employers to find the time and the resources to take the lead in the type of enterprise that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind under the new TECs? Does he accept that, especially in rural areas, we need a far more co-ordinated approach and that the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency should also be involved and have a role to play? Does he also agree that schools, and especially careers teachers, need to be given more resources to provide advice on training? In the past few weeks in the press we have heard talk about the Enterprise Scotland initiative. Where does that fit in with the current programme?
Mr. Fowler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement shortly—it may be tomorrow—and will also issue a. White Paper then about the position in Scotland.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although machinery and technology may be the same the world over, what makes the competitive difference is the skills of the people using that machinery and technology? The skills of our people are our greatest asset; at the end of the day they are our only asset. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper will do much to help to develop the necessary skills? My right hon. Friend should be assured that we in north Oxfordshire and in the Cherwell valley want to be among the first of the TECs, building on what we have already achieved with Enterprise Cherwell, the local employer training network and other initiatives to ensure that, locally, we have the skills to take us into the next century.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for that offer. I am sure that there will be a number of areas around the country that will want to make bids soon as a result of the White Paper. Obviously we shall consider them all.
What my hon. Friend has said about training is absolutely right. The demographic influence must also be underlined, because, by 1995, there will be a million fewer under-25s in the labour force. That adds to the importance of training in employment as well as considering other items such as training unemployed people to acquire the resources, and the source of new recruits.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: How can the Secretary of State come to the House and say that the

35
greatest obstacle to employment is the shortage of skills, without any recognition that this Government have been in power for the past nine years and he has been a Minister in it for the past nine years? If there is a shortage of skills, the Government must take the prime responsibility for it.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, will he accompany me—we both represent west midlands constituencies—to see the training schools of major engineering companies that have been shut in the west midlands in the past nine years? Does he acknowledge that two thirds of engineering apprenticeships in the west midlands have collapsed under this Government? Is not the abiding legacy of the past nine years that a whole generation of young people have left school with no opportunity for skills training? He has created a generation without hope.
Mr. Fowler: That is just political jargon and slogans. It is also shallow and superficial. Probably more progress has been made in training during the past five years than during the past 40 years. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go round the west midlands, he should look at the training at Rover, Jaguar and Lucas, get up to date on the current position in the west midlands and then come back to the House.
Mr. John Watts: In view of the need to make the maximum use of skills in the economy, especially in the Thames valley, where the problem of skills shortage is not new, does my right hon. Friend have specific proposals for the special training needs of disabled people and ethnic minorities, whose abilities are much under-used in the economy?
Mr. Fowler: We have sought within the training programme to make special provision for the disabled. We shall keep that under review, because I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must use their skills. The same applies to members of ethnic minorities. Recent research conducted in London shows that many of them have skills and can go into employment. I want more people from the ethnic minorities to go into employment, and oppor-tunities for them to do so will arise during the next few years.
Mr. Allen McKay: Do not the facts speak for themselves? Since 1979, industry has closed training schools, dismissed its training officers and got rid of indentured apprenticeships. I am talking about real training, not about the superficial training that the Government provide. Genuine training in crafts and genuine indentured apprenticeships have disappeared because of Government policies. The only way to get them back is to encourage employers to take them on again, but it cannot be done without money, statutory obligations and Government intervention. That is the way that we should go.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman believes that statutory obligations and central control will cure the skills shortages, but he is speaking against a background of failures in the past. Since the 1960s, such policies have failed. We recognise that employers have the crucial responsibility for training in employment, and it is sensible to base that training at local level.
Mr. James Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White paper emphasises, crucially, the contribution that training can make to closing the productivity gap between Britain and its major European and American competitors? Does he further agree that there is no reason to believe that employers will not rise to the challenge that he has set for them, given the contribution that they have already made to the youth training scheme?
Mr. Fowler: That is right, in relation not only to YTS but to employment training. In addition, productivity is improving substantially. The position has improved greatly during the past five years, and we now have a good opportunity permanently to improve our training arrangements.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of my constituents are at a loss to understand why the Government plan to spend £7 million to £8 million on building a city technology college in Bradford, which few of my constituents want, at a time when Bradford college, which makes a positive contribution to skills training, is having its budget cut by £200,000 and must sack staff and cut classes? Will he investigate the matter urgently?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in Bradford and west Yorkshire generally, employment training is regarded as a complete flop? What safeguards will there be against employers who are ready to reap the benefits of training for which other employers have paid but who are not prepared themselves to invest in proper training?
Mr. Fowler: The city technology college is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but I believe that it will add to the skills in the country. It will certainly not detract from them.
Far from employment training being a flop, during the past 12 weeks it has got off to an extremely good start. Almost 100,000 people are being trained under the scheme, which is vastly in excess of what the Labour Government achieved. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that it is a flop. It is not, but he and his hon. Friend have put every obstacle in the way of training. The public will remember the Labour party's record on that.
Mr. Richard Holt: In relation to the remarks about training officers, will my right hon. Friend note that the number of training officers in the Institute of Personnel Management has grown to such an extent that they have developed their own section?
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the furniture industry? One reason why there is an acute skills shortage in that industry today is that the trade unions did not allow us to take on as many apprentices or dilutees as we wanted to. They obstinately refused to allow numbers to be increased. I welcome the fact that the pre-entry closed shop will be abolished. Will my right hon. Friend examine the position of the London furniture school, which is under threat? It is the only centre of excellence in Europe for the repair and maintenance of musical instruments.
Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly look into that matter. I welcome what my hon. Friend said. As for the pre-entry

37
closed shop, the White Paper is concerned with barriers to employment, and needing a union card before one can get a job is such a barrier to employment.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Did the Secretary of State see the comments reported today by the chairman of the Trustee Savings bank, who suggested that the acute skills shortage was a socially divisive time bomb? Will the White Paper, with its threat to industrial training boards, its lack of additional resources and its commitment to an organisation of training that was rejected in the Secretary of State's original White Paper on employment training, strengthen the fears about an acute shortage of training and skills? When will the Secretary of State face the fact that the Government's record has left the country short of skills and of the ability to compete, especially in the Common Market after 1992?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that skills shortages have appeared suddenly in the past 10 years. Any objective commentator would say that skills shortages in Britain go back over 50, 60 and 70 years. The devices used by the Labour Government have been proved not to work, and we are putting that right.

"Employment for the 1990s"

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two motions on statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1983) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Safety at Work Regulations) (Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members often complain that too little Northern Ireland legislation comes forward in the form of a Bill for proper debate in the House. I do not think that such a complaint could be directed at the Queen's Speech because the House will have a full opportunity to debate and to consider in Committee many of the measures in it. Today we shall debate the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill and tomorrow the House will have before it the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Although the latter is a United Kingdom measure, it contains some important provisions relating to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I apologise to the Secretary of State for intervening so early in his speech. He will have seen the comments in today's newspapers from which it appears that the Government will want to derogate from the ruling of the Strasbourg court. That might arise in tomorrow's debate and it would he useful if the Secretary of State could tell us whether that will be included in the Bill that the Government intend to bring before the House tomorrow.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see. I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to speak about that. I do not want to anticipate anything that he might say. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I was speaking about the Northern Ireland matters that the House will have a full opportunity to debate. In that context we shall also have a Bill on fair employment. This comes on the back of the criminal evidence order that the House approved at the end of the last Session. It was about the ban on direct broadcasting by certain organisations and was approved by the House after being presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The police and criminal evidence order for Northern Ireland will give added rights of protection to those taken in for questioning. We have a fairly full range of measures and legislation coming before the House and they will be dealt with in their proper order in due course.
Before I deal in proper order with today's Bill, perhaps I could be permitted to put the legislation in its overall context because I am conscious that each measure always has its critics. Each item that is proposed is approved or rejected by one side or the other. It seems to be left to a few hon. Members to put them into context and to show how they form a general pattern and approach to the issues that we face in Northern Ireland. I should like to put the Bill in the context of our overall theme of fairness and justice for the people of Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that we have an effective response to the evil of terrorism and proper protection for the rights of the community as well as respect for the rights of individuals.
That which we seek is blunt and simple and perhaps it is fairly obvious, but it is worth repeating against the

39
background of some of the criticisms that we receive. What we seek for the people of Northern Ireland is the same as that which we seek for people throughout the United Kingdom. We seek better prospects for jobs and self respect for people. We seek better housing and better education for our children. We want to see proper health care and good amenities and we want to see better community relations, tolerance, peace and order and the cessation of violence in the Province.
Those are our overall objectives, but no single measure or item can go to the heart of solving the problems of Northern Ireland. On a broad front, we seek to advance the cause of good government and to improve the condition of people in Northern Ireland in all those areas. Obviously those objectives are shared by the overwhelming majority of the people who wish to see nothing more than the cessation of violence and a better and safer life for themselves and their families.
In the work carried out by me and by my colleagues in government, we pay great attention to such issues as economic development. Of course we take pride in the fall in unemployment and in the confidence of so many companies in Northern Ireland that have substantially increased their investment in the past year. That has improved employment prospects. We are pleased to see companies from overseas and shall seek to maintain, as the latest public expenditure statement shows and as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear, our determination to support industrial development and investment in the Province. We want more jobs, but at the same time we want to ensure that there is no discrimination in the distribution of those jobs and that opportunities are presented across communities without regard to religion or opinion.
There has been substantial investment in housing in recent years; we want to maintain that level of investment, which is much higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to see an increase in home ownership and the elimination of the worst housing conditions in some of the high-rise flats. I confirm our determination to see improvements in that respect.
I have considerable admiration for the standard of health care in the Province. Since I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have gained considerable respect for the hospitals and the general practitioners in the Health Service there. The Province is well served by the Health Service and we wish to see that maintained. We also want to see high standards in education. It is an easy and proud claim that Northern Ireland has high standards in educational achievement, but we also know that it has a serious problem because of the number of people who fail to achieve any qualifications.
There is no room for complacency in education, and we are keen to see how education can play its part in dealing with conditions in the Province. I emphasise again the importance that we attach to the initiative by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), of support for integrated education. That will prove to be an important contribution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know that, conventionally, debate on Second Reading is wide, but I remind the Secretary of State that he is going very wide of the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. King: I seek to explain the background to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand the point that you are making. It is important to tell the House about the measures that will be coming forward. As I said at the beginning of my speech—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is difficult for the Chair subsequently to contain the debate within the proper parameters when the Secretary of State ranges as wide as he is doing.
Mr. King: I apologise, and entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that Northern Ireland Members are concerned that our opportunities for debate in the House on Northern Ireland measures are limited, and I sought to do the House the courtesy of outlining the context in which we are bringing forward the Bill. I entirely understand your remarks, and I will respect them.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I trust that the Secretary of State has in mind—perhaps he is not able to deal with this because of the ruling of the Chair—the serious position in the shipyards.
Mr. King: I have all these problems in mind. They are all part of the framework. Anybody who knows Northern Ireland understands, in the politics of Northern Ireland, the game of pluses and minuses—who is up and who is down—and knows that these are important considerations. They are reflected in this legislation, as every hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency knows.
We seek in the measures that we are taking, and in particular those dealing with peace and order and the cessation of violence, to respond to people's interests and concerns on matters in which terrorism and support for violence pose challenges to democratic society. These concerns are relevant to the Bill. We have taken a number of steps in law and order to try to ensure that the work that the security forces do for the protection of the community is as effective as possible.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is there not a contradiction in that, at a time when we are introducing week after week legislation dealing with the law in Northern Ireland, the Government will not, I believe, obey the diktats of the European Court in relation to the law with which we shall deal tomorrow? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that petulant ladies make bad law?
Mr. King: I think that I am suffering from one or two late arrivals to the debate. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place when the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) raised that point and sought to get me to comment on it. I suggested that he should wait, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should wait, for tomorrow's debate when the subject can be properly addressed. I am conscious of my responsibilities. I recognise the connection between all these items, the perception of them, and the perception of the legislation before the House. It will be perceived not simply in isolation, but by many in relation to other matters that are

41
currently on the agenda. That is why I took the liberty, subject to correction, to put these matters in the widest context possible.
In law and order, we have sought to address the concerns about the position of the security forces, to ensure that the balance of justice with the firm pursuit of terrorism can be maintained, and that the security forces have the necessary facilities and are furnished with the right instruments to be able to discharge their responsibilities to the community. I have already referred to several measures in the last Session that addressed this problem. Others will be introduced with the legislation tomorrow. We believe that they provide protection for the community by providing the security forces with those proper instruments, but we also believe that they provide the proper respect for the rights of the individual, as I said earlier.
We have taken a number of steps to try to ensure that individual rights are properly protected, whether in measures that have already been discussed, the codes of conduct for the RUC, the codes for the Army and security forces, the guide to the exercise of the emergency powers or tackling the problems of delay of appeals so that people do not feel that justice is delayed and there is some inhibition on their right of appeal. Those steps are a measure of our determination to protect individual rights as well.
Against that background, the Bill seeks to address certain grievances and anomalies in local government. I begin with two anomalies. Clauses I and 2 deal with the franchise for district council elections in Northern Ireland and bring it broadly into line with that for Parliament. That change will sweep away earlier legislation widely perceived as discriminating against Nationalists in Northern Ireland. It will enfranchise for district council elections in Northern Ireland about 10,500 people, called "I" voters—that "I" stands for imperial Parliament voters—who are at present unable to vote in local council elections. They are people who, under the 1962 legislation for Northern Ireland, failed to meet the special nationality and residence qualifications laid down for district council elections. This legislation confines the right to vote to Commonwealth citizens who either were born in Northern Ireland or have resided in the United Kingdom for the whole of the seven years preceding the qualifying date for registration.
Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State has said that every one of those 10,000 people who gains a vote is naturally a Nationalist. How does he prove that sweeping statement? We cannot allow it to go unchallenged. There is no evidence that that is so, and many Army wives and many who might vote Unionist are among those 10,000.
Mr. King: I said that it was "widely perceived" as discriminating against Nationalists. It is true that among those who will now be enfranchised are the wives of service men who find themselves unable to meet the qualification of having been in the United Kingdom for the whole of the seven years. If it is perceived as discriminating both against Nationalist and Unionist voters, and if therefore it will command the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall be delighted. That would be a happy outcome.
42
It is no secret in the history of this measure that it was perceived at the time as discriminating in that way. Citizens of the Irish Republic who are not also Commonwealth citizens, British citizens who do not meet the residence requirements and wives of service men are excluded from voting. This change will extend the franchise to them. This restriction has already been removed in parliamentary elections and for Assembly elections. The discrimination in respect of council elections has persisted for too long. I hope that I shall have the support of the House for the removal of this long-standing grievance.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that, after the provisions of clause I have been become effective, the franchise for district elections in Northern Ireland will be identical to the franchise for district elections in Wales, Scotland and England?
Mr. King: I have a feeling that my hon. Friend has asked that question because there is a trick in it. I shall get that checked rather than reply off the cuff, and I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to answer. I say that in the kindest possible way because there may be some point of which I am not aware. I warn my hon. Friend that there are two other changes which I think will go much closer to achieving his objective. At the moment, in Northern Ireland, convicted prisoners can vote at district council, although not parliamentary elections. Certain patients compulsorily detained in mental institutions or otherwise unable to make a patient's declaration are also unable to vote. That involves about 850 people. The legislation will remove the right from them as they do not have the opportunity to vote elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those are the key changes in the voting arrangements.
The second anomaly is covered by clause 9, which relates to the changes in the arrangements for disqualification. At present, for a person whose term of imprisonment or detention in the British Isles or the Republic of Ireland is for three months or more, disqualification applies while he is in prison for live years from the date of conviction. The proposal in clause 9 will change that to five years from the date of discharge.
It will of course be apparent that the effect of the present arrangement means that those who are convicted and receive a heavy sentence serve no disqualification if the five years has expired by the time they leave prison. However, people who serve a short sentence—perhaps of three months, which is the qualifying level—may emerge from prison and still have to serve another four years and nine months' disqualification. That is an anomaly, and the change proposed in the legislation is that the disqualification period shall apply from the date of discharge.
The most controversial part of the Bill concerns the declaration against terrorism. Clauses 3 and 5 provide for the declaration against terrorism to be made by candidates at, respectively, district council and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Clause 4 provides for a similar declaration to be made by candidates co-opted to fill casual vacancies on district councils. The terms of the declaration in each case are set out in schedule 2. Candidates will be required to declare that, if elected, they will not express support for or approval of proscribed

43
organisations or acts of terrorism—that is to say, violence for political ends—connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Clause 6 defines the behaviour that will constitute a breach of the declaration. Clause 7 sets out the enforcement mechanism, which will be an application to the High Court for a determination that the declaration has been breached.
Mr. Eric S. Hafer: With regard to the precise definition of terrorism, the Secretary of State has referred to violence for political ends. The fact is that Governments have always believed in violence for political ends. There was terrorism in fighting Nazis in Germany. What is the precise definition of terrorism? Is it only violence against us? What are we really talking about?
Mr. King: The definition is spelt out as it is in the Bill to clarify the matter. It is violence against the person in that definition. As the hon. Gentleman understands, this is a vexed matter and that is why the rather strange definition is included, in somewhat less legalistic language, as "violence for political ends". In the end, that is a matter for a court to determine, as are the interpretations. That is my understanding of it.
Mr. William Ross rose—
Mr. Martin Flannery rose—
Mr. King: I want to finish this part of my speech.
Clause 7 also defines the persons enabled to apply for a determination of breach of declaration. In respect of a councillor, that includes the council itself, other members of the council or electors of the council. In respect of the Assembly members, they are other members of the Assembly or electors of the Assembly constituency concerned.
Clause 8 sets out the consequences of a determination by the High Court that a declaration has been breached. The councillor or Assembly member to whom the determination applies will be disqualified from both council and Assembly office for a period of five years from the date of the determination.
Mr. Flannery: Will the Secretary of State kindly explain a little more his opinion of people, whether or not they are terrorists, who profoundly believe that they are fighting for a cause and hold a belief—something like the French Resistance? Does he really believe that they will not sign something and that they will tell the truth if they profoundly believe in their cause? I think that he is dreaming. I do not think that it is on.
Mr. King: The most offensive sentence in the English language of recent times from a so-called political platform was the statement, if I can remember the words correctly, "Will anyone here object if, with the ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in this hand, we take power in Ireland?" What that sentence says, and what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) I am sure is not seeking to justify but is seeking to believe is inevitable, is that we can tolerate a situation in which people will exploit to the uttermost the freedoms and opportunities that a democratic society can provide while at the same time they reserve the right to kill, maim and intimidate those who argue against them.
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his argument the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to say that I agree with the statement about an Armalite in one hand and a ballot paper in the other. Let me place it on the record that I am totally opposed to that. The Secretary of State must not say things like that. I was asking him to give us a detailed explanation of how he thinks that someone who believes in something profoundly or wrongly will tell the truth if that is against what he profoundly believes in. That is what I am asking the Secretary of State to do. That has nothing to do with what he imputes to me.
Mr. King: The House will have heard that I was most careful not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was in any way seeking to support or condone violence. The problem that the hon. Gentleman was trying to state was that this is not an appropriate response to the problems of those who try to take full advantage of the democratic freedoms and yet at the same time defile the sacredness of democracy by their attempt to use violence and intimidation to get their way.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made a specific point. He asked whether I seriously thought that those people will not just sign the declaration in any case. They may do it. That is all right, but they do that in the knowledge that, if they sign and then commit what may be demonstrated and can be established in the courts to be an offence against that declaration, they will face the consequences.
At the moment, they face no consequences whatsoever. I have complete sympathy with councillors in council chambers in Northern Ireland trying to discharge their responsibilities to their electorate in a democratic and honest way. I find it intolerable that they must listen to and endure that kind of unacceptable abuse. It is a total abuse of the democratic process. Would the hon. Gentleman just walk by on the other side? Would he say that we must have some respect for people's views which are not quite the same as our own, or would he stop and say, "I respect other people's democratic opinions expressed in a democratic way, but if they are carried to the extent of violence and intimidation, there has to be some protection, some right of access for democratic councillors to protect them against that situation"?
Mr. John Hume: If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, if elected, councillors will not call for support for violent organisations, but they can call for as much support as they like, including the quotation that he has just given, during the election campaign. That means that if they are elected and call for the same support in the council chamber, if a member of the public, not the authority, takes a civil action and they lose their seat, they can fight the election again, use the same language again and get re-elected. Are not the Government handing them a weapon to disrupt local government?
Mr. King: I listened to a broadcast this morning in which the hon. Gentleman made a similar point about what happens during an election campaign. Whatever we try to do to deal with the evil of terrorism, there is no easy answer; there is no pat solution that is absolutely foolproof and perfect every time. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have an army of excellent conscientious officials who have warned everyone of the difficulties and the problems and

45
of what the anomalies might be. Should we sit here saying that everything is too difficult and do nothing? In an election, should we try to rule every single candidate, even the biggest nutter who will never get near saving his deposit, and inspect every word he says, or should we make it a requirement of candidature that a person should be a valid candidate? Those people have achieved the opportunity of a democratic election and the platform provided by that democratic election, and before election a candidate must at least know that he runs that risk. It is not a perfect solution or an automatic guarantee, but at least they have to face that risk.
I may not persuade the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). but, although we do not believe every poll we see, it would appear that he has not persuaded the members of his party who, in the poll that I saw, overwhelmingly believe the measure to be a sensible and necessary precaution, and that people standing for democratic election in Northern Ireland should have no hesitation or inhibition about making that declaration.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend has just spoken about every option having some difficulties. Will he join me in wondering whether, in a few minutes' time, we shall hear at last some constructive suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench on at least one option?
Mr. King: I should not like to raise my hon. Friend's hopes on that. I have seen the Labour party's comments in the statement issued at the time of the consultative paper, expressing reservations about it.
I believe that it is not sufficient for hon. Members simply to walk by and say that the situation has to be allowed and tolerated. The House will know that other, more substantial, approaches might have been taken, and I have no doubt that there will be those who argue for the proscription of all organisations that might be supportive of violence and terrorism. The Government have not taken that option. We have decided to put forward in the Bill what we feel is a response to the problems faced in the council chambers. We recognise that there is an unacceptable situation at the moment, and we are determined to provide some means whereby those who feel affronted have some chance to do something about it.
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mr. King: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but it will have to be the last time I give way, or I shall talk out the debate.
Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, but these are important questions that only he can clarify. If in the course of an election a candidate makes speeches which are not covered by the Bill, after he is elected an attack on the elected candidate is an attack on the electors who elected him. This is the problem to which the Secretary of State has not turned his mind. When we start interfering, either by a ban on broadcasting or through the provisions of the oath, we are interfering with those who elected the people concerned and not with the candidate. Will the Minister say something about that problem? He said that there is overwhelming support for the policy. If that is the case, such candidates will not be elected; if it is not, they will. That is the problem which arouses anxiety in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is a bit muddled, because the support is for the fact that candidates should be required to sign such a declaration. There seems to be general agreement that most people will sign it. The criticism from one side is that of course they will sign it and then they will not follow it. They will have to address that matter, but they will know at the time that they will be at risk of being found in breach of the declaration, and that that could lead to a five-year disqualification.
Although it is not a perfect measure, and although there are many criticisms of, for instance, the ban on direct access to the media, they are not shared by Ministers in the Irish Republic, nor by Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, who does not go around apologising for the measure that he brought in. He believes that it is a justified and sensible measure. I believe that that will prove to be the case in Northern Ireland, and that the measure, albeit with the difficulties, problems and reservations that people have, will prove to be far more effective than people think.
In the society that exists in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to respond to the genuine and deeply held grievances arising out of the sufferings there. The measure is often talked about in connection with Sinn Fein exclusively, but I am talking about both extremes—those on the Loyalist side as well as those on the Republican side. Violence and support of a twin-track policy, whatever it may be, are equally repulsive and offensive from whichever side they come.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield ( Mr. Benn) chastised me, saying that I would need to address the problem. I shall listen to what he says he would do to address the problem. I have addressed it and have rejected some other measures. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spent more hours than he would probably care to reflect on discussing and consulting with a whole range of different people on what would be the right response. There is widespread recognition among many politically active people in Northern Ireland, and in the Churches, that a response is needed, and, while it is not perfect, they see this as a genuine atempt to reflect a concern that exists. I am very encouraged that that attitude and appreciation appear to be widely reflected among the people of Northern Ireland in both religious communities.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Taking it one step further, and assuming that a member of Sinn Fein signs that declaration, one of the arguments put forward by those who asked the Government to do something about this matter was that there appeared to be a double standard: that the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues were asking Unionist elected representatives and others to sit down in council chambers with Sinn Fein, while they themselves refused to meet Sinn Fein elected representatives. If a Sinn Fein member signs the declaration, will the Secretary of State meet him?
Mr. King: No, we have no such proposals. If Sinn Fein were to repudiate violence, we would have to consider that. There is a clear distinction between not advocating or supporting violence and failing to repudiate it. I am aware that that was one of the criticisms in the representations made to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
The House will have an opportunity fully to debate this measure not only today but in Committee. The

47
Government believe that it is an appropriate response to circumstances that cause great offence and grievance. In no sense does it seek to exclude from elected office anyone who wishes to pursue the democratic path in the way in which all hon. Members expect—without violence, intimidation or murder as the aid and adjunct to a campaign. We offer the opportunity for all to stand. We merely require that, if elected, the candidate will observe the standards for which the House has stood for centuries. That is the basis on which we put forward the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
5.20 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"That this House, whilst welcoming the proposals to extend the franchise in Local Government elections in Northern Ireland, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is unnecessary because incitement to violence and displays of support for terrorism are already criminal offences; which will increase sectarian conflict in Local Government; which will assist the cause of the supporters of violence; which will place the judiciary in an invidious position, and which does nothing to encourage confidence in the operation of Local Government in Northern Ireland or to heal the divisions in that society."
I shall not follow the introduction of the Secretary of State, not because I concede his argument but because we should consider the Bill and its penicious effects.
The Labour party welcomes the proposals to end the anomalies in the electoral register. Unfortunately, that is the only part of the Bill to which my party can give its support. The central issue is the declaration against violence, to which I shall devote my remarks.
The case against this legislation has been made so vigorously that I am surprised the Government have been foolish enough to introduce it:
"democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of terrorists, and therefore, I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply … There are always people who will come forward and seek to persuade law enforcement agencies of governments that there are short cuts to solving terrorist problems; that there is no need to be moderate, civilised and restrained in our response. However briskly, forcefully and determinedly one might have to respond to particular situations, I do think those other qualities should not be forgotten, lest they simply increase the size of the sea within which the terrorist fish can swim … do not try to take short cuts with the law in order to produce short-term results that may cause longer-term problems. Do not neglect the task of tackling the real grievances which may provide the terrorist with some of his support in the community".
The Government apparently do not share that point of view. It was put forward most eloquently and effectively by the hon. Member who probably knows more about countering terrorism and who has served longer in Northern Ireland than anyone else—the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). All those words came from a Northern Ireland information service handout of a speech made by the hon. Gentleman in 1986. That was the background against which the Government started again after the last election, but they have cut themselves off from such a policy by a series of measures over the past six months. This measure is perhaps one of the most regrettable. It is a disappointment to all fair-minded men
48
that the Government, reacting to the Prime Minister's pressures, have not listened to the words of wisdom of the hon. Member for Chelsea.
The Bill does not address itself to the problem of reducing the size of the sea in which the terrorist swims. It does not even place the sandbags in the way of the terrorist tide, nor does it even fence off the sea with barbed wire, which might catch the odd terrorist minnow. It simply strings a white tape along the edge of the water, which is insufficient to dry the swamps in which the paramilitaries feed.
The Labour party declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill for several reasons. It is misconceived and unnecessary, does nothing to eradicate violence, is futile, will strengthen the paramilitary case and it is apparent that it will have quite unintended consequences that the Government have equally obviously failed to consider.
The Secretary of State's case for the Bill rests on two assumptions—that the presence of Sinn Fein in local government is alone responsible for the disruption of local authority business, and that its presence is offensive to other councillors and the citizens of Northern Ireland. On the first point, the Secretary of State has misled himself. The greatest disruption in council chambers has been as a result of the Unionist campaign against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, not the presence of Sinn Fein. Some 20 of the 21 district councils made representations in favour of these proposals to the Under-Secretary. Of those 20 councils, 15 experienced some disruption as part of a protest campaign against the Anglo-Irish Agreement; that did not concern the presence of Sinn Fein.
Only six councils signed the declaration of fair employment embodied in the current fair employment legislation; 14 did not sign, yet it is mainly those siren voices—those local councils that were so upset at sitting down with Sinn Fein—who would so insult their fellow citizens that they would not sign fair employment declarations and took part in a campaign of disruption against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Secretary of State's first point falls on that count.
Mr. Brazier: As a Catholic, I am most concerned about fair employment in Northern Ireland, as is the right hon. Member. It is important to make progress, but the considerable progress made over the past few years has not led to a fall in terrorist violence. Something else must be done, and the House looks forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's views.
Mr. McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on promoting me to the Privy Council; he must tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about that. I am protesting not as a Catholic, but as a citizen. Fair employment is not a question of Catholics or Protestants, but of human rights.
I agree with the Minister that the presence of Sinn Fein gives rise to strong and understandable feelings of revulsion and outrage. As we know—the Prime Minister has often told us so, especially with regard to apartheid —such strong emotions are not a rational basis for policy decisions. The argument must be considered in greater detail. One must ask why Sinn Fein participation arouses such anger. It is because it supports a campaign of violence by the IRA. If we are serious about ending the anger, we

49
must be serious about ending the violence. The Bill simply suggests that the underlying problem will go away if it is concealed from view.
The Bill does nothing to hinder the IRA. It will do nothing to put those who employ violence behind bars. It will not cut off the flow of arms or lead to their seizure. It attempts to limit the expression of support for paramilitaries, but that is already a criminal offence, which is why we believe that the Bill is unnecessary. There are a battery of powers in the criminal law that deal with the expression of support for violence. Section 21 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 make it an offence to invite or solicit support for proscribed organisations. Is that not what the declaration is supposed to be about?
Article 9 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour if it is likely that hatred or fear will be aroused. Is that not what the declaration is about? These powers are available to the authorities now, but we are asked to permit action to be taken against people for what they are, rather than for what they do. This involves a reversal of policies that have been followed since the phasing out of internment and the end of special category status in the mid-1970s.
The Bill is also futile. Oaths and declarations were abolished in 1973. The decision was taken with the support of the Government and Opposition of the day. Among the various reasons was one put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who said:
"I take leave to doubt whether the Act ever achieved its purpose. An oath excludes, by its nature, only the scrupulous and honest …
Those who are prepared to take an oath in which they do not necessarily believe … will not be excluded by the requirement of the oath … this requirement operates chiefly as a rather purposeless irritant."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 423.]
The argument was unanswerable at the time; it remains unanswerable now. As we have seen, Sinn Fein has already announced its intention to sign the declaration.
The Bill strengthens the position of the paramilitaries. The real beneficiaries of the Bill will be those whom it seeks to defeat. That has been an unfortunate trait of the Government's policy over the past six months. Sinn Fein will be able to portray itself as the only party that the Government feel is a serious threat to their ability to rule in Northern Ireland. This is a major moral and political boost to that party. One has only to look at the statements issued by Sinn Fein since the declaration was first mooted to see the ill-conceived satisfaction with which its leaders welcome the Bill. My party is not prepared to support a Bill that gives such comfort to the supporters of the paramilitaries.
Under the headline "Thatcher's Crackdown will Fail" in Republican News of 24 November, an article points out that the Bill is
"an admission that Britain cannot crush Sinn Fein support but will still try to stop the Nationalist people choosing who will represent them … Thatcher is introducing these latest laws precisely because of the political effectiveness of Sinn Fein … In her own pig-headed, jackboot way she is letting us know that we have been adopting the right tactics and strategy!"
That is how Sinn Fein sees it.
50
If one were tempted to dismiss this simply as idle rhetoric, one need only look at the effect of the original proposals put forward in the consultative document on voting behaviour. Shortly after the paper was published, Sinn Fein trounced its rivals in two Belfast city council by-elections, increasing its share of the first preference vote from 55 per cent. to 63·6 per cent. in one case—a seat that it was expected to win—and from 43 per cent. to 49·8 per cent. in the other—a seat that it was expected to lose to the SDLP. What clearer warning could have been given to the Government to think again? The Bill is a blow, not against the supporters of the paramilitaries but against constitutional Nationalists. It seems an insult to my hon. Friends in the SDLP, who have been fighting violence on the hustings in a democratic manner for the past 20 years, to say to them, "If you are to stand for election in local government, you must sign this declaration."
The Bill is particularly ironic at a time when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party have pitilessly exposed the bankruptcy of Sinn Fein and its ideas and methods. For the Government to suggest that the Bill, which is so welcomed by those whom it is designed to combat, is a serious contribution to the fight against the paramilitaries defies all logic. Sinn Fein and the IRA have dared the Government to take such a step and the Government have been foolish enough to take the bait.
Why do the Bill's legitimate targets enjoy the Government's predicament so openly and thoroughly? They recognise, where the Government do not, the advantages that it offers them. Simply by forcing the Government to introduce a Bill directed at Sinn Fein, the paramilitaries have succeeded in obliging the authorities to place the elected members of their organisation on a pedestal and not in the dock. This is a morale booster for the convinced supporter of the IRA or for the experienced gunman, but, more seriously, it will undermine confidence in the authorities among those tens of thousands of people whose attitude towards the Republican movement wavers between sympathy and disgust.
What, these people will ask, do the Government have to hide? Why do they seek to change the electoral rules because they do not like the outcome? What is the point of voting? The old slogan, "If voting could change anything, they would make it illegal," will win converts to the Bill if we adopt it. I cannot think of any better way to damage the credibility of the democratic process. That will be the effect of using the electoral rather than the criminal law in the fight against the paramilitaries. The west Belfast by-election results must be a constant reminder to us all.
Sinn Fein will take comfort from another aspect of the measure. If a Sinn Fein member is disqualified, his party will receive a propaganda bonus. When the by-election takes place, Sinn Fein cannot lose, because there will be one of two results. In electoral districts where the councillor was elected at an early stage of the count, another member of his party is likely to be elected, probably with an increased majority, thereby thumbing the party's nose at the legislation. Where the disqualified councillor was elected at a more advanced stage of the count, the seat will probably be lost. I leave it to hon. Members to ponder which scenario would have the most damaging effect on the democratic process: the first, because the Bill was shown to be useless, or the second, because it gave a continuous argument that the rules had been changed and the goal posts moved.

51
The Bill is also discriminatory. Its damaging effects are compounded by the fact that its target is essentially those who are misleadingly called "Republican" paramilitaries. As the list of proscribed organisations is discriminatory, there is a major inconsistency in the Government's position. Unlike the situation with the broadcasting restrictions, the UDA is not covered, so we have the ludicrous position where it will not be possible to support the UDA on television but all too possible to support it in the council chambers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read the new declaration. Specifically, under schedule 2 it states:
"I will not by word or deed express support for or approval of—
(a) any organisation"—
and so on—
"(b) acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that we added paragraph (b) to ensure that the measure was even-handed and covered both sides.
Mr. McNamara: It is not as even-handed as the hon. Gentleman thinks.
I turn to the unintended consequences of the Bill. Most obviously, the Government seem to have forgotten the second of the two reasons why oaths and declarations were prohibited 15 years ago. That is all the more surprising when one considers that among those voting in favour of the abolition of the oaths one finds the names of three future Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, including the present incumbent.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about by-elections as though they were going to be exactly the same as proportional representation elections. Has he studied the number of district electoral areas in Northern Ireland in which the IRA-Sinn Fein element had a majority of the Nationalist vote?
Mr. McNamara: The point of my examples was that the IRA did not have a majority of the Nationalist vote but won the by-election.
I turn to the sub-plot underlying this matter. For us in Great Britain, the requirement to sign a declaration eschewing the use of violence for political ends may appear to be the height of reason, but in the overheated atmosphere of Northern Ireland this takes on connotations which are not immediately visible to us in the House. The problem which we face is not whether the declaration is reasonable in itself, nor whether the wording is reasonable, but its very existence.
The existence of almost any declaration will create suspicion and unease in Northern Ireland. It smacks of the bad old days of Stormont and discrimination, where oaths and declarations were used to maintain the Nationalist population in a state of second-class citizenship. Whether we like it or not, this is the way in which the Bill will be perceived in Northern Ireland and was the reason why the Cameron commission was so strong in recommending the abolition of oaths and declarations.
Even more important, there is a further unintended consequence; that is the way in which the Bill will intensify
52
sectarianism in the council chambers. The Bill is an attempt to strike a blow against Sinn Fein, but it is not a well-directed sniper shot; rather, it is a careless blast of buckshot. It is already apparent that many district councils have descended into chaos following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. With this Bill, they will become even more of a sectarian bear pit because, in several councils, the behaviour of members, understandable though it might be, clearly shows that they have fallen into the trap set for them by Sinn Fein. They have allowed Sinn Fein to appear to be the injured party with their opponents cast as the real exponents of violence.
I can understand the emotions that inspire such behaviour, but, with this Bill, things will be even worse. Councillors will have even less incentive to attempt to counter the Sinn Fein case by reason, turning instead to the law. Local authorities will be paralysed, as there will be constant efforts to goad councillors into violating the declaration. There will be countless actions to disbar councillors and constant challenges to establish exactly what the declaration means.
That last point is of particular significance. What does the declaration mean? As it stands, there will be efforts to disbar Sinn Fein councillors, but its activists have, in the past, shown themselves sufficiently sophisticated to be able to circumvent the declaration. For instance, it does not take much imagination to predict Mark Antony style perorations, such as "I support the right of the South African people to enter into armed struggle to secure their freedom. I support the right of the Afghan people to enter into armed struggle to secure their freedom. I support the right of all freedom-loving people to fight to secure their freedom." Does that fall within or without the bar?
Those concerns are accentuated by the vagueness of the terms of the declaration.
Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be answering the point that I put to him. If he looks at clause 6(2), he will see that it states that
"For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person shall be taken to express support for, or approval of, any matter if his words or actions could reasonably be understood as expressing support for, or approval of, it."
Mr. McNamara: What does the Minister mean by that? If I say that I support all freedom-loving people in their fight, is the Minister saying that freedom does not exist in Northern Ireland? Are we saying that we shall get a person because he opposes apartheid? That is farcical and the Minister knows it.
Those concerns are accentuated by the vagueness of the terms of the declaration itself. According to clause 6(2), to which the Minister referred, the grounds for disqualification are the use of words or behaviour which "could reasonably be understood" to be violations of the declaration, but what does that mean? In effect, we are being asked to abdicate our responsibility to the courts and to offer a poisoned chalice to the courts. I am also concerned that extra-territorial effect of clause 6(3) constitutes a major departure in international law, which is likely to further frustrate Britain's international reputation because a person can now be "done", not for what he says in the British Isles, but for what he says in Timbuktu, Toronto or Washington.
Only last week, the European Court of Human Rights once again found against the Government in respect of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. That

53
will lead to yet another challenge. It is open to dispute whether a case under article 9 of the convention, which protects freedom of expression, would succeed, but a case under article 3 of the first protocol, which deals with free elections, would appear to stand a high degree of success. 1 do not wish to see this country dragged through the courts again.
To make matters worse, the matter of enforcement proposed by the Government is perhaps the worst aspect of the Bill. By placing the onus on councils, councillors and individual citizens to take action, it will intensify the conflict in local government, possibly also setting them up as targets. I see from The Daily Telegraph of 25 November that the Minister justifies this provision in terms of the need to protect the impartiality of the Law Officers. I wish that the Government had displayed a similar concern in the Stalker affair. We cannot protect that which is not perceived to exist in Northern Ireland.
It is a cowardly excuse because, if the evidence is there, action could and should be taken under the emergency powers legislation dealing with inciting anyone to support violence. However, the Government are saying no and are doing that deliberately because they know that the same standard of evidence is not required in a civil action as in a criminal action. That again shows the Bill to be the farce that it is. The Government have insufficient confidence in their own measures to take responsibility for its enforcement.
The court might well be cluttered up with applications against councillors of all persuasions. Many of those applications may be dismissed out of hand, but not all applications against Unionist councillors will be considered vexatious. Many councillors have taken part in paramilitary displays or have issued bloodthirsty calls to illegal and armed resistance against the decisions of this Parliament.
For example, in an interview shortly before the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Councillor Ivan Foster of Fermanagh council, former deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party and commander of that party's paramilitary wing, the Third Force, warned that he and his supporters would resist the decisions of this Parliament. He said:
"I know how to use a gun. There's no use carrying a gun unless you know how to use it. There's no use carrying a gun if you don't intend to use it."
Why will the Government not take responsibility, under the provisions of this Bill, to seek to disbar a person who says such a thing?
Even more outrageous was the threat to Ulsterbus and its staff, issued in June 1985, by Councillor Sammy Wilson, a leading member of the DUP and recent lord mayor of Belfast. When Ulsterbus refused to provide transport to a demonstration in Castlewellan, which ended in violence, Mr. Wilson announced:
"It now seems that the Northern Ireland office has enlisted not only the RUC but the transport industry in its offensive against the Unionist population. Such a move can place Ulsterbus vehicles and drivers in an extremely vulnerable position."
However, no action was taken on that. Under the provisions of the Bill, will action be taken in future on something like that?
Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It is too vague.
Mr. McNamara: Members of the Transport and General Workers Union, driving buses in Northern Ireland, know that it is a real threat to their security because they have seen what has happened to the buses.
The Ulster Resistance Movement is designed to intimidate this House. That movement is organised and dressed on paramilitary lines. Prominent members of this House were present at the foundation of that movement, including the leader and deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), and took part in various threatening marches around the Province. Within the last month, a large cache of arms was found in Armagh, accompanied by Ulster Resistance uniforms, including the red beret that the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were proud to wear.
Many of us in this House still remember the disgraceful scenes that took place on the Loyalist day of action in March 1986. Unionist councillors played an active role in attempts to instigate violence and to disrupt normal life in the Province.
The list of such activities is endless. I shall limit myself to one further example, that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, who is also a member of Castlereagh council. The hon. Gentleman's prediliction for taking part in paramilitary displays is not as well known in this House as it is in Northern Ireland. He took part in a parade in Portadown, dressed in paramilitary style. In Enniskillen, he announced that the organisation—Ulster Resistance— had commenced paramilitary training. He did not confine his activities to the Province. His invasion of Clontibret in County Monaghan led to his conviction before the special criminal court.
Although I am sure that the House will agree that such episodes are to be deplored, that is not the primary purpose in bringing those facts to light; it is to bring to the attention of the House the fact that large sections of both communities have an ambiguous attitude towards the use of violence. What is more, in the context of this Bill, what the hon. Member for Belfast, East did would presumably prevent him standing for election as a member of his local council—of which he is at present a member—for five years, but it would not prevent him standing for election as a Member of this House or as a member of the European Parliament. Is that not hypocrisy? It is one rule for local government elections in Northern Ireland and another for this place and the European Parliament. That is why the Opposition are not prepared to accept the Bill.
There are two types of violence in Northern Ireland. First, there is the violence of those who seek to alter the constitutional status of Northern Ireland through force—the Republican paramilitaries. Secondly, there is the violence of the paramilitaries who seek, at best, to maintain the status quo or, at worst, to turn the clock back to the Northern Ireland of the pre-civil rights era—Protestant resistance. That is recognised by the authorities, but not by the Bill.
Under clause 6(a)(ii) it would be possible to make a speech in support of Loyalist organisations such as the UDA, the Third Force and Ulster Resistance, provided that person did not support specified acts of terrorism. It states that he would be in breach if he expressed approval of
"acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with Northern Ireland."

55
Speeches can be made in general about any sort of violent organisation in Northern Ireland. It will be right and proper for divisional commanders to prepare, to march and to wear paramilitary uniform because their organisations are not proscribed and they cannot be connected to any specific act of terrorism. The Government surely cannot expect a court to say that if a person does not seek to defend a particular act of terrorism, that should be taken to be a connection with that act. That would be too much of a burden for the courts.
That same restriction does not apply to broadcasting because other organisations are not proscribed. A person can appear on television and openly support Protestant Resistance, Third Force or any other Nationalist offshoot that might pop up and is not proscribed—but not under this legislation. It does not add up.
I have sought to show that the Bill will affect politicians from both sides of the community and that it will lead to further sectarian divisions. If it does not, it will appear to be one-sided. We cannot tell what will happen because so much has been left to the discretion of the courts. Instead of dealing with the roots of violence and sectarianism, the Bill will further divide the communities as each side tries to equalise the score in the disqualification league table. The Secretary of State reminds me of Flan O'Brien's
"determined chairmen who convert disorder into bedlam."
The Bill is an attempt by the Government to save the people of Northern Ireland from themselves. It may be deplorable that certain malevolent types emerge victorious from a secret ballot, but that is reality. The answer is to win the argument with their electorate, not to drive their supporters completely out of the political process. By requiring the judiciary to arbitrate between the conflicting factions, to decide who can serve on local authorities, and to define the limits of political debate in Northern Ireland, the Government are asking the state to substitute itself for the electorate. That will obviously damage public confidence in the judicial system.
The Bill does not require judges to decide specific cases on the basis of commonly held principles—it is an attempt to make them decide what those standards should be. That is a task for the elected representatives of the people and the people themselves. There are no short cuts. Not content with militarising the judicial process—as the Government have done under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order—they are now intent on politicising the judges as well. The beneficiaries of that can only be the paramilitaries. For that reason, the Opposition will vote against Second Reading.
5.54 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: Before I begin my remarks on the content of the Bill, I want to respond to some of the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who threw together some partial pieces of information, dangled them in front of the House and expected us to reach a conclusion on that brief information.
The hon. Gentleman described councillor Ivan Foster as a former deputy leader of the DUP, but Mr. Foster has never been the party's deputy leader and he is not a councillor. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Foster had
56
said that he had a gun, that he knew how to use it and that no one should carry a gun unless he was prepared to use it. I, too, could make such remarks. Like Mr. Foster, I legally hold a weapon. If Mr. Foster were not prepared to use a gun, and if the authorities did not expect him to be able to use it, he should not have been given permission to hold one. If hon. Members knew where Mr. Foster lived, they would understand why he needs a weapon to protect his life and the lives of his family. There is nothing in the remarks of the former lord mayor of Belfast to which anyone could take offence, and there is nothing in them that needs to be answered.
The hon. Gentleman made wild remarks about me. He said that I appeared at Portadown in paramilitary uniform. That demonstrates his wild imagination. I was wearing a three-piece suit, on top of which I wore a normal blue overcoat. I was wearing a beret, and I shall tell the House why. The Chief Constable issued an edict that anyone who wore a beret would be considered to be in paramilitary uniform and subject to certain laws. I disagreed with that edict and said that boy scouts and girl guides would have to be careful about what they wore to their gatherings. The edict was absolute nonsense. I was merely thumbing my nose, as were others, at the Chief Constable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the police recently uncovering arms in Northern Ireland and said, as is widely accepted in Northern Ireland, that the weapons belonged to the Ulster Resistance. The security forces have no information to substantiate that claim. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the weapons were found alongside Ulster Resistance uniforms. That is not true. The Ulster Resistance uniforms and berets were handed back to its members after being taken by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They were not found with the guns that were displayed.
Mr. Mallon: In the interests of accuracy, would the hon. Gentleman like me to tell him the name of the person involved, whose house is exactly half a mile from where I live? I assure the hon. Gentleman that those uniforms were found with the guns at that house.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the House to discuss a matter that is before the courts? The person charged was a Mr. Spratt, whom I know very well. He was not charged with having guns or with being a member of the Ulster Resistance—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be committing the same offence as that about which he is complaining. If it is the case—and I am not aware of it—that ther person to whom reference has been made is the subject of charges laid before the court, it would be wrong for the House to discuss that because it would be sub judice.
Mr. Robinson: I hear your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that if he listens carefully to the prosecution evidence when the case comes before the courts he will find that I am right and he is wrong.—Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
A letter from the Minister dated 24 November shows the purpose behind the Bill. It shows that there are difficulties in local government as a result of the presence

57
in council chambers of elected representatives whose declared support for terrorist violence is incompatible with the democratic process. That is of great concern not only to elected representatives of the Unionist community but to other elected representatives and to other representatives of the community as a whole.
I should have thought that no one could have faulted the Government for taking account of those real concerns and attempting to do something about them. Many councillors in Northern Ireland have expressed their concern to the Secretary of State and others, and have asked the Secretary of State to bring forward a measure to deal with the matter. I should be the last person who could fault them for that. I have some strictures to apply, but they certainly do not relate to the basis and purpose of the legislation.
Again, for the sake of accuracy, I inform the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, that before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, as a result of the presence of Sinn Fein members there were boycotts and adjournments of local government. Such action started directly after the May elections and before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I say that just in case the hon. Gentleman is the least bit interested in accuracy, although his speech showed that he had no great concern for it.
In his letter to elected representatives forwarding a copy of the Bill, the Secretary of State properly showed the nature and importance of the measure. The problem of security and violence in Northern Ireland is well known to the House. More than 2,750 people have been butchered as a result of the terrorist campaign. Few families in Northern Ireland have not suffered as a consequence, if not directly by a member of their family being killed, certainly by a friend or close relative being butchered. That violence has transcended the religious and political divides in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of concern for everyone.
I must agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North—this measure will not address that problem, and it is unlikely that people will die as a result of the measure. However, I do not believe that the real purpose of the measure is to deal with security. If it is to do anything, it is to clean up the democratic process. If that is its purpose, it should be welcomed by the House.
There are some outstanding examples of the hypocrisy which pertains in democracy in Northern Ireland. For instance, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in the council of Londonderry, a Sinn Fein member was returned who had previously been before the courts for being a part of the bombing team who blew up the council offices. Sinn Fein members who gloried in the death of district councillors are members of the self-same councils. No one can suggest that it is a pleasant task for people who believe in the democratic process to sit in council chambers with people who have taken that kind of action and expressed those views.
In many ways, the Secretary of State gave away the weakness of the measure when he responded to my earlier intervention about the double standard perceived by many Unionists—that the Secretary of State would encourage Unionists calmly and peacefully to take part in council debates with members of Sinn Fein, while he and his colleagues would hold them at bargepole length and ensure that they are not allowed into the Northern Ireland Office at Stormont castle.
58
In response to views that were expressed by Opposition Members from a sedentary position, the Secretary of State said that no repudiation of violence is included in the declaration. The truth is that the declaration which appears in the Minister's letter, the explanatory notes, the Secretary of State's remarks in the House and in the Bill itself, and which purports to be a declaration against terrorism, is not a declaration against terrorism. One does not need to declare oneself opposed to a proscribed organisation. That is not included in the delaration in the Bill. If it is a declaration against anything, it is a declaration against publicly announcing support for terrorism. If it were the former, I should be happier to give full and whole-hearted support to the measure. That is the weakness of the legislation—that it is not what it purports to be.
It is hypocritical for the Government to suggest to Unionist councillors that, even with this piece of legislation helping the situation to whatever extent it may, they should calmly and rationally debate local government issues with members of Sinn Fein while the Secretary of State and his Ministers refuse to do that self-same thing about self-same issues. I urge the Secretary of State to treat elected representatives in Northern Ireland as he would wish to be treated. If Sinn Fein members are unclean for Stormont castle, they should be considered unclean for council chambers in Northern Ireland.
The answer—the Government cannot dodge it—must be the proscription of the organisation concerned. If the Secretary of State would consider with me for a moment the effect that that would have on Northern Ireland, he would see that there would be many beneficial side-effects. For the first time, the people of Northern Ireland would see determination and resolve on the part of the Government to take any measure, no matter how unpopular it would be with some hon. Members. They would see that the Government are prepared to take the necessary action to make it clear to the community that there is no place in our council chambers for terrorists or supporters of terrorists.
Let us be clear about what Sinn Fein is. It is not simply a support organisation for the Provisional IRA. It is an integral part of the Provisional IRA. Its constitutional and organisational structure demonstrates that Sinn Fein councillors are directly under the control of local IRA commanders. That is clear evidence that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are one and the same entity. If the Secretary of State does not want to take my word for that, he can look up the Baker report on terrorism, in which it was stated that that is the position. The report almost urges the proscription of that organisation.
I have some sympathy—certainly on an academic level —with the view of a Labour Secretary of State who said that, if we could encourage people away from violence and into the political process, we should do so. It was on that basis that de-proscription took place. That Secretary of State considered that, if Sinn Fein were allowed to grow as a political party, its representatives and councillors would move away from the spoils of violence towards the political process, thereby undermining the Provisional IRA and, obviously, reducing violence in Northern Ireland. Academically, many people could embrace that argument, but it has not happened. The direct opposite has happened. The political process has been used to bolster the Provisional IRA's terrorist campaign.

59
The quotation that the present Secretary of State used in his remarks clearly shows that the Government see it as a step-by-step parallel process, pushing the political wing along with the military wing of the Provisional IRA—the ballot paper and the Armalite policy. It is totally inconsistent—indeed, it is absurd—to continue to allow people who are clearly identified with a terrorist organisation to parade in council chambers as though they were interested in the day-to-day welfare of their electorate. Instead of a strong Bill that would have given life to the Government's rhetoric, we have a limp, Jukewarm, lifeless measure that is neither fish nor fowl. At its heart is the declaration which does not live up to its title. My colleagues will seek to amend it so that it becomes a declaration against terrorism and I trust that there will be some opportunity at a later stage to do that.
Clause 6(1)(b) shows the whole purpose behind the declaration against terrorism. The declaration, which should be a declaration against support for terrorism, will be breached if a person supports a proscribed organisation or terrorist act
"(i) at a public meeting, or
(ii) knowing, or in such circumstances that he can reasonably be expected to know, that the fact that he has made that expression of support or approval is likely to become known to the public."
That means that the Government do not object to a person expressing privately by word or deed his support for a terrorist organisation—that is consistent with membership of a local government authority in Northern Ireland. It is only when a person steps into the public arena and shows his support for that organisation that he runs foul of this legislation.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that some members of Sinn Fein may be prepared to sign this declaration. Of course they will be. There is no reason why they should not. Without being dishonest in the least, a gunman or bomber could sign that declaration. It does not ask him not to bomb or shoot again. It asks him only not to support that sort of activity publicly. Therefore, Sinn Fein members will find no difficulty in signing the declaration.
The declaration takes us only one step on and, like many hon. Members, I believe that Sinn Fein members will sign it. Sinn Fein members are elected to district councils and, careful and well trained though they may be in getting round legal niceties, with the passage of time one or another is likely to offend under this legislation and say something that will give rise to a court case.
Who will take the action? It will not be the Director of Public Prosecutions, because it is not to be considered a criminal matter. I should be interested to hear from the Minister where the support came from for dealing with this as a civil matter. I have not heard of any great pressure on the Government or the Minister to treat this as a civil matter. I do not necessarily object to it being dealt with either as a criminal or civil case—if the DPP declines to take a case, I am certainly in favour of civil recourse—but I cannot understand why the DPP should not have a role. If the DPP is not to be given a role, we had better be clear what we are asking local government representatives and local electors to do—we are asking them to sign their own death warrants.
60
The first case will be the test case. The first person to take a case against a Sinn Fein councillor had better keep his head down, because Sinn Fein will want to dissuade anyone else from following that path. That is not to say that there are not people with sufficient backbone to stand up to the PIRA and Sinn Fein and take that action, but why is it necessary for them to do so when there is not only the option of this being a criminal matter, but other options?
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is that not why there is provision for an entire council to take action?
Mr. Robinson: It is likely that Sinn Fein representatives will be elected in predominantly Nationalist areas. That means that we shall be talking about councils such as Omagh, Strabane and perhaps Londonderry, where there is a Nationalist majority. It is unlikely that a council with a Nationalist majority will take any court action against a Sinn Fein member for remarks that he or she may make. Other councils will have great difficulty in taking such action. A Belfast council, for example, cannot take such action against a councillor from Omagh or Strabane who makes such a remark.
Mr. Leigh: Surely some representatives can take action. It need not be the entire council.
Mr. Robinson: Yes, but they fall back into the category of people who are putting their lives on the line. Many will be prepared to do that. I am not suggesting that because the Government have specified these categories no one will take such action—some will—but by specifying only these categories the Government are putting the lives of elected representatives and others in danger.
Both Unionist parties asked the Government to consider proscription and certainly to make this a criminal offence and therefore a matter which could be pursued by the DPP. If the Government are not prepared to do that, they must seriously consider setting up a body which can be regarded as a commission. In that way, people who have a complaint about the remarks of an elected representative can take it to that body, which will be sufficiently financed by the Government to provide the legal advice necessary to institute a prosecution and which will have the authority to take any further action in accordance with this legislation. It is far easier to ask people who live in safer areas of the Province to take this sort of stand than to leave it to those who are necessarily in the front line. I urge the Government to consider those aspects in Committee.
As a district council can bring an action against a council representative for his views, why did the Minister exclude the Assembly from taking such an action against an Assembly Member for his remarks? I should have thought that the same entitlement would have fallen on the Assembly. I know that the Assembly is not of immediate concern because it is not an immediate prospect, but I should like to have the Government's thinking on that.
Clause 6(4) makes it clear that an Assembly Member who makes such remarks in the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be protected by the privilege of that Assembly. Does that mean that an elected representative in this House would be protected by the privilege of this House? Are elected representatives from Northern Ireland who make such remarks in this House in a special category

61
in that they cannot be caught under this legislation? If I were the creature that the Front Bench Opposition spokesman thinks I am and wished to make a remark which would offend under this legislation, all that I would have to do is make the remark in this House—then nobody could do a thing about it because the privilege of this House would protect me.
My colleagues and I feel that while this legislation started out for the right purpose, it has been weakened considerably.
Mr. William Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of who may bring a case, will he draw attention to the sheer cost of bringing such a case? Although the IRA and its mouthpiece, Sinn Fein, will always claim not to recognise British courts, we can be sure that they will recognise British courts for this. The first test case will probably end up in the other place and cost a huge sum. An individual bringing such a case may have means such as to place him outside the legal aid provisions and thus be unable to afford to do so. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister who is liable to pay if a council loses the case? That will be fairly contentious because of the wording of the legislation. Moreover, the Government are continually trying to cut the money that councils can spend and the purposes on which they can spend it.
Mr. Robinson: The cost, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested, could be considerable. The Secretary of State has said in the explanatory notes and in the Bill itself that legal aid will be available, but what percentage of councillors will be eligible for legal aid? Will a councillor who is entitled to bring an action under the Bill also be eligible for legal aid? The Secretary of State may say that a council can bring an action as a legitimate item of expenditure, but if such an action failed, the local government auditor might say at the end of the financial year that the council's action had been frivolous and that there should be a surcharge as a result. That would be a disincentive to many councillors who might otherwise consider bringing an action.
That is why I have suggested that, if the Government want to get to grips with the matter, there should be a body funded by the Government to bring such actions. It would be in a better financial position to do so, it could stand up better to IRA terrorism and it would be better equipped to obtain the necessary legal advice to pursue the case. The question of finance is important.
I suspect—although I have no firm proof of this—that the Government will resist the idea that the matter should be dealt with through criminal prosecution and that it will be left to civil action. The Government have ducked out and left others to carry on the front-line work. The Bill should be strengthened. In its present form, it will be ineffective and unlikely to have more than a marginal impact on local government. I am disappointed in the Bill, but I am prepared to ensure that amendments are tabled in Committee by myself and by other hon. Members from Northern Ireland and I hope that there will be a blood transfusion to give the Bill more life, vitality and strength.
6.23 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am delighted that this matter is being dealt with through a Bill and not, as is generally the case, by an order that applies to Northern Ireland. That is a relief.
To understand why the Bill is necessary, one should consider the motives of local government councillors before the 1985 local government elections. At that time, district and borough councillors felt that it was their public duty to serve the local community, even though that meant more kicks than ha'pence—that is, roughly translated, more criticism than salary. Although it was felt—and still is—that councillors had little power, there was generally a surplus of candidates who were anxious to use their expertise, such as business men, teachers, trade unionists and farmers. They wanted to make a contribution to the local administration.
I speak from personal experience, as I have met many local councillors. In May 1981, I was elected to the Newtownabbey borough council and, with 20 other councillors, I began to look after a limited number of responsibilities for the area in which I was born. As the House has heard before, those responsibilities were, basically, emptying bins, providing recreation facilities and burying the dead—not necessarily in that order.
We also had a consultative role in a number of other matters, but we quickly became aware that consultation was usually another word for confirming departmental decisions that the council had no power to change. Nevertheless, because of the good personal relationships between councillors, it was an enjoyable and instructive experience. In spite of our frustration about the absence of power, the council, as a corporate body, carried out its functions with good humour and togetherness, overcoming differing party views and generally reaching decisions which were for the good of the whole community.
That happy state of affairs lasted until 9 May 1985 when, because of my membership of the House, I gave up my council seat to concentrate on my parliamentary duties, thus making way for another candidate to gain valuable experience as a public representative. I took my decision with great regret because of the friendships that I had formed with councillors from all parties. I know that I should have had a similar experience in most local councils in Northern Ireland.
Little did I realise the anger, aggravation, disgust, heartache and high blood pressure that I was to be spared by that decision. In May 1985, seven months before the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Sinn Fein candidates stood in local authority elections for the first time since the present troubles began. Of its 59 elected councillors, no fewer than 11 had previously served prison sentences for terrorists crimes. That is hardly surprising when one remembers what the then director of Sinn Fein publicity said during its party conference in 1981—to which the Secretary of State has already referred. Danny Morrison, in addressing the cheering delegates, said:
"Who here really believes that we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in this hand, we take power in Ireland?"
Can anyone be surprised that the arrival of such people in council chambers caused widespread revulsion and apprehension? The vast majority of councillors, regardless of political views, wholly reject violence.

63
There is no doubt that the running of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland has been seriously put at risk by the presence of Sinn Fein in 16 of them. That has had a knock-on effect on the other councils. The Ulster Unionist party fully understands and sympathises with the many decent and moderate councillors who have despaired and who have seriously considered resignation because of the presence of Sinn Fein on the councils since May 1985.
But an even more serious situation has developed among the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. There is a great risk that unless the Bill is effective enough to satisfy the demands of those decent and moderate citizens upon whom our democracy depends, they will not even consider running for office in the 1989 local government elections. That is an extremely dangerous situation that could have long-term effects for the United Kingdom as a whole, and for Northern Ireland in particular.
We are all well aware of how much local councils depend on attracting able people to run their affairs in a balanced and democratic way. We need young men and women to start their political careers in local government, perhaps eventually ending up in this House. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to attract such people into public service while the shadow of the gun and the terrorist hangs over council chambers.
This problem could not continue to be ignored by the Government. When the Secretary of State issued his discussion paper on this matter in October 1987, we said that as a party
"we welcomed this indication that the Government now recognised the obscenity of sustaining a system whereby bona fide elected representatives were forced—by law—to share council chambers with those who would advocate violence in pursuit of political objectives."
We agreed with some of the suggestions in that paper but naturally disagreed with others. We agreed that while it is a fundamental right of democracy that people should be free to participate in elections, it is also reasonable to conclude that that freedom does not include the threat of or the use of violence against political opponents or "challenging democracy" by using the electoral process to undermine democratic institutions. It is a fundamental point that the principle of democracy should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
We also agreed that a serious threat to stable local government comes from Sinn Fein, the candidates of which are proud of their open support for the armed struggle. "Armed struggle" is a euphemism for terrorist crime, including the murders carried out by the Provisional IRA. I must point out that the term "stable local government" alludes to a principle—and does not suggest that Northern Ireland enjoys local government comparable to or in line with that of other areas of the United Kingdom.
It is also true that the presence in council chambers of Sinn Fein councillors who are fully committed to supporting a terrorist campaign gives rise to grave alarm among other councillors, especially when the Provisional IRA, which they openly support, has been responsible for the murder of public representatives—I shall name only three: Robert Bradford, Edgar Graham and Charles
64
Armstrong, who was the chairman of Armagh council—and when those same Sinn Fein councillors have sought to justify those killings.
It must be obvious to everyone who wishes to see it that in such circumstances other council members take the view that information gleaned by such Sinn Fein activists in the course of their elective duties might become available to terrorist organisers. Is it not understandable then that some councils have attempted to solve these problems themselves by procedural devices to overcome such dangers? However, court challenges have rejected the legality of those devices. It becomes essential, therefore, that steps should be taken to give effect to the widely held view that those who condone or support terrorist violence should not be permitted to exploit democratic institutions.
I come now to the part of the Bill that attempts to address those problems and to the declaration which is to be signed by all candidates at local government elections. It seems clear from the wording of the declaration—I shall not weary the House by reading it in full—that a candidate can sign such a declaration and then run a campaign supporting the armed struggle, making it clear when speaking that he or she signed the declaration only to continue their attempts to destroy the very democratic institutions that the declaration is designed to protect. The declaration could also be signed by those with a long track record of violence, for the same reasons. The declaration must be capable of preventing unrepentant supporters of violence from entering council chambers.
The whole reason for the Bill is likely to be called into question if the present wording is not amended because otherwise there is a great danger that the legislation will be rendered completely ineffective by Sinn Fein candidates who, on being elected, blatantly carry on their support for violence, thus challenging other councillors to take them to court. Councillors from constitutional parties must not be put in such a position. The declaration must impose conditions from the date of signing and action must be taken against anyone breaching its terms.
The declaration must be redrafted in a way that will present real difficulties for supporters of terrorism, such as those in Sinn Fein. We must recognise that those who have condoned murder will not, as would honourable men, have any compunction about signing the present declaration. Therefore, it must be redrafted in a way that will thwart the aims and devalue the credibility of those who act as political advocates for terrorist organisations.
The fact that we do not accord those people any credibility must not blind us to the reality that there are those who do. It is for that reason that we suggest that the word "repudiate" be included in the declaration. To require Sinn Fein candidates to repudiate the Provisional IRA would present them with a serious credibility problem. It follows that each proscribed organisation will have to be specified by name in the declaration. Simply leaving it as it is will enable Sinn Fein to say that it considers that the Provisional IRA is not proscribed by any authority that it is willing to recognise.
We are obviously unhappy about clause 7, which lists those who would be entitled to bring a councillor to the High Court for a breach of the declaration. Surely it has been insult enough for the Northern Ireland Office to require councillors even to talk to Sinn Fein when Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office rightly refuse to do so, without now asking councillors to take on the role

65
of the Director of Public Prosecutions, thus leaving themselves open to the personal expense and danger that would be inseparable from such an act.
We feel strongly that any breach of the declaration must be deemed a criminal offence. There must be no equivocation whatsoever on the issue. The proposed legislation is neither for the convenience nor for the protection of an individual. It should not be portrayed as either a sop to Unionists, hurt by 20 long years of terrorism, nor as a weapon to be placed in the hands of Unionists.
The declaration is urgently required to protect and maintain those electoral processes upon which the democratic system of Government in the United Kingdom is founded. But it is the primary duty of Government to sustain those processes for the benefit of all the electorate. No self-respecting Government could contemplate any abdication of that responsibility. In this House we should say that if the Government make the law, the Government should enforce the law.
We believe that those who terrorise the community by extortion, kangaroo courts, the destruction of property, intimidation of workers and brutal cowardly murder should, along with those who openly support them, be ostracised by all who believe in the democratic process; otherwise society will be destroyed and we shall inevitably return to the law of the jungle.
Of course we would have wished for greater and more determined efforts to remove the blatant supporters of violence from the ranks of those who prefer the way of democracy. Although we accept the powers in the Bill, which even in its minor way seeks to redress the balance between democracy and terrorism and its supporters, we shall nevertheless seek to strengthen those powers during the passage of the Bill through the House and in Committee.
As a final example of the reasons why this Bill should be introduced, I shall quote an article which appeared in the Belfast News Letter this morning under the heading "Churches in SF boycott". It states:
"Churchmen in Castlederg and Newtownstewart have united against the presence of the Sinn Fein chairman of Strabane council at Christmas ceremonies this week.
Feelings have been running high since the IRA murder in Castlederg a fortnight ago of RUC Reservist Willie Monteith and there is solid opposition to the chairman Ivan Barr, who refused to condemn the atrocity and to be associated with a message of sympathy from the council to the dead policeman's family …
A letter from four clergymen in Castlederg has been sent to Strabane district council making it clear they will not share a platform with any person who espouses violence and condones murder.
The letter was signed by Rev Denis Anderson (Methodist), the Rev Stewart Jones (Presbyterian), the Rev Patrick Grant (Roman Catholic), and the Rev Walter Quill (Church of Ireland)."
Here I rest my case.
6.42 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on introducing this measure through the conventional Bill procedure. I am extremely glad that the Bill will be debated in Standing Committee, that it will then have its Report stage on the Floor of the House, followed by a Third Reading and that there will be an opportunity to amend the Bill further in another place.
66
When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill today, he hinted that it might be the first of a new programme of giving those who represent Northern Ireland and those who represent other parts of the kingdom the same opportunity to debate and to amend proposed legislation for Northern Ireland as that given to us to amend legislation that affects Great Britain.
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to give way to a single intervention from me when I asked whether, as a result of this Bill, there would be the same qualifications for voting at district elections in Northern Ireland as there are for voting at district elections in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friend did not answer the question, but said that it was a trick question because it came from me.
Of course, it was a totally strightforward question and it was predictable that it would be asked by an hon. Member. If my right hon. Friend had not foreseen that it was likely to be asked, his officials should most certainly have advised him. I have never sought to trick my right hon. Friend and will never do so. In the three and a quarter years since he has been Secretary of State—he arrived in Northern Ireland on the same day that I arrived at the Treasury—I have had the most cordial relationship with my right hon. Friend. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) will respond in a straightforward way to my straightforward question when he replies to the debate.
It is nearly 10 years since the then shadow Cabinet came to decide on its policy towards Northern Ireland. There was a short debate in that Cabinet—characteristically short, of course, since there were other matters perceived to be of greater moment in the proposals of the incoming Government. In March 1979, the shadow Cabinet agreed to its policy in relation to local government in Northern Ireland, a policy which is now the subject of the Bill. The sentence in the manifesto was clear and unambiguous and you will remember it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It reads:
"In the absence of devolved government, we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services."
Here we are, almost nine years on from May 1979, still in the absence of devolved government, but having abandoned and never having tried to implement precisely that policy. It was not suggested by me at the general election in May 1979, but had been suggested by Airey Neave and had been approved by the then shadow Cabinet.
Since we are debating Northern Ireland, since we are debating local government in Northern Ireland and since the title of the Bill is "Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill", it is timely to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary why it is that, although there is still no devolved government in Northern Ireland, we have never made any attempt to implement the policies set out in 1979.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), in a thoughtful and wise speech, which made a deep impression upon the House, referred to his experience as a member of one of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. He reminded the House of the difference between the powers conferred upon district councils in Northern Ireland and the powers conferred upon district councils in England, Scotland and Wales. We may wonder why the Bill does not address itself to that difference in powers to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.

67
There is another aspect to this matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on record—she has said it in this House—as saying that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as any part of the United Kingdom situate in Great Britain. That is not entirely so. Those who live in Gloucestershire and Somerset are able to vote for a county council. The constituents of the hon. Member for Antrim, South cannot vote for a county council. In Scotland, not a single person who qualifies to vote for a parliamentary election does not have the opportunity to vote for a regional council. Only in Northern Ireland are the Queen's subjects denied the right to vote for a county council.
Why do I say that that is relevant to the words of the manifesto? In 1979, we were seeking to set up a regional council or councils in Northern Ireland with widely devolved powers over local matters. The shadow Cabinet believed that that county or regional council should enjoy powers similar to those enjoyed in England, Scotland and Wales.
The Conservative research department—a body with which you will be familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has published for the guidance of members a brief, copies of which can be obtained from the Whips' Office. On the last page of the brief appears an article written by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. As one would expect, it is an excellent article, not least because it assists me in the case that I am trying to put.
Writing on 25 November in The Daily Telegraph, of which Labour Members will be keen students, my hon. Friend said:
"The Government wants to see progress towards devolution … But no settlement can work without local government."
That was a strange choice of words. I need not justify the choice, for they are not my words. But what did my hon. Friend have in mind when he said that
"no settlement can work without local government"?
I know what I have in mind. If he has in mind what I have in mind, I agree with him. It is essential to the settlement of the problems in Northern Ireland that we should have a system of local government that commands the support of the people and that gives to the people of Northern Ireland a system of government similar to that enjoyed in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and east Sussex.
Despite the fact that my hon. Friend was writing about the Bill in that article, the Bill does not address itself to that fundamental.
My hon. Friend went on to say in the article:
"Local government needs able young men and women."
I agree. Local government was able to attract the hon. Member for Antrim, South, who made a distinguished contribution to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was also a member of a district council. But what my hon. Friend should have said in his article, and what for some unaccountable reason he did not say, was that we shall not recruit able young men and women to local government in Northern Ireland until we give additional powers to the 26 district councils and until, as we promised to do in 1979, we set up a regional council or councils.
In my hon. Friend's constituency in Wiltshire there are parish councils. The powers of parish councils are not
68
great. Even in north Wiltshire, the local giants do not serve on parish councils. People of massive ability are not queuing up to get on to parish councils—
Mr. Needham: I am not so sure about that.
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend disagrees with me. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a member of his parish council—[Interruption.] I understand that my right hon. Friend's wife is a member of the parish council, and I pay tribute to her. Although it seems to have caused some hilarity, my point is not without importance. We shall attract more readily those people whom my hon. Friend described in his article if we give more power to elected people in Northern Ireland.
Another aspect of the article will have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it did mine. My hon. Friend said:
"We consulted widely and then issued a discussion paper … Following representations we reconsidered."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and all hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will note the contrast between that consultation, that reconsideration and the claim that 84 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland were in favour of this relatively modest Bill with the total lack of consultation, reconsideration and testing of public opinion before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed on 15 November 1985. We would not be human if we did not notice that contrast.
I have mentioned one or two matters that should have been included in the Bill but are not. The Bill should have given modest additional powers to the 26 district councils, and it should have implemented the Conservative party's pledge of 3 May 1979.
Of course I shall vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree with its relatively modest proposals, including the one to give 10,000 people the right to vote for district councils, despite the derisory powers that they enjoy. I do not know how many of those 10,000, who have so far been deprived of that great right, will take up the power to vote, but they should have it. The proposal about signing a declaration before one can offer oneself as a candidate for a district council is modest, precisely for the reasons that were described so eloquently by the hon. Member for Antrim, South.
In his article, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said:
"We did consider whether enforcement should be by a criminal case, brought by the DPP, or a civil action initiated by the Attorney-General."
That which my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend considered and which both rejected should be reconsidered. It is wrong to say that a citizen should have to go through such a complicated procedure. Many people, not only in Northern Ireland but in my constituency, and even in Wiltshire, North, do not take matters daily to the High Court. It is not part of their normal experience or comprehension. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) laughs, but I assure him that most people are unfamiliar with the High Court of Justice.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells us in The Daily Telegraph that he has considered the matter carefully. It would have been better if my hon. Friend had decided that, where there seems to be a breach of the terms of an undertaking, that breach should be the subject of

69
criminal proceedings initiated not by the council, a councillor or an elector, but by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mercifully, we shall again be able to turn our minds to this matter, thanks to my right hon. Friend, who has used the proper procedure to bring in the Bill. We shall be able to examine the Billl at some length in Committee. We shall welcome the opportunity to test the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends against the very consideration that the Minister himself says was undertaken at an earlier stage within his Department.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Government have power in this matter, it would be wise for them to ensure that Northern Ireland is properly represented on the Committee so that the voice of Northern Ireland people and their elected representatives can be heard? The matter should not be decided by a Committee on which the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and perhaps Northern Ireland parties will not have a voice.
Mr. Gow: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for the Committee of Selection. Even my derisory influence in this place does not extend to influencing the selection of hon. Members who will consider the Bill. Are not two representatives of the all-powerful Whips' Office seated on the Treasury Bench? We have heard the Secretary of State's introduction and, unless we have voted him off, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is still on the Committee of Selection. I am sure that he is a keen student of our debates and will read the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
I warmly approve of the Bill. I hope that it will reach the statute book shortly but not until it has received rigorous further examination. Some of us, whether or not we are on the Committee, will be keen to return to these important matters on Report. I hope that Ministers will reconsider their decision that initiation after a suspected breach of the undertaking should rest in hands other than those of the Attorney-General.
7.2 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). As usual, he speaks interestingly—although not always in terms with which I can agree—about Northern Ireland. I am glad to be able to agree with him on one matter, perhaps even on two—that at last we have an order being discussed on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Tom King: It is a Bill.
Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State is right to correct me. It is not an order, but a Bill. It is good to have discussion on the Floor of the House when so much has been done through orders in Committees upstairs or statutory instruments which from time to time we have had to pray against on a negative resolution.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne was also right in another sense in seeking to place this in a broader context —in his case, in the context of local government, on which he has strong views. The Secretary of State spent about 12 minutes sketching the broader context of the Bill and it is right to take a couple of minutes to read the Bill into where we are. In this sense I am glad to be able to agree with the
70
sense of puzzlement expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). This week we are bringing into the first process of legislation an instrument which will, we hope, assist the Government. In principle, I and my party will vote in favour of Second Reading, although I have some reservations which I shall enter later.
It is with some sadness that I reflect upon the fact that in seeking to provide the Government with an instrument that will assist in the defeat of terrorism, we do so against the background of the Prime Minister's bungling mismanagement of the extradition affair last week. That seriously damaged our capacity to fight terrorism. [Interruption.] Conservative Members choose to disregard unpleasant facts. What the Prime Minister did last week seriously undermined our capacity to achieve the co-operation with the Government of Ireland which is absolutely essential for the defeat of terrorism.
Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that on Second Reading one may speak only about matters that are in the Bill or could reasonably be in the Bill? What the hon. Gentleman is discussing could not possibly be in the Bill, so is it in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): A Second Reading debate can go fairly wide. I remind the House that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just started his speech.
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman who raised that point of order ranged very widely in his own speech, as did the Secretary of State. I understand why the hon. Member for Eastbourne sought to interrupt. It is because these are uncomfortable words for him. The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters. I was in Dublin and Belfast last week. What the Prime Minister did was cheered to the echo by those in the IRA who would wish to see the Extradition Act in the South of Ireland not renewed, and it was cheered to the echo by the extremists in the North who would wish to see undermined our capacity to review the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was also cheered to the echo by those who wish to see relations between the Irish Government and the British Government at their worst possible level because they know that that would damage the fight against terrorism.
I find it odd that this week we are asked to consider a basically good measure when last week the Prime Minister in her handling of these affairs unwittingly, but nevertheless seriously, damaged our capacity to fight the very extremists that the Bill seeks to target. As the Secretary of State fairly and rightly said, many items in the Bill do not attract any kind of excitement or opposition. One is bound to welcome the amendment of the franchise so that those who have been in Northern Ireland for three months can vote in elections. That is in line with the practice throughout the United Kingdom and I am sure that it is the right thing to do. It is also right to amend the disqualification period so that it runs from the end of a sentence rather than from the beginning.
While I am on the subject of sentences, I should say how much we welcome the Government's view that we should also review the whole question of remission for those in prison convicted for acts of terrorism. Until now they have received as of right a 50 per cent. remission whereas the ordinary common criminal in Britain—if there can be such a thing—has to earn remission of only up to

71
30 per cent. The public and those committed to fighting terrorism do not understand why that is the case, although there are good historical reasons for it. I am glad to see that the Government are sensibly reviewing that.
The central issue of the Bill is the requirement to make a declaration. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke for the Labour party, is no longer in his place. His speech was one of the thinnest and most bankrupt that I have heard in terms of the arguments used for opposing the declaration. The hon. Gentleman's arguments rested on three or four basic principles. Time after time he set up a straw man, knocked him down, and then patted himself on the back and said that that was a reason for not accepting the Government proposals.
First, the hon. Gentleman spoke about section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and he said—I hope that I am not misquoting him in his absence —that the Bill was not necessary because all the provisions of that section were already in position and would do the job. In that case, I cannot see his objection to the Bill. If that is the substance of the Labour party's argument, what is wrong with the Bill? Of course, those who have studied the Bill know perfectly well that it does something extra. It takes the general aim in that section and targets it precisely in a way which, if it is right, can be helpful.
The hon. Gentleman's second argument was that the provisions were unworkable. He said that that was because people would make declarations and then simply break them. He is right at least to identify that as a potential problem in the Bill, because that is what has happened so frequently in Irish history. Organisations that were proscribed simply changed their names and reappeared. The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that the Bill has two parts, and that the second part gives sanctions to the courts so that if someone breaks the declaration, the courts can do something to put the matter right. The hon. Gentleman's argument did not stand up on that basis either.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said that this would cause a whole string of by-elections, with the result that the voice of the IRA would come through. On that, he was exposed by an intervention by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who said that there are few wards or constituencies in Northern Ireland where the supporters of the IRA are in a majority. My view is that if the by-elections were called—it is a possibility—the likelihood is that they would be called on the specific issue of violence.
Mr. Tom King: And what was said.
Mr. Ashdown: Yes, and on what was said. That is a narrow issue, and while there may be some temptation on the part of those who espouse violence in Northern Ireland to go through the election process again because of the advantage of publicity, the outcome would not be as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested. The likelihood is that there would be a defeat in most such cases.
I do not wish to concentrate too much on the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but those who read it tomorrow will find that it betrays yet again what is becoming a depressing semblance of bias in the Labour party, which seems always to take the
72
Nationalist case on Northern Ireland. That is depressing because any party seeking to achieve some success in Northern Ireland must be seen to be at least even-handed, but I did not find that.
Secondly, on reading that speech, anyone who takes an objective view of it will reach the conclusion that the speech was made by someone who wants his party to vote against the Bill. The whole speech was constructed to that end. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was ridiculous and unworkable, would make matters worse, would put things into the hands of the terrorists and be a propaganda victory. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who is now on the Labour Front Bench, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Labour Members will not be voting against the Bill but will abstain. If that is so, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North should have made a different speech.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but he forgets that when the Liberal Government in the early part of the century and the Liberal party at the end of the last century argued for home rule, they were accused of supporting the Nationalist case. If he does not know that, he has not read his Liberal history. The Labour party's position is not all that different from that of the Liberal party in the past. Is the hon. Gentleman really supporting an oath being taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Declaration."]—all right, a declaration, but it is basically an oath—before people can stand for election to any position? Where is his Liberalism in supporting that?
Mr. Ashdown: The cause of peace in Ireland is cursed by history and by people who continually look back instead of forward. It may be that the Liberal Government took that view at the turn of the century. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but does he not realise—it is frequently the case that the Labour party does not—that there is now a different situation in Northern Ireland from that which pertained in the early part of the century?
Anybody seeking to achieve some success in bringing peace to Northern Ireland would want to take at least a balanced view in these matters. It may be that the Labour party does. The hon. Member for Walton seems to admit that it does not, but I am not sure that that view would be taken by the hon. Member for Leicester, South. We must wait and see. The public perception of Labour's attitude is that it is a Pavlovian reaction against the Government, whatever the situation, and in favour of the Nationalist cause.
I do not pretend that this legislation is perfect. There are flaws in it, but almost no legislation is perfect. It may be that it throws up some anomalies, but the question we must ask ourselves is not whether, as a single piece of legislation, it will defeat the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force—of course it will not—but whether it is a useful instrument in the hands of the Government for defeating terrorism and one that does not significantly damage civil liberties. My view is that it is a useful mechanism.
People may sign the declaration knowing that they are about to overturn it, but we must not underestimate the effect of propaganda—for example, the propaganda effect of Sinn Fein signing a declaration against violence. That would be advantageous. However, the sanctions placed in the hands of the court are sensible. After all, if a court in Britain can disqualify a person from holding office because

73
he is a bankrupt, it is not unreasonable to disqualify a person for giving support and succour to violence and acts of terrorism.
Mr. Hume: Who will bring the cases?
Mr. Ashdown: That is a fair question, and I shall come to it shortly.
We have some reservations about what the Government have chosen to do. As I said when I first heard the proposal, I feel that there are some problems that the Government should recognise in putting this process into operation the moment people are elected. If they sign the declaration, they can say anything they like and get free access to the airways during the election campaign, but the moment they are elected the sanctions come into operation. That opens up the possibility of exaggerating the effects of allowing people access to the airways during an election campaign for a position that they will not be allowed to hold afterwards.
The second question, which was rightly raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), is, who will bring in the court cases? Here I am somewhat in agreement with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. This provision will probably not deliver what the Government hope because the challenge will be brought by a citizen, a councillor or a full council. The Government are dodging the issue and not grasping the nettle. If this is their case, they should be prepared to take the matter up to challenge in the court. The matter should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or some other such person so that the Government carry this forward. I am afraid that many will fear for their lives if they bring such an action, and this may militate against the best effect that the Bill can achieve.
One or two technical concerns must be voiced at this stage. My first concern is about legal aid. Many people who might bring a case against a councillor would be deterred if the entire financial burden fell on them. What protection can be offered in that case, and what protection might be offered against the inevitable intimidation that would follow? The Alliance party of Northern Ireland has said that the Attorney-General should bring these cases, for the reasons that I have set out. We need to know why the Government have decided not to have the Attorney-General or some body to bring the case on their behalf rather than leaving it to the citizen.
No mention is made of political parties bringing cases. Has the Minister considered that if there is no financial aid a party might have resources when an individual would not? A party case would also protect individuals from intimidation. What will be used by way of evidence? It would be useful if the Minister—if not now, then later —could explain what a citizen living in Northern Ireland might have to bring before the High Court as evidence if he or she wished to bring a prosecution under the Bill.
Those points having been made, the general principle should be followed through. There are issues which might well be amended in Committee. However, I believe that in this instance the Government have hit on a reasonable instrument which may assist in the battle against terrorism and violence from both sides in Northern Ireland. On that basis, the proposals deserve the support in principle of my party tonight and they will get it.
7.20 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I wish to say a few words because I want those in Northern Ireland who read our debates in Hansard to know that there are some mainland British Members of Parliament from another part of the United Kingdom who share the anger, frustration and shame of ordinary, decent, law-abiding people who want to serve in civic life and serve their communities who must sit side by side with men of violence. I want those people to be aware that on this side of the water we understand their feelings.
I have no illusion about the difficulties of making legislation such as this stick. Dealing with the IRA with an Act of Parliament is like controlling a mad dog with a paper chain. I have no illusions about the difficulties, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, should we pass down on the other side of the street? Should we just do nothing because of all the criticisms that have been levelled today at the Bill?
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Opposition spokesman, could not suggest a better alternative. At one stage he was forced in this Chamber, which for centuries has stood for freedom under the law, to wave the rag of the IRA and Sinn Fein to buttress his argument. Of course Sinn Fein will not argue that the Bill will harm it. I thought that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made one of his best speeches so far in the Chamber, and I agree with him that much of the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was very weak.
Let us consider the argument that Sinn Fein would force by-elections. Of course it may force them. but, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, it will do that on the narrow point of violence. How much support will Sinn Fein receive? I was told in Northern Ireland that it might have a sure chance only of winning the Lower Falls road ward. It would certainly not win many other wards on that basis.
There is an argument that the Attorney-General should take issue. I see little point in the Attorney-General losing what reputation he has as a man of the law rather than a man of the Government, as a man involved in the legal process rather than a man who is the instrument of political will, by pursuing one political party or another. That would be a dangerous innovation.
It is interesting that the very people who argue that the Attorney-General should become involved in the political process in this instance also suggest that it is wrong that the Attorney-General in southern Ireland should view the Patrick Ryan affair on purely legal instead of political grounds and argue that he should be taking a political decision. We all hope that he will take that extradition decision.
The Bill is a fair compromise. Of course we could consider more draconian measures such as proscription. However, we should be careful because, if we adopt more draconian measures, we will not be any more effective on the ground in Northern Ireland, but we will give the political oxygen that the IRA and Sinn Fein need in international opinion. We should be aware of that danger.
I took grave exception to the comment of the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Kingston upon Hull, North about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not speak in the desiccated language of chanceries. She is not a professional diplomat. She speaks instinctively for what the British

75
people believe in. She speaks for their frustration at delays in extradition. However, nothing that my right hon. Friend has said should be construed as being in any way anti our many friends in the Republic. That point will be repeated, I am sure.
The overwhelming majority of decent people in the Republic, the overwhelming majority of members of the Dail, and certainly all members of the Government of the Republic are as committed as we are to dealing with terrorism. Their stakes in this matter are almost as high, if not higher, than ours. We might lose the Province, but they might lose their country if the IRA wins. It was sad that some of my hon. Friends last Thursday described the actions of the Irish Government as a double cross. They were no such thing. We should sympathise with their difficulties and encourage the decent people who are trying to expedite the process under the laws of the Republic.
In this debate we should avoid extremist language and accept that this Bill, like any Bill on these matters, has limitations. However, it is an essential first step, and as such it is welcome.
7.25 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: This Bill is a bitter-sweet pill for my constituents. It removes a long-standing grievance and injustice by intending to restore the franchise to more than 10,000 people who for many years have been unable to vote in local government elections in Northern Ireland. It took a long time for that reform to come about. That is a natural act of justice which should have been implemented many years ago, certainly at the commencement of direct rule in 1972–73. We are happy to accept that it will now be in place before the local government elections in May 1989.
The part of the Bill which we find bitter to swallow and with which we cannot agree is the part which will, if it is passed, enforce candidates at the next local government elections to make the declaration against terrorism. We oppose and disagree with the proposed legislation because it will have a contrary effect to that which the Government have given as the reason for its implementation.
When anyone from Northern Ireland, particularly a member of the SDLP, speaks about violence, it is always necessary to prefix one's remarks by stating that the SDLP is totally and implacably opposed to all forms of violence, be they actual, verbal or insinuated. Our history and, more important, our record of performance since our foundation in 1973 show that that statement is irrefutable.
The declaration of non-violence provided for in clauses 2 to 9 will have an immediate effect. It will cause increased tension within the council chambers. It will lead to a heightening of community tensions. It will also have a totally contrary effect to the Government's stated intention of in some way restricting the ability of the paramilitaries to propagate their evil ways by preventing them from participating in local government.
I have had 28 years' experience of local government in Northern Ireland, part of it spent under the old regime up to 1973 and some 15 years under the new regime. I have no doubt that both paramilitary groupings, Loyalist and Republican, will sign the declaration without any compunction whatsoever. We already have evidence that the Republican paramilitaries will sign such a declaration.
76
So much for the intended effect of preventing people who subscribe to acts of violence from participating in local government in Northern Ireland. It is ironic that the Government in the past encouraged the paramilitaries to participate in the democratic process by providing funds and assets. There has now been a complete turnaround which will simply give the paramilitaries a tremendous propaganda weapon which will be used in two ways.
First, for the rest of the world, it will be used as an illustration or an argument to support the case that they can promote their cause only by violence instead of using the democratic process. That argument and that propaganda will be listened to, particularly in North America and in certain parts of Europe.
Secondly—additionally or alternatively—they will take part in the local democratic process in spite of the declaration they have signed, and use their suspensions and their court cases, which possibly will go to the highest court in the land, and the election campaigns, as an on-going daily propaganda weapon which will give front-page headlines to the very cause to which we all are opposed—the use of violence for political purposes.
The proposals are all the more idiotic because they are totally unnecessary. As has already been said, under section 21 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, section 9 of the 1987 Act and section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, such support for proscribed organisations or any attempt to encourage support for such organisations, making any contribution to their funds, giving assistance in any way or arranging any meetings of a proscribed organisation are already criminal offences.
The Government must explain to the House why they have not used any of those provisions to produce the effect that they are trying to achieve under the proposed legislation. There is further legislation in article 9 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Act 1987, which was the successor to the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act, which makes it an offence for anyone to use words or behaviour that is likely to cause the furtherance of violence or even hatred or tension between the two communities. That provision has not been used.
The Northern Ireland legislative statute book is weighed down with legislation that can be used for the very purposes for which the Government are trying to argue that they need this legislation. Therefore, why has the proposed legislation containing the declaration been brought before the House? We do not have to look too far. It is an exercise in trying to pretend that a new package of anti-terrorist legislation is being promoted that will in some way lessen the impact of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Nothing is further from reality.
Clause 6, to which many hon. Members have referred, explains what is meant by a breach of the declaration of non-violence. The more one reads of the proposed legislation, the more one must despair of the consequences which will arise from its implementation. The Bill fails to make clear what standard of support or what measure will be applied to support or alleged support for a proscribed organisation is banned by the Bill. It appears that any word or deed in support of a proscribed organisation or an act of violence will be a breach of the terms of a councillor's declaration and hence is such an action. Here we enter a legal quagmire that will bog down the courts of

77
Northern Ireland and the higher courts of appeal in years to come, with the propaganda to which I have already referred attaching to it.
In the absence of any guidance in the Bill, judges will be given an impossible task because of the difficulty of interpretation. For example, clause 6(3)(a) describes a breach of the declaration, and uses the words:
"whether the expression of support or approval is made by spoken or written words, the display of any written matter or by other behaviour".
The expression, "other behaviour" is totally open-ended. What does it mean? As I said, I have been involved in local government for a considerable time and I can give some examples of what it might mean to people on the ground.
If a resolution condemning an act of violence comes before a council, and a councillor does not respond positively to that condemnation, is he or she thereby demonstrating support for the act of violence, although he or she has done absolutely nothing to demonstrate such an attitude? Or let us suppose, as often happens, that an incident has occurred in the local district and a request is made by the chair for a minute's silence in respect for someone who has been killed or has suffered a tragic loss, be they Loyalist or Republican. If a councillor remains seated, is that an act of support for an act of violence which led to a death or a murder? Those are practical problems which will arise in council chambers.
If a person attends a public meeting outside a council chamber at which a proscribed organisation or supporters of a proscribed organisation publicly declare their support for a policy of violence, is that an offence, and has that person to prove his attendance as being against the policy promulgated from the platform? If he remains silent, will his behaviour be interpreted as support for that violence?
What will happen if a public representative supports a notice or motion in a council chamber proposed by a member of a political party which supports violence? Hon. Members have constantly referred to members of Sinn Fein as the only supporters of violence in the council chambers, but I have sat in council chambers and in the Assembly of Northern Ireland with people from every party except my own and the small Alliance party among members who have supported and used violence in the furtherance of political objectives. The list of possibilities stretches into absurd infinity, yet we are being presented with the Bill as a vehicle for the prevention of terrorism within our council chambers.
It is clear that the Bill will set the extremists in the council chambers at each others' throats and the process of local democracy and respect for it will be sacrificed on the altar of the legislation. Furthermore, it will enable the councillors of a particular party, if they have a majority in a council chamber, to use ratepayers' money to pursue the minority parties on every word, date, action or omission which they determine is something to do with, or can be interpreted in some loose way as support for, a particular cause or group that supports violence.
Last week, the Minister presented a White paper which says that legislation will be introduced to prevent political parties from using ratepayers' money to pursue political objectives, yet the Bill will enable majority parties in council chambers to pursue minority parties for real or imagined acts in contravention of the declaration of non-violence. The House can take it from me that it will happen on a month-to-month basis. The Bill puts us on a long and slippery slope of legislation and confrontation in
78
Northern Ireland. There is a total contradiction in Government attitudes as represented in the Bill and in last week's White Paper.
Clause 7, which, too, has been referred to by many hon. Members, enables a group or person to take legal action. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made clear, the Bill provides that a councillor or an elector can initiate on his own behalf and at his own expense a course of action or a prosecution under the Bill. That is what the Government say can happen. The Government argue that it is impossible to have jury trials in Northern Ireland because jurors would be subjected to intimidation and acts of violence. Will someone explain the contradiction in those attitudes? A person will be able to prosecute someone whom he believes to be a member of a paramilitary organisation but will not be able to take part in the collective decision of a jury.
Clause 6 (a)(ii), which deals with terrorism, refers to
"violence for political ends connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland"—
not violence for political ends, only that connected with Northern Ireland. That is a strange phrase to find in a Bill dealing with terrorism.
What will happen if a person supports violence used by the Government for political ends? In the past, councillors have supported such action taken by the Government. Will Sinn Fein be able to take action against those councillors and local representatives? We are setting a pattern whereby extremists on both sides of the council chamber will take legal potshots at one another and bring local councils into disrepute.
I know of many councillors, by reputation, and personally, who have participated in the execution of violence for political purposes. I am talking of those not of a Sinn Fein persuasion but of a Unionist persuasion. They have manned barricades, turned people away from their work or intimidated them to prevent them from going to work because it did not suit their political objectives. All those people will merrily sign the declaration with what they consider to be a clear conscience.
Many people are sitting in council chambers tonight, in the Unionist tradition, who have been connected with—I do not want to go further because of the sub judice rule —the manufacture and storage of arms. They have connections with paramilitary organisations such as Ulster Resistance—that was refuted by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—and when arms were found that allegedly belonged to Ulster Resistance, the Democratic Unionist party issued a statement withdrawing its support for Ulster Resistance. If my memory serves me right, part of that statement said that it was involved to maintain a well-disciplined army of men. For what purpose is a well-disciplined army of men maintained, unless it is, at some stage, to initiate an act of violence in pursuance of a political objective?
If matters carry on as I think they will, not only will local government be brought into disrepute but there will be few councillors in Northern Ireland. There will be only SDLP members and a small number from the Alliance party to carry on local government business. I ask the Secretary of State to recognise, even at this late stage, the turmoil and stress that the Bill will cause in local government and to pull back from implementing the clauses that deal with the declaration on violence.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to the need to transfer substantive powers to local government in

79
Northern Ireland. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the judicial tribunal of the early 1970s, which found that, of the nine causes of civil disorder in Northern Ireland, seven arose from the maladministration and performance of local government in the execution of its duties.
For some reason, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) introduced the issue of parole and said that the intended measures for Northern Ireland will give it parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not true; there are no jury trials, so there is a different sentencing procedure. Once a third of the sentence has been served here, parole can be considered.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to consider not the legal jargon but the practical consequences of what will happen in council chambers, the courts and the press in Northern Ireland in future. I ask them to consider with an open mind what has been said about the gross deficiencies of the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage they will draw back from setting this precedent.
7.46 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I make it plain that I strongly support the principle of the Bill and will support it in the Lobby tonight, especially the part relating to the declaration on terrorism of those elected to office.
I found it appallingly disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). At a time when terrorists have killed more than 80 people in Northern Ireland this year, when the majority of people want this measure—as the opinion poll on Ulster Television showed—and when local government in Northern Ireland must be buttressed and must gain the acceptability of people in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman could not put forward one positive measure as an alternative to the Bill. I found that quite appalling.
The strongest arguments in favour of the Bill are those of principle. It was clear from a visit that a number of hon. Members paid to Northern Ireland last week that the majority of people there want a sensible, sensitive system of devolved government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that it must be the first objective of the British Government to bring that about. A devolved system of government will not receive general assent unless it is perceived as fair, objective and balanced and unless there is confidence in the existing system of local government.
The sectarian history in Northern Ireland is tense and goes back a long way. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) gave the difference between the present and the past. Regarding Northern Ireland, Harold Nicolson said:
"The Irish themselves have no sense of the past: for them the present began on October 17th 1171, when Henry II landed at Waterford."
There is cynicism among the Catholics, who rightly feel that they have been discriminated against over the years, and among the Protestants who, from the home rule crisis of 1886, when they removed themselves from the main stream of British politics, to the partition of 1920, when Austin Chamberlain hoped for a union in Ireland, with their suspicions, however wrong, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, have been worried that they will be
80
marginalised and nudged out of the United Kingdom. Whether that is right or wrong, it is the present feeling among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
That cynicism about effective local government can only be exacerbated by what happened in the examples given by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). The chairman of Fermanagh district council, a Sinn Feiner, refused to condemn the events at Enniskillen. We hear of Gerry Dokerty, who was elected to the Londonderry council, despite having previously tried to blow up the Guildhall in London. On our visit, we met a gentleman in Newry who was aggrieved because he had to sit in a council chamber two places in front of a gentleman who he had a pretty good idea was involved in the assassination of his brother-in-law.
Against that background, it is not surprising that local government in Northern Ireland does not have the best reputation or that the best young people do not wish to support local democracy in practice by becoming members of local councils. If local democracy and effective administration are to gain the people's confidence, the need for the Bill, and especially the declaration, is imperative.
I have three worries about the legislation, the lesser of which concerns the declaration, which begins:
"I declare that, if elected, I will not by word or deed".
That provision does not cover candidates while they are taking part in elections. I understand the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we cannot study every utterance of every candidate—although in England a police officer can arrest a person for contravening the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. Such people are by no means as public as candidates in a public election.
As constituted, the Bill may lead to a potential for mockery whereby terrorists fight a campaign on terrorist principles, having signed the declaration. They may say, "If I am elected, I shall not be able to say what I have been saying during the campaign." I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Antrim, South that a stronger declaration would make repudiating terrorism and a list of proscribed organisations a condition of candidacy. The quality of debate and of those taking part in, and not merely those who win, elections is important and underpins democratic values.
My second concern is with the penalties that will attach to those who break their declarations. The Government's discussion paper talked about a serious threat to "legitimate political activity", a "severe challenge to democracy" and a "deep public concern". The proposed penalties for breaking the law, which try to deal with that deep public concern, are only civil, not criminal. The maximum period of disqualification from office is five years. Surely advocating terrorism is tantamount to behaviour which, under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, is likely to arouse hatred or fear in the general population and is a criminal offence leading to imprisonment.
Surely arousing sectarian fear and hatred and advocating terrorism are at least as bad as arousing racial hatred. A person who transgresses against the provisions of the Race Relations Act can be arrested by a policeman. That is a criminal matter which is tried in a Crown court and carries a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. I cannot see the difference between inciting sectarian hatred and inciting racial hatred, especially in Northern Ireland.

81
I hope that the Government will ensure that transgression of the declaration is a serious criminal offence, not merely a civil one.
Thirdly, I am worried about methods of enforcement. I do not believe that civil action will be particularly appropriate or effective. It would be illogical if it were, given the way in which this has been recognised by the Government in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and in the discussion paper. The conclusion to the consultation paper states:
"The Government accepts its responsibility to safeguard local democracy and to seek to prevent the deliberate destabilisation of political life in the Province by apologists for violence."
The Bill, which is meant to countermand that destabilisation applies merely to individuals attacking other citizens through a civil action.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but there is one glaring omission. I probably have the unique record of being the only living person who has been disqualified from a Northern Ireland Assembly. My crime was not support of terrorism or anything like that but the fact that I had the audacity to sit in an Irish Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will bend his mind to this anomaly, which is a delightful irony. This Parliament is setting up an inter-parliamentary tier with the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, but the statute book still provides that someone from the North of Ireland who sits in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland should be disqualified from not only this House but any assembly in the North of Ireland.
Mr. Coombs: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I want to continue my argument and I must hurry.
The Government's major argument—as adduced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the article in The Daily Telegraph—for not taking action on behalf of citizens for transgressions of the declaration, is that it would lead to difficulties with political argument and impartiality. Surely those difficulties are addressed already in Northern Ireland by the Government or their agencies, the Crown prosecution service or the Director of Public Prosecutions in approving extraditions and prosecutions for far more sensitive crimes.
If the Government are concerned about the intimidation of witnesses, how much more should they be concerned about the intimidation of witnesses if the initiators of civil actions have to prosecute without any Government backing? It is crucial that the Government give a lead. Because the Bill is so important and is wanted so strongly by the moderate majority in Northern Ireland, the Government must shoulder the responsibility of seeing the legislation through whenever the code is broken.
No doubt many hon. Members will accuse the Government of being overweening, malicious and offending against civil liberties. Those hon. Members should take comfort from the words of an American politician who knew something about civil strife in his country. Abraham Lincoln said:
"It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people can he strong enough to maintain its liberties in great emergencies."
82
These are times in Northern Ireland, sadly, of great emergencies. I support the Bill, but I hope that the Government will see fit to strengthen it in Committee in the way that I have suggested.
7.59 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I believe that I am the first speaker called today who intends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill after having voted for the reasoned amendment.
Mr. Mallon: No, the right hon. Gentleman is not.
Mr. Benn: Perhaps other hon. Members have said the same thing.
This is a dangerous little Bill, made no less offensive because of the fact that it will be wholly and completely ineffective, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State was told to do something after the recent explosions, so he came up with the ban on Sinn Fein people appearing on broadcasts and this little Bill to get a person to take an oath before he stands as a candidate.
It is strange to me, however, that the people against whom the Secretary of State has directed his anger are those using the electoral process. If someone stands as a candidate, he is using the ballot box to advance his cause and, if elected, he is aiming to use the media to advance it too.
As the Secretary of State did, I want to go through the proposals that have been made in Parliament in my lifetime, which would bring peace to Ireland. Partition—failed; direct rule—failed; Stormont—failed; power-sharing—failed; internment without trail—failed: sending in troops—I was in the Cabinet which did that—failed; strip searching—failed; plastic bullets—failed: Diplock courts—failed; supergrass trials, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the shoot-to-kill policy—failed; and extradition is not doing very well.
Any other assembly in the world that was discussing the situation in Northern Ireland today would be going through that list, but only the British Parliament is able to gather together and congratulate the Minister, with qualification, on producing a Bill that imposes an oath. [Interruption.] An oath and a declaration are merely religious or secular words to describe the same thing.
I have been looking into the history of this matter, as I am a bit of a historian. I looked up the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 29 August 1681:
"for the security of the protestant Religion against Papists and Phanaticks; Together with the Oath to be taken by all Persons in Publick Trusts".
It is a marvellous Act of Parliament and requires people to denounce and renounce the Pope and all his works and includes in it a pledge not to
"take up Arms against the King"
or ever rise in arms against the King.
The principle of trying to deal with religion, or religious or political movements, by oath is absurd. There is a more recent parallel. President Botha said that Nelson Mandela could come out of prison if he gave a pledge comparable with the one that the Secretary of State asks us to impose by this legislation. Very much to Nelson Mandela's credit, he said that he would rather stay in prison that renounce his commitment to a free South Africa. I know that there

83
are differences, because the franchises and circumstances there are different, but the point that the House will not discuss is, what is terrorism?
Were those people who were fighting to get rid of the Russian troops from Afghanistan terrorists? Are members of the African National Congress in South Africa terrorists? Were members of the Maquis in France, who threw bombs into cafés where there were Germans terrorists? The reality is—the House had better face it—that violence has been used in the British empire. I have met numerous terrorists who ended up having tea with the Queen, having been imprisoned for the same sort of offence that the Secretary of State is now seeking to impose with his little Bill. Gandhi, who believed in non-violence, was put in gaol, as were Nehru and Makarios. They were all in gaol because they were members of nationalist movements.
All that I am saying to the Secretary of State—he knows it, whether he wants to hear it or not—is that we cannot beat national movements by these methods. We can try as hard as we like, but we cannot do it.
Mr. Tom King: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to discuss the speech that he is making with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who would be the first to denounce violence? Does he believe that any of the movements that he has mentioned, and which he believes to be nationalist, managed to achieve so derisory a vote as Sinn Fein achieved in the Republic of Ireland, where it managed 1·8 per cent. of the vote? The right hon. Gentleman gave his own game away by admitting that there was a slight difference, that there is a universal franchise and the people are able to vote and that there is therefore no excuse for violence.
Mr. Benn: If there is derisory support for Sinn Fein, no one advocating violence would ever be elected. That is the absurdity of the Secretary of State's argument. He says that there is no support for violence, but when Sinn Fein members are elected and take a view of the national struggle which is theirs and not mine, he says, "We will take away your right to sit and to vote." It is exactly the same with the ban on broadcasting. My intervention touched the core of the matter. If we attack elected people, we are really attacking those who elected them. That is the principle upon which representative government depends. If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene again, I should listen to him for hours.
If we attack a Member who has been elected to this House and say that he cannot broadcast on the BBC, we are attacking his electors, because all of us here are nothing without those who sent us here. That is what representative democracy is about. The Secretary of State is not taking further measures against those engaged in the armed struggle—he is taking measures against those who have been elected by choosing the route of the ballot box.
Mr. Mallon: Somehow I have been drawn into this. Lest my silence indicate consent in either direction, I must say that I think both points are wrong. I do not think that there is any aura of invincibility or rightness about paramilitary or terrorist activity in Ireland or anywhere else; nor do I think that they will be defeated by this type of legislation. The only way in which terrorism and paramilitary activity in Ireland will be defeated is when
84
people, in their own hearts and minds, decide that they will not give the terrorists support. That is the weakness in this measure, as it has been in the other measures that we have seen in the past three weeks.
Mr. Benn: I shall not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman, except to say that the immediate issue goes back a long way. In 1884, Sir William Harcourt, the then Home Secretary, refused to give London control of its own police because of "Irish outrages". My grandfather was elected in Tower Hamlets in 1892 as a home ruler, and Ritchie, the Tory Member he beat, said that if Ireland had home rule there would be chaos, anarchy and civil war.
The Secretary of State should not tell the House that this is a new move by dangerous Left-wing Members to try to encourage the bullet in Northern Ireland. Partition was a product of the bullet. The Black and Tans and the partition of Ireland were the imposition of partition by force and it ill befits a Government who favour partition to say, "Now we've cut you up by force, you must commit yourself to limit your aspirations to the structures that we set."
It has been noted that it is time that constructive things were said.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I am coming to the end of my speech; I promised to be brief.
Of course the horrific loss of life in Ireland is of concern to everyone. I know no one who believes that that is the way forward for Ireland but, like any war—this is a war, and not crime in the ordinary sense as it is presented—it has to be brought to an end by negotiation. Although I am not an Irish Member, I wanted to speak in this debate because every attack that the Government make on civil liberties in Ireland encroaches on us. It begins in Ireland and then comes here. I have seen it with police action, with the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as with constituents of mine in Bristol.
The reputation of British justice abroad is about as low as it can be. [Interruption.] Of course it is. Why do Conservative Members think that the Belgian Government took the decision that they did? Why has the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg ruled against British decisions 21 times? Mr. Gorbachev will come to this country this week and may meet the families of the Birmingham six, just as the Prime Minister went to meet—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying rather a long way from the Bill. I hope that he will return to it.
Mr. Benn: I shall leave Mr. Gorbachev out of local government in Northern Ireland, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and respect your great knowledge and authority in the Chair.
If the war in Ireland is to end, there must be a round table conference. The jurisdiction of Britain in Northern Ireland must end—not under threat of the bullet, but by a decision of the British Parliament. Every assistance must then be giving to try to bring the fractured communities together. I have a feeling that, because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, some of the Protestants in the North would be happy to see the end of the British Government because they do not have much time for what the Government are

85
doing under the stealthy mechanisms of that agreement. More people come to that conclusion day by day as policy after policy fails.
Instead of an oath, a pledge or whatever else must be given before someone can represent his people in local government, it would be better if the Government had the sense to open the whole question to public discussion in a round table conference. For that reason I shall vote against the Bill being given a Second Reading and I advise as many of my hon. Friends as possible to do the same. Only in that way can we focus upon the real issue that we are debating.
8.11 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I trust that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow him but, sadly, I could not find anything in his outburst with which to agree.
I welcome the Bill. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about possible anomalies, and the Bill may not be 100 per cent. the ideal measure, but that does not mean that we should stand back and do nothing. Decent people are disgusted by the fact that people can stand in local government elections in Northern Ireland even if they are convicted terrorists or support terrorism. It is offensive to every bone in their bodies that people who refuse to reject terrorism can take part in the elected offices of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not possible that decent people in Northern Ireland will refuse to sign the declaration because they do not believe in oaths or declarations? Are they not the very people that this Bill is supposed to encourage? They will cut themselves off from the political game.
Mr. Burns: I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If he has read the Bill he must know that we are asking people to make not an oath, but a declaration. I remind him that before any hon. Member can take his seat in the House he must sign an oath of allegiance or affirm. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
For two long and tortuous decades, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered at the cowardly hands of the IRA, which has indiscriminately attacked not only the Army and the police but the elderly, women, children and innocent people wanting to go about their normal lives and business. The IRA cares nothing for the damage, misery and uncertainty that it has caused over the past 20 years. It has scant regard for the sanctity of life or for democracy itself. It has failed ever to win the intellectual argument of its case, so it has resorted to the use of the Armalite and the bomb to try to achieve its aims.
Since 1983, democracy in Northern Ireland has been affronted by the election of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). To add insult to injury, in 1985, 59 Sinn Fein members were elected to local government in Northern Ireland. It is a travesty of justice that convicted terrorists and apologists for violence should be allowed to participate in the democratic institutions of Northern Ireland, while the IRA continues its murderous campaign of bombings, without ever rejecting a policy that is so repugnant both to democracy and to decent people.
The IRA seeks to undermine the democratic fabric of society in Northern Ireland, which is why it is so
86
imperative the people who seek local government office should make a declaration rejecting violence before they can take their seats in any council chamber in the Province.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of the consequences of such a declaration? Does it mean that those who do so are rejecting the Government's purchase and deployment of the Trident nuclear weapon—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep to the Bill before the House.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not allowing me to be tempted down that irrelevant path—[Interruption.] I could easily answer the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the proper debate, but it is not the subject of this debate, on this measure, on this night.
I am pleased that the Bill will put a stop to individuals seeking election and taking seats in local government in Northern Ireland before they have signed a declaration against terrorism. That will be warmly welcomed not only by the vast majority of hon. Members, but throughout the country in Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland itself. No longer will councillors have to sit in the same chamber with those who openly espouse the cause of violence, which is so deeply repugnant to them. This measure amply demonstrates the Government's commitment to block any loopholes and to stop the propagation of terrorist propaganda advancing a cause that should be struck down in every instance.
The proposal to amend the local government franchise will be welcomed, for the most part. It is quite extraordinary that British citizens—service men's wives and families over the age of 18 and others who have gone to live in Northern Ireland—cannot participate in local government democratic processes in the same way that someone from Northern Ireland coming to live, for example, in Chelmsford, can register and vote in our local elections. The correction of that anomaly is long overdue.
I find it rather odd that some of the 10,500 people who will be enfranchised will be citizens of the Irish Republic. Indeed, I have always found it odd that they can vote in British elections, whether in Liverpool, Glasgow or, indeed, Northern Ireland after the Bill is passed. The Republic of Ireland spent many bloody years trying to cut its ties with the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. It is odd that citizens of the Irish Republic can come to this country and vote in our elections, but a French citizen who might come to live, for example, in Chelmsford could not—quite rightly—vote in either local or general elections, and nor could an American citizen or any citizen not of British nationality. Why, then, are we perpetuating that anomaly in the Bill?
Mr. Mallon: I am rather loth to believe that I am hearing what I am hearing. In effect, is the hon. Gentleman saying that people who live in this country, are domiciled in this country and fulfil the residential qualifications of the electoral legislation should not be allowed to vote because they originated from the Republic of Ireland? That seems to be exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The only qualification for voting here or in the Republic of Ireland is that one is resident in the relevant country on the qualifying date. The hon. Gentleman's remarks smack of racism.
Mr. Burns: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that, because my remarks were in no way meant to imply it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If one wants to vote in local or national elections in England, it is not a matter of residency; it is a matter of citizenship. One must be a British citizen to vote in British or Irish elections. The Irish are the only exceptions. That is the point I was making.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The only qualification is that of residence on 15 September of the year involved. British people living in the Republic of Ireland are automatically included on the electoral register if they are resident on the same date. There is a clear distinction between the residential qualification and citizenship.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. If we exclude British and Irish people, any person who does not have British or Irish nationality cannot vote in British mainland local elections or general elections. It is sad that that Bill should extend that anomaly so that, when the Bill is on the statute book, citizens of the Republic of Ireland can vote in local government elections in Northern Ireland, just as they can vote in local government and general elections on mainland Britain, and they have done so for many years. That is wrong. It is only in recent years that the Republic of Ireland has changed its law so that British citizens can go to southern Ireland and vote in elections there. That anomaly has only just been rectified by the southern Irish Government.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on wisely seeking to enforce the main thrust of the Bill—the declaration—through civil procedures rather than through criminal procedures. It will avoid making martyrs of those who seek martyrdom for a cause, and it will effectively prevent terrorists or terrorist sympathisers having yet another platform on which to propagate their ugly and evil propaganda. It is another measure that ends a loophole that gave succour to terrorists and, once again, shows the Government's determination, with every possible measure in their armoury, to stamp out terrorism and terrorist sympathisers. I warmly applaud the Secretary of State for bringing such a measure before the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Benches will seek to catch my eye at about 20 minutes past nine. That is 56 minutes from now. I see five hon. Members, all of whom have sat conscientiously throughout the debate, seeking to catch my eye. I hope that they will all have a chance to speak. We can achieve that by using a little simple arithmetic.
8.23 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Perhaps the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) does not realise that, during the last war, thousands of Irish people came to this country, joined our forces, and fought alongside people such as myself, and did so in various parts of the world. I am aware of that. Therefore, I have never had an argument about Irish citizens living in this country and having the right to vote in our elections.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: No.
88
The leader of the Liberal party—or whatever it is called nowadays; I cannot be sure—said that we who raise historical issues are living in the past. I have frequently heard that remark made also by some of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. If we do not understand or seek to understand the past, we cannot possibly understand the present or have a view for the future. We cannot understand the discussion we are having tonight and will have tomorrow on Northern Irish matters unless we understand what has happened in Ireland.
Many hon. Members have good arguments. No one will deny that. There is a measure of justice on both sides of the House. But history proves one thing, and that is that we in this country dominated Ireland and subjected Ireland to our rule, and the six counties were then created. That is the basis of the trouble in Ireland. As long as the border remains, no matter what is done, what arguments are put, or what efforts are made, there will always be periods of trouble. The trouble will die down, and it will go away for a period, but it will come back again. That is the logic of the situation in Ireland. It does not make me happy; it makes me very unhappy.
I sit on Opposition Benches with, believe it or not, Northern Ireland Members who are Ulster Unionists. I find them pleasant people. We can get on well together —I like them—but they do not agree with me on every political point. I find people in front of me who are in the SDLP. I like them also, but it does not solve the political problem. It is not a matter of liking or disliking. We in this country must begin to think seriously—we have not done so until now—how we can solve the problem of Northern Ireland to the satisfaction of the peoples of the whole of Ireland.
The first woman elected to the House of Commons was a Sinn Feiner. Her name was Countess Markievicz. She did not come to the House, but she was elected. She could come here, but she probably would not have taken the oath. That is why she did not come. She would not accept what we accept.
The Bill is a strange document. Schedule 2, part I, refers to
"acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
Imagine that nobody has ever conducted any violence in relation to the problems of Northern Ireland. Do hon. Members know that, until the uprising in 1916, when the leaders were shot and killed, there had not been a great deal of sympathy? Afterwards, there was massive sympathy. At the next election, the Sinn Feiners won a majority and then declared their independence. What were they faced with then? A revolt from the Ulstermen of Northern Ireland, the Protestants who for their own reasons under Carson said, "We shall fight." There was violence for political ends on both sides. Therefore, let us be honest about this and not run away from the realities of what happened in Ireland.
I do not understand why we must have a declaration. If every hon. Member were told that they had to sign a declaration that we had at no time believed in violence to achieve political ends or else we could not stand for election to this House or local government, some of my hon. Friends would laugh. What about the Maquis and those sent to assist them bomb and terrorise the Germans when they were in occupation? Many innocent people,

89
French and others, who were not involved were killed. What were they? Terrorists? Hitler and company said that they were terrorists and had them put down as terrorists.
We have only to look at the House, for God's sake. We sit in a House which exists today with its democratic rights because the British people took up arms to ensure that Parliament was created. Hon. Members talk nonsense. The Tory party arose from the struggles from 1640 onwards, so let us not pretend that it has always repudiated violence for political ends. That is absolute utter nonsense.
We should not pass easily a Bill which introduces a declaration or what I would call, an oath. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was absolutely right. What about the Dissenters? Where would they have stood? I am an Anglican so I would have been on the right side. My lot were the ones telling the Roman Catholics and Dissenters, "You do what we tell you or you will not get the rights you expect."
That is what happened. I would have been all right because my family has been Anglican for hundreds of years, but what about all those who were not? What about the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Quakers and all those who were told that they must accept this or they would not get the rights they expected?
Mr. Wilshire rose—
Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have made it clear that you want short speeches and I am not going to make a long speech. All right, then.
Mr. Wilshire: I am a Dissenter. Can the hon. Gentleman remind me when my Church, the Methodist Church, took up arms and fought a battle to demand the right to sit in the House?
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman had better start to learn something about history. The Methodists came later and broke away from the Anglican Church. They were not involved in the 1640 uprising because they did not exist at that time.
Mr. McNamara: The Methodists were caught by the Test and Corporation Acts.
Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We must get this into perspective. Hon. Members may have seen in The Independent today an interesting letter from a John A. Oliver who wrote:
"In the 1940s local fire brigades in Ulster and their full-time auxiliaries were being converted into a type of national fire service. As the firemen and women were thus becoming servants of the Crown they had to swear an oath of allegiance …
Only a handful objected (about six out of a thousand, as I recall). They had to be sacked and I was sorry to see them go.
Just as I was beginning to preen myself a little on getting through this delicate affair with fewer objectors than my seniors had expected, many men and women gently deflated me by openly saying (in the informal "crack" after the formal business which is one of the attractive aspects of public life in Ulster) that they had sworn the oath with varying degrees of mental reservation."
Surely that puts the whole matter into perspective. Those standing for a council can happily swear the oath or accept the declaration. Many will not mean a word of it, so why do we have to have it?
90
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talked marvellously at his party's conference, attacking the Prime Minister for attacking our civil liberties, but when a Bill is introduced that attacks civil liberties in part of the United Kingdom, he and his so-called party run away. That is my objection to them. They say that they are not concerned and they believe in the Bill. They are politically dishonest and are not serious about civil liberties. If they were, they would join us and vote against the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was wrongly attacked. His case was a good one and because of that we believe that we should not only support the reasoned amendment but vote against the Bill. That is precisely what some of us intend to do tonight.
This Bill concerns our civil liberties. Once we allow civil liberties to be attacked in Northern Ireland, if only in a minor way, it will come over here. We have seen that already. I do not trust this Government. Sooner or later people who dissent politically will also be faced with a declaration.
Mr. Burns: Rubbish.
Mr. Heffer: We have had this rubbish before, but that is what happens under an authoritarian Government and this Government are authoritarian.
For that if for no other reason I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill and to defend basic civil liberties.
8.37 pm
Mr. Stephen Day: One observation I have of this debate—I have missed only one speech—is the loss of the so-called bi-partisan approach which was valuable in our discussions on Northern Ireland. Where has it gone? Irrespective of our political difficulties, terrorism in a free society threatens everyone, whatever our political beliefs. We have a greater interest in unity of purpose against terrorism than in minor details, and it is certainly minor details to which the Opposition have objected today. It is far more important that we have a unity of purpose against terrorism. That unity prevailed under the Labour Government, who were supported by the then official Opposition.
Evidence of a breakdown in our bipartisan approach came from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who said that we were driving people out of the political process. Where in the Bill are we doing that? No one is being proscribed or stopped from standing for election. That is absolute nonsense and a complete misinterpretation of the Bill. He said that Sinn Fein could take comfort from this measure. It will take far more comfort from some of the comments from the Opposition Benches than from anything in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (M r. Benn) called it a dangerous little Bill. I do not see him here now, but I cannot understand why he feels that the Bill is more dangerous than the people with whom it is designed to deal. Surely they are the greater threat to our democratic institutions.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we should define terrorism. It is quite clear to me what terrorism is. It is those who take up arms against their state although legitimate democratic means exist for them to express their views freely. He quoted examples such as the French Resistance. There were few human rights in France at the time when the Maquis took up arms

91
against the German forces. How can the right hon. Gentleman equate that with the situation in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is a democratic state within the United Kingdom and people can express their views freely. The Bill is designed to ensure that those views can be expressed.
Why do Labour Members seem to imply this evening —I am sure it is not their intention—that they are seeking to paint the Government as the bad guys while making little reference to the real bad guys, the terrorists on either side of the political divide? That is the real issue and I am sorry that the Opposition have not been able to address it. I am sure that it was not their intention, but the viewpoint expressed by the Opposition might lead members of the IRA to surmise that the election of a Labour Government would assist them in their aim of uniting Ireland by force. We need a united front against terrorism in Northern Ireland and I appeal to the Opposition on that.
As for the signing of declarations, the Government have no intention of introducing such a measure in the rest of the United Kingdom but if I were asked to sign a declaration stating that I renounced terrorism and violence to promote my views, I should happily sign it. I cannot understand any member of a democratic institution having any difficulty about signing such a declaration. I hope that the Opposition's position on this will be explained by Opposition Members who have not yet spoken.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak in this debate, so I shall curtail my remarks with one final comment. The declaration is not a declaration against republicanism, which is an honourable political belief, provided that people do not seek to promote it through violence. The declaration is not against unionism or any other political position in Northern Ireland, but it is a limitation on fear, intimidation, violence and, even more importantly, on those who excuse violence. No democrat should ever, by implication or directly, seek to give succour or support to the terrorists and those who want to promote their views through violence.
8.44 pm
Mr. William Ross: Normally, I have to stand here and condemn the fact that Northern Ireland legislation is being put through by order. It is a rare pleasure to be able to stand here and say that I welcome the procedure, as I can this evening. The legislation is being introduced through a Bill that we can amend—or at least try to—and through which we can explore the Government's intentions and discuss whether the measures will be effective in achieving those intentions. It will be possible for us to educate Ministers about the reality of life in the council chambers of Northern Ireland.
The House will be told—the Minister should already know—that some of my friends and colleagues who are members of councils in Northern Ireland have noticed that Sinn Fein members take careful notes of what is said when people are critical of the murders committed by the IRA and the actions of Sinn Fein and they wonder whether those people are taking careful notes to help the welfare of the Unionist who has made his views clear.
Hon. Members will be told in Committee of the remarks that are sometimes made against Unionist council
92
members by Sinn Fein members in quiet corners of car parks. The knowledge of the House will be greatly increased by this educational process. I hope that the Bill will be considered by a Committee of the whole House, so that all Northern Ireland Members can take part in the debate and the Northern Ireland voice will be well represented.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out that Sinn Fein acts under the direction of the IRA. The House must be aware that in established states, military forces act under the direction of politicians. The IRA, like all terrorist organisations, has turned that democratic position on its head because it directs what its political mouthpieces shall say and do. It is my long-held view that those political mouthpieces can be trusted only when they themselves are members of the IRA.
The Opposition have not mentioned their amendment very frequently this evening. The amendment says that it
"declines to give a Second Reading".
We have been told earlier that the Opposition decline so much that they will not vote for the Bill. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will follow his voice with his feet through the Lobby and what the consequences will be if he dares to do that.
The amendment also says that the Bill is unnecessary because of existing legislation to deal with incitement to violence. I assume that if the Bill were unnecessary, it would not have been introduced. The fact that it has been implies that the present legislation is not sufficient to deal with the situation. The amendment is therefore factually incorrect.
The amendment then says that the Bill will
"increase sectarian conflict in Local Government".
I should have thought that the main reason for sectarian conflict—which is really terrorist conflict—
Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: No. We are short of time and I want two other hon. Members, who have waited all afternoon, to have their chance to speak.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has missed out part of the amendment which explains what it says.
Mr. Ross: No doubt that point can be explained later by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
The IRA mouthpieces make sectarian conflict deeper by their mere presence and attitude. The amendment also says that the Bill will
"place the judiciary in an invidious position".
Has anyone in the House forgotten the dead judges? Did they die because the IRA loved them? They became targets because they were applying the laws of the realm. That is the reality. Their position is as dangerous as it can be and the Bill will not make it worse. The amendment says that the Bill will not heal the divisions in Northern Irish society.
Mr. Terry Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: No, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
The reality is that the divisions in this society are made deeper by the misery that is caused by the activities of the IRA and by the failure of their spokesmen to condemn the murder—pure and brutal murder—of many people in the province of Ulster. That has gone on for many years.

93
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) told us that one cannot defeat nationalist movements by such means, but he did not tell the House how nationalist movements are to be defeated if we do not try to stamp out violence. Nationalist movements that have free access to the electoral process and the right freely to express their point of view should not then resort to violence.
Mr. Patchett rose—
Mr. Ross: No, I will not give way. I have already made that clear. The hon. Gentleman can have his say another time.
The reality is also that there is a British population in Northern Ireland and they have not been defeated by IRA violence in 20 years. Surely those people will not start being defeated by the IRA now or in the future.
The Bill is essentially a timid step in the right direction. When I was considering what I would say if I were lucky enough to be called this evening—which, of course, I have been—I thought back to the time when the D-day landings were being planned, when there was a lot of courage, resolution and long-term planning. The soldiers, sailors and airmen were the cutting edge of Government policy on that day and thereafter until the final victory was won in Europe. Theirs was not to reason why, but to accept that there was a general need to win the war and to dispose of the Nazi influence on the world.
However, here the Government are making local government councillors—who support the British connection—the cutting edge in the fight to get the IRA out of the council chambers. Frankly, on some occasions the Government will be inviting them to commit suicide. That is the reality and that is why the Government should take on the job themselves in the ways that have already been suggested.
We are here to reason why—that is the duty of Members of this House. However, we are also here to reason why the Government will not accept that duty, which I believe is one that they should gladly shoulder. We will go into this later in our proceedings on the Bill because it is something that we must thrash out and something on which we should make the Government change their mind.
My concern is how effective the Bill will be as presently constituted. Certain things in the Bill do little and there are certain things that should have been included in it because the IRA's present electoral success and terrorist experience did not just happen—
Mr. Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: No, I am not giving way.
It grew over the years—and it grew as a result of the Government's policy. If we are to cut down the IRA's strength and its electoral support, we should try to undermine the IRA politically as well as defeating it militarily. No doubt military solutions will be discussed tomorrow but today we are dealing with the political solutions. If we are ever to start understanding what must be done against the IRA, we must understand that, for the IRA, political victory would be a united Ireland.
It is only when hope of a united Ireland recedes as a practical possibility that those who seek it will be prepared to consider their future in the United Kingdom and play a constructive part in a Northern Ireland that is securely within that structure. If we are to weaken the IRA politically, it is absolutely essential that we cut the number
94
of votes that it receives and the number of seats that it wins. Seeing its hope of ultimate victory recede will undermine the IRA quite a bit. However, that will have to be followed by action rather than words on the part of the Government.
There is another measure that has not been mentioned in the Bill, but which should have been. One of the best ways of getting a minority elected is to use the proportional voting system. That helps all minorities, including vicious minorities who can use pressure. The major parties in this House know that; that is why it is not used in any elections in this part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North drew attention to the by-election results in Belfast, West. The reality is that if there were a simple majority system in Northern Ireland, operated on a ward-by-ward basis, there would be few places in which Sinn Fein would have any real hope of getting elected. Until this House faces up to that and takes the steps which flow naturally from that knowledge, Sinn Fein will always get quite a lot of its people elected in hard-line areas. Those who deny that are simply displaying their ignorance of the voting patterns in Northern Ireland.
We must get rid of the system of proportional representation and the sooner the better. It will pay rich dividends in reducing the number of votes given to Sinn Fein and the number of Sinn Fein representatives who are elected. Nobody need tell me that Sinn Fein has only one elected Member here, because although that it is true I believe that he will eventually lose his seat if the SDLP pulls its socks up.
I welcome also the standing list being the same for all elections. I have been asking questions about that since as long ago as 1981, and possibly before. Absent voters should always be on the same list for all elections. There should be the same standing list for those who are permanently incapacitated and who cannot get out. I welcome that provision.
Many legislative changes are listed in the Bill. I wish that all the relevant legislation had been printed because that would have made the Bill more intelligible to all of us. We would not have had to search back—as we always do —through a dozen other Bills to find out exactly what is going on.
I am surprised to see that the Government have finally been forced to the point where they have to define what terrorism is. Time and time again I have sat in the House and heard hon. Members declaim against "mindless terrorist violence" and have winced every time that I have heard that. Quite honestly, there is no such thing as a "mindless" terrorist act. Sometimes terrorists do it wrong, but their actions are always planned and thought out. The terrorists always intend to have some advantage from it. Therefore, I am glad that the Government have now been converted to my point of view and believe that all terrorist acts have a political objective. Everyone in Northern Ireland will welcome that.
I have a serious objection to the extension of voting rights to foreigners. Quite a lot has been said about that this evening. The number does not matter to me. Some are Unionists—at least I hope that they are Unionists—because my rector and his wife will now get the vote and I hope that I can persuade the reverend gentleman and his good lady to cast their votes for me in the next election if

95
I am fortunate enough to be the candidate for Londonderry, East. Although not all who will gain by this measure are Nationalists, naturally some are.
My objection is to the principle of foreigners voting in this country. When we go to the United States we do not expect to be given the vote there. We would have to become citizens of that country first. That is what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) did not understand. In most countries—in fact, in practically all —the right to vote and the right to elect a Government is tied to citizenship in that nation. That is a sound principle and one that we should accept right across the board.
I cannot understand why that principle has been consistently ignored in so far as voting rights are granted to Irish citizens in the United Kingdom generally. That is wrong. Many hundreds—perhaps millions—of citizens of the Irish Republic who are in this country vote here. Those people have deserted their nation in droves—tens of thousands have left the country over the years. That desertion reflects the lack of success of Irish republicanism in creating the viable entity of the island of Ireland.
Those people who have fled the Communist states of eastern Europe have been praised for getting out and have been held up as proof of a failed system of government in those nations. Irish Nationalists do not apply the same principle to the Republic—nor do supporters of the Republic— but it is valid. If it is valid for those who get out of East Germany and move to West Germany, it is valid for those who leave the Irish Republic, where there are no barriers, and come to the United Kingdom, where at least they can earn a decent living and send it back to their families. I am glad that the United Kingdom has done so well. I regret that the Irish Republic is not more successful because it must mean the end of many dreams for those who proclaimed that that nation would be heaven on earth.
I welcome these first timid steps, but I hope that they will go much further because more steps must be taken.
8.59 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I want to make it absolutely clear that I totally support the principles underlined in the Bill and I believe that that support is shared by the overwhelming majority of the British people. It is an utter disgrace that the Labour party lacks the guts to defend local democracy and to support the Government today.
It is blindingly obvious to me that all elected representatives in a democracy, whether in Ulster, elsewhere in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the world, must defend that democracy and must denounce terrorism; otherwise they, as leaders of their communities, are party to attempts to overthrow their society and to undermine the democracy that they have been elected to support.
If I had any doubts about that, they were swept away earlier when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke. I did not catch his words verbatim, but I believe that I heard him say that he knew of no one who believed in death and destruction as a way forward. The British people and I know of such people—the IRA—and I know nothing about them which supports the view of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Death and destruction
96
appear to be the way in which the IRA seeks to move forward and change society. I have no hesitation in denouncing that approach to the future of our country and no one in the United Kingdom should have any such hesitation.
Many people have suggested that the Bill undermines democratic rights and that it seeks to restrict freedom of speech. That is absurd. The right to stand in elections in Ulster is not affected by the Bill. Even if it were, the principle of disqualification is already established in British law. It does not weaken democracy if one says that the insane cannot stand for election, nor does it weaken democracy if one says that a bankrupt should not be allowed to stand in an election.
The freedom to say or do what one likes is an essential of local government, but councillors are limited in what they can say or do. Councillors in the United Kingdom cannot libel one another, nor can they improperly spend public money, so the principle of limiting what councillors can say or do is already established. Sad though it is, the action being proposed today in principle is necessary and it has my support. I am pleased that the Government have said in the Bill that they believe that it is proper to require councillors to undertake to do or not to do certain things if elected. At some stage in the future, in another Bill, I hope that the Government will say it once again. I hope that they will also make it compulsory for councillors to undergo training and to agree to do so as a condition of election.
The Bill has my support in principle, but I am worried about some of its contents. First, the Bill limits itself to Ulster and by so doing makes Northern Ireland yet again more different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that Ulster is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that the great majority of its citizens are as proud as I am to say that we are British. Every new law which singles out Northern Ireland makes it harder to achieve that unity of nations that is so important and to give Northern Ireland what it has every right to expect —the same system of local government as the rest of us enjoy.
Because I support the principles of the Bill, I urge the Government to consider extending it to the entire United Kingdom. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), I would have no hesitation in signing such a declaration, and no one anywhere in the country should be in the least bit worried about it.
My second worry has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). An error has been repeated in clause 1(1)(b)(ii) by continuing to allow some foreigners to vote in our elections. It does not just repeat a mistake—it goes further and allows more Irish citizens to vote, for among the 10,000 who have been mentioned must be a preponderance of Irish citizens. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford thought that it was odd; I believe that it is absolutely wrong and should be stopped. I have always believed that it is wrong to give certain foreigners special privileges here. After all, in almost no other country are we given special privileges. —nor should we expect them.
The events of the past few days have reinforced my belief. It is utter hypocrisy to refuse to hand over one of our most wanted terrorists while being only too willing to hop across the border and buy cheap petrol, claim our

97
welfare benefits, set up home here and demand the right to vote. It is as though the Dublin policy has become to take with one hand and to punch us in the teeth with the other.
My third point relates to something that the Bill does not say. Nowhere in the Bill is there an attempt to repeal that part of our legislation which says that if a councillor does not turn up for six months his seat should be declared vacant. I am delighted that that is not to be changed. It should apply in Westminster, too. The electors of Belfast, West have no voice here, and more than 70 per cent. of those electors did not vote for the terrorist who could be here if he wished—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make such references to that person, whether he is sitting here or not. The hon. Gentleman is also going beyond the bounds of the Bill. I hope that he will return to it.
Mr. Wilshire: My argument is that the Bill should extend to all elections in Northern Ireland and to the rest of the United Kingdom the provision that if councillors do not occupy their seats for six months their seats are declared vacant.
I welcome the fact that the Government have acted, and I am happy to support the principles of the Bill, but I regret that such action has been necessary in our democracy. I am convinced that the Bill does not go far enough in some respects, and that it tackles some issues in a less than ideal way. I pledge my support for the Government's efforts to end the tragedy in Northern Ireland, and I commend them for deciding to act on these principles. When the Bill goes to Committee, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will produce amendments to meet the reservations that I have expressed today.
9.8 pm
Mr. George Galloway: We have heard today the authentic voice of the Tory party in England, in the speech of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and in several others, towards the people of Ireland. Tomorrow the Irish media will reflect some of the bile that is clearly felt by some Conservative Members against the people of Ireland, and I have no doubt that they will weigh that in the balance when next considering the requests that the Government make of them from time to time.
Before coming to the main burden of my remarks, may I refer to the outrageous speech by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who I understand still considers himself to be a Liberal. He launched a shocking, gratuitous, illiberal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) when he was not in his place. I presume that the hon. Gentleman did not give notice that he would do so. Not only did it fly in the face of everything that the Liberal party previously stood for on the Irish question, but I suspect that it went more to the need to make a pitch for the constituency of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) than for any consideration of the questions that are before us. I oppose the measure, and I shall vote against it.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the heat of debate one cannot always be certain that hon. Members mentioned will be present. The hon. Gentleman is very good on insults about my speech. Would he care to pick up any of the points made by his hon. Friend the
98
Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and debate them as I did instead of confining himself to insults of the sort that he has been making?
Mr. Galloway: It appears that my remarks stung home. I can now understand why 60 Liberals found it necessary to found a new—or is it an old?—Liberal party at the weekend. The departures from Liberalism by the leader of the once Liberal party make the reason clear. I shall deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, although I have less time than he and I hope he will bear that in mind.
I intend to vote against Second Reading but not because I support terrorism, which is the indiscriminate use of violence against innocent people for political purposes. I certainly do not support terrorism. I make no bones about it: the time has come for Britain to go from Ireland. But that is not the reason for my intention to vote against Second Reading. The Bill strikes against the democratic theory and practice of our country and is yet another palliative being applied to the critical malaise which is a central problem in British life. Not only will the Bill not have the effect that its authors claim for it, but its application is part of a process that is diminishing all of us.
Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I am a little uneasy about oaths or declarations. There is something slightly medieval about them and their use in a modern democracy. It is utterly wrong in principle to require men and women to swear something that is not in their hearts. That is what we shall do if we press on with this measure. With the assistance of the excellent Library, I have been studying the 18th century struggle against the so-called 39 articles. That struggle was led by the great parliamentarian that I have quoted before in the House, Charles James Fox, a true Liberal in the finest traditions.
Those 39 articles were oaths required from dissenters from the established Church that they fully supported the established Church in all its works, liturgy and relationship to the state. They had to swear such oaths before they could be given jobs or permission to speak from pulpits or fulfil public duties in this country. Fox declared himself to be
"a friend to universal toleration".
He argued that insistence upon these oaths when the state knew full well that the dissenters had no alternative to signing them and did not believe a word of what they were swearing meant that those being diminished most were the Crown, on whom the oath was taken, and the state, which required men to swear that which they did not believe.
This measure is also wrong in theory because. as has been teased out in the debate, very few hon. Members could say that they have an unequivocal attitude to all violence in pursuit of political objectives. Only a true pacifist in the House—there are few, if any, of them—could say that he has an unequivocal attitude to that. As with hon. Members, if I had been around in the 1930s and old enough to do so, I would have gone to Spain to fight for political objectives, to defend the Spanish republic. I would have fought in the last war to help defeat Hitler's Fascism.
Many Conservative Members support the use of violence for political objectives. In Afghanistan they support the Mujaheddin. They support such violence in Angola by their support for UNITA, and they support it in Nicaragua by their unequivocal support for the Contras. A Contra leader was touted around the

99
Conservative party conference a few months ago. It is hypocrisy to require oaths, imposed by the majority in this House on Northern Ireland, that are based on ideas that are commonplace about other countries and other times.
This proposal is wrong in democratic practice, for if we know that those taking the oath do not mean what they are saying, what does it profit us to make them say it? What is gained by making men and women lie before they can seek elected office? Does any hon. Member believe that the electoral fortunes of these councillors will be affected by this? Sinn Fein regularly polls between 85,000 and 110,000 votes in the six counties. How many of the voters are going to the polls blissfully unaware of the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA? It cannot be gainsaid that these councillors are elected in the first place because enough electors in Northern Ireland are voting for them and for no other reason.
We may not like the message that is thus delivered to us by those 100,000 citizens, but we shall gain nothing by trying to bar the door to the messenger by prescribing oaths designed to wish him away. We cannot sweep this critical Irish problem under the carpet of oaths, nor are we doing it justice by the succession of cosmetic stunts that have issued forth from the Government since the Prime Minister's edict in the summer.
That brings me to the last reason why I shall vote against Second Reading. The Bill is part of a process whose core is Britain's Irish problem, which is steadily diminishing civil liberties and the democratic process in this country as a whole. These proposals—the broadcasting ban that we discussed a few weeks ago, the abolition of the centuries old right to silence, the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act, the burgeoning of the secret state, and the polishing of the secret state's machinery in Northern Ireland—are all in their own way leading us down the dismal route towards what we are becoming, the poor man's third-rate democracy in Europe.
Britain is paying a high price for its presence in Ireland through the lives of our young service men, many of them only teenagers, and through the treasure—billions of pounds of it—being expended from the Exchequer to maintain British rule. I believe that when history comes to be written it will be seen that perhaps the highest price that we have paid for maintaining our rule in Ireland is the extent to which our democracy has been steadily eroded.
9.17 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not think that anyone can complain on this occasion that there has not been sufficient time for a full and comprehensive debate on Northern Ireland. It is often alleged that we debate Northern Ireland business at an inappropriate time of day and that insufficient time is allowed. The temper of the House today shows that if sufficient time is available we can discuss these highly charged and contentious issues in a manner more appropriate to this Parliament.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State tempted the bounds of order in his long opening speech. I shall try not to do the same myself. He gave us a broad-brush picture of the Government's approach to the problems of Northern Ireland and placed this legislation in the context of the overall Government approach to Northern Ireland. If I recall what he said properly, he referred to the need for
100
fairness and justice, to the need for an effective response to terrorism and to the need to protect the rights of the community.
I think that I speak for all my parliamentary colleagues when I say that those are shared aspirations. They are not aspirations associated simply with one part of this House —they are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members no matter where in the House they sit—but the essence of the Labour party view and that of the SDLP is that the legislation does nothing to advance those aspirations. On the contrary, we believe that it fails to address the essential problems and in many ways will make those shared aspirations more difficult to fulfil. That is our basic charge against the Government.
No comments from the Opposition Front Bench are designed to offer succour to the advocates of terrorism or to the terrorists in the north of Ireland, but we must be absolutely clear when discussing issues in this House that we get the approach right. That approach must be designed to attack the root causes of the problems of terrorism and the reasons for the substantial electoral support for the supporters of violence. Unfortunately, this Bill and other hasty proposals introduced by the Government a few weeks ago have done nothing to address those essential points.
It is also not without significance that, with the exception of a few Government loyalists who obviously have an earnest desire to be members of the Committee and to ensure that the Government have a majority on it, there was a lukewarm response to the efficacy of the proposals. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) described the legislation as a limp, lukewarm, lifeless measure. While I do not agree with his conclusion on the need to strengthen the legislation, the way that he describes the Bill is apt and many hon. Members share his view.
Not only is the Bill limp, lukewarm and lifeless, but as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, it will be ineffective. People who have carried out acts of terrorism and those who support terrorism will not be put off signing the declaration by the necessity to lie. They will wilfully and willingly sign it and ignore any consequences that may arise. I have great sympathy with the Government's dubiety in leaving the initiative to initiate prosecutions to the individual rather than the state taking responsibility for initiating prosecutions. There is cant and hyprocrisy in that part of the Government's argument which seeks to explain why the responsibility should be the individual's and not the state's.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats—or whatever they call themselves at the moment—spent a great deal of time criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but very little time outlining the reasons why his party, which was noted for standing out against such measures in the past, is giving the Government full-blooded support for this legislation. I found it difficult to take the hon. Member for Yeovil's allegations of bias in favour of one section of the community in Northern Ireland on the part of the parliamentary Labour party and in particular its principal spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
Labour party policy, the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and my own position are quite clear. We do not seek to differentiate

101
between one section of the community and another in Northern Ireland. We seek to ensure an even-handed approach with no discrimination against any part of the community in Northern Ireland. The policies that we support and the policies that we advance are designed to ensure that all members in the North of Ireland are treated equally in social and economic terms. We are certainly not biased in favour of one particular sector of the community.
Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my speech tomorrow, because I did not accuse the Labour party of bias. I said that the Labour party should have a care because many people are hearing the speeches of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others who I recognise have to put their own views and those of the Labour party.
Mr. Galloway: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did say that.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman, like others, can read the record tomorrow. I say that they should have a care because it now appears to many that it will be seen as biased, always in favour of the Nationalists. We frequently hear that the Labour party is opposed to the Government on this, but we do not hear what they are in favour of and that gives such an impression. The hon. Gentleman's views will certainly be read, and they are reassuring to me.
Mr. Marshall: If I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise for the remarks that I made, but it is my clear recollection that he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North of bias in favour of the Nationalist community in the North of Ireland. I wrote it down at the time, although I may have misheard or misunderstood him. I wrote down, "Bias to the Nationalists in the North of Ireland."
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) also displayed a lukewarm attitude towards the legislation. He used a different form of words, calling it "a timid step in the right direction." Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I dread to think what would be vigorous steps in the right direction. Nevertheless, he said that there was a need to defeat the supporters of violence—Sinn Fein, I presume —politically.
My understanding of defeating someone politically is that one enters into a debate, and if one lives in a democracy eventually the argument will be decided by the ballot box; but that is not what the hon. Gentleman suggested. He suggested that, as Sinn Fein was winning seats under the existing electoral system, one should alter the rules of the electoral game in order to defeat them politically—in other words, to defeat them not by democratic means but by gerrymandering.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the pursuit of such policies and initiatives led to the roots of the present trouble in the north of Ireland. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that the root causes of the present troubles are removed so that the basis for the views of terrorists and supporters of terrorism are eliminated once and for all.
Mr. William Ross: I may be wrong, but it was always my view that gerrymandering meant that electoral boundaries were deliberately drawn so as to give an electoral advantage to one party as against another. If the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), the spokesman for the Labour party, is now saying that the
102
first-past-the-post system is of itself in principle gerrymandering, may I take it that the Labour party is now totally committed to STV—the single transferable vote—in the United Kingdom elections?
Mr. Marshall: I was making no such allegations. Hon. Members will know that there are differing views in my own party about the kind of electoral system that should be pursued.
In a democracy, political change must come as a consequence of discussion and through the ballot box. It is in our interests to ensure that violence and its perpetrators do not succeed. We have a right to expect, and a duty to ensure, that those involved in violence for political ends are caught and sentenced with the fullest vigour of the criminal law. It is essential, however, that the perpetrators of violence are regarded as criminals. Many of them are pretty nasty individuals, but they are criminals nevertheless. The Government Chief Whip nods in agreement with that—I hope that he will nod with the same vigour when I make my next point. We must ensure that the action that we take does not bestow on terrorists and the groups who support them implicit recognition that their acts are different from those of any other criminals. If we fall into that trap, the consequences will be counter-productive, provide succour to the terrorists and enhance their claims to legitimacy in the eyes of some international opinion.
Unfortunately—I hope to have the Government Chief Whip's consent for this—the Government have fallen into that trap in recent months. Following the despicable acts of violence earlier this year, the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, decided that they had to be seen to be taking some action, no matter how ill conceived or badly put together it was. As a consequence of that hasty over-reaction, censorship of television broadcasting was introduced. The non-incriminating right of silence in a police station or a court has been removed, and we now have the third part of the trilogy—the declaration on violence.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is a hasty and ill-conceived reaction. It is the outcome of a consultation document that was published a year ago, but matters were under consideration well before that. The hon. Gentleman cannot associate the Bill with a reaction to the events of the past couple of months.
Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State knows that I always regard him as a reasonable man, and I hesitate to cast doubt on his statement. It is not without significance that, after the Prime Minister became involved. the Bill was pushed to the top of the political agenda.
It is no wonder that terrorists and their supporters are jubilant. The introduction of censorship and the further curtailment of civil liberties is, in their eyes, vindication for their appalling actions. In propaganda terms, the Government hand them what they could never hope to obtain militarily—a scent and sense of victory.
I understand the feeling of revulsion that many ordinary, decent people in the North of Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom feel when they see the supporters of violence in positions of elected responsibility. We should never forget—this was the essential point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—that they were elected. Many ordinary, decent people living in the North of Ireland—the people

103
for whom the legislation is supposed to be drawn—voted for them, not by coercion, because there is no coercion in the secrecy of the ballot booth, but willingly. No declaration or proscription will remove that electoral support. It can be undermined only by an acknowledgment of the Nationalist aspirations and a vigorous pursuit of polices designed to remove social and economic discrimination against the minority community.
I have recognised previously, and willingly recognise again, the Government's determination to pursue policies towards this end. I again emphasise that only in that way can the root causes of the present troubles be eliminated and the basis of the electoral support for the advocates of violence be removed. In this context, the declaration is an irrelevance. It is a sop which will not contribute one jot to the progress of peace or reconciliation. [Interruption.] I am always amazed that the silent members of the Government deem it necessary on occasions to be involved in idle chatter. Perhaps the silent servers of the House could be reminded of the need for silence.
I note with interest, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has done, that in an article on 25 November in The Daily Telegraph the Under-Secretary of State set out his views—and, I presume, the Government's—on the need for the Bill. I promise not to repeat the points and sentences uttered by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, but the Under-Secretary of State concluded his article by stating:
"We cannot tolerate the exploitation of elective office by those who proclaim their support for terrorism without giving law-abiding councillors the right to challenge that".
I believe that we would all say amen to that. One does not resolve the problem by having the declaration. It must be done through normal democratic methods—through discussion and, eventually, the ballot box. To repeat a point which I made, one does not remove the basis of support for the terrorists and their supporters by having the declaration.
In the same article, the Under-Secretary of State set out two reasons why the state will not initiate prosecutions. First—this is a gem—the hon. Gentleman argued that, if it were left to the DPP or the Attorney-General, it would call into question the political impartiality of the Law Officers. What does he think will happen to the political impartiality of the judges once they begin to consider these cases? Does he believe that both communities will accept that judges are impartial if they have to deal with these cases? That is nonsense. Inevitably, this will further damage the role of the courts in the eyes of both communities.
Secondly, the Minister's comment on the ability of witnesses to withstand intimidation was a cop-out. If that will apply if the state brings a prosecution, it will apply even more if a lone individual brings one. This again illustrates the cant and hypocrisy of the Government's position and implies tacit admission by the Government that the declaration will not work.
The Under-Secretary of State used expressions that seem to reveal surprise that his declaration was opposed. My final quotation from the Minister's statement is this:
"But surprisingly, it"—
that is, the declaration—
"has vociferous opponents, including the Labour Party and John Hume's SDLP".
104
I am sure that members of that party will be delighted to know that they belong to John Hume's SDLP. The next phrase should win a prize for someone:
"and much fashionable 'liberal' opinion".
That is one for the record books. My understanding is that the use of the word "fashionable" is supposed to indicate a majority view of the word "liberal" but in case that point is lost the word "liberal" is put in inverted commas, so the meaning is doubly pejorative. Perhaps it is some new kind of grammar invented by the Under-Secretary.
The idea that the Government have advanced any substantive arguments in support of the Bill is fallacious. The Government's argument for the Bill, like the Minister's grammar, is flawed. The Bill will not work, it will not advance peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland; I urge the House to support the Opposition's reasoned amendment.
9.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): May I begin in a not too partisan way by praising the speeches of many of my hon. Friends, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and that of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne felt that he was perhaps a little hard done by by my right hon. Friend who was a little concerned about our hon. Friend asking him a trick question. I had suggested to my right hon. Friend that he should be careful in replying because, in a way, there is a trick as this measure introduces residence qualifications in Northern Ireland which require people to have lived there for three months before they are entitled to vote, in contrast with the position here, where they have to be present on the specified date. That is because Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land barrier, so we do not want people nipping across from another jurisdiction.
I must say to my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford and for Spelthorne that, although I accept and understand their concerns about the problems of voting in the United Kingdom and the measures that we are introducing to bring the two parts of the United Kingdom into line, I hardly think that stopping Irish people voting in the United Kingdom would be a way of improving Anglo-Irish relations. It is important that we bring the jurisdictions together.
In this decade, three councillors and two council employees have been killed by terrorists and one councillor has been shot and injured. Of Sinn Fein's 58 councillors, 11 have been convicted of terrorist-type offences and a further three have faced or are facing charges. Six other councillors have also received convictions for scheduled offences.
Almost everyone accepts that there is a major problem caused by those in the district councils of Northern Ireland who openly support violence. Most, although not all, of those are members of Sinn Fein. As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said:
"those who pursue the so-called joint strategy of the ballot and the bullet are guilty of both hypocrisy and complete incompatability with a democracy."—[Official Report, 10 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 157.]

105
In this debate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and others have stated the nature of the problem as they have found it in blunt terms, born of their experience in local government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—who are on the other side of the political divide—would, with their experience of district councils, concede that there is a problem. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said so during a recent debate.
Most people in Northern Ireland and many outside it agree that the problem exists. Few, however, agree upon the steps that we should take to deal with it. Some—the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is one—argue for proscription. Almost everyone, at some stage, argues for something to be proscribed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has the UDA on his shopping list, but I do not know whether he intends to add Sinn Fein to it. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues have repeatedly called for the proscription of Sinn Fein, but they have specifically excluded Loyalist organisations.
Whether Sinn Fein or the UDA is proscribed, a declaration will still be necessary for those who stand under different guises. Indeed, they have often stood under all sorts of guises. Selective proscription of individual organisations would be a nonsensical approach to the problem. It could not be made retrospective and councillors could claim that they were no longer members of the proscribed party. They could stand at elections under different party names. Therefore, even if proscription were ever to come about, there would still be a need for a declaration.
The very fact that the Government are accused by some hon. Members of going too far and by others of not going far enough shows the difficulty in achieving a correct balance between what is practicable and achievable and what is not. The measure is designed to deal with those who advocate violence once they are elected, but no more than that. It does not ban candidates because it is at elections that views can be canvassed. I know that the hon. Member for Yeovil has some doubts about that. However abhorrent to hon. Members, we believe that it is legitimate that candidates standing on a platform of violence should have some way of putting their views forward. Once the election is over, councillors must then abide by the political rules of a plural democracy; they must abide by the club.
The greatest concern of many hon. Members is that enforcement should be either by criminal prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by civil action brought by the Attorney-General. Most electoral law is enforced by civil means, and rightly so. If the witnesses are to be the main constituent of a case and the accused's peers—
Mr. Benn: The Minister has made an important statement—that when elected one has to abide by the rules of the club. He interpreted that to mean that someone could advocate a policy and be elected on it, but that once elected he could not continue to support that policy. Is that the rule of the club that the hon. Gentleman thinks to be equivalent to representative democracy?
Mr. Needham: Once someone is elected, he cannot say that if he loses a vote he will shoot people on their way home. He cannot advocate violence for political ends. That is wholly unacceptable.
The second point about whether the DPP or the Attorney-General brings the action—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) picked me up on this point, and he is quite right—is that criminal cases and civil cases require different standards of proof. Only last week, there was the case of a rape victim who was awarded substantial civil damages, even though there had been no criminal prosecution. That is an example of the test in a civil action, which is the balance of probabilities succeeding, whereas the test of beyond reasonable doubt would not. I make no apology for that being the basis of civil actions being brought in such cases.
Thirdly, the Government are not in the business of lending terrorist supporters gratuitous propaganda points, as some Opposition Members seem to suggest. Whether an action is civil or criminal, if it is brought by the Attorney-General, it will be seen to have been instigated by the British Government. Furthermore, and most important, the Attorney-General has no capacity to monitor expressions of support for proscribed organisations or terrorism in Northern Ireland, and he would have to depend entirely on information given to him by others. Therefore, in our judgment, it is others who bring the actions.
I know that the argument is that those wishing to bring such actions may be deterred by cost or intimidation. As to intimidation, as I said, witnesses, rather than promoters, are most likely to be intimidated. Promoters can seek safety in numbers, or, no doubt in some instances, councils will bring actions.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman said that the Attorney-General is in no position to monitor certain matters. How is the RUC in a position to monitor, for example, incitement, the wearing of uniforms and all the other matters in the kernel of the Bill?
Mr. Needham: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman's points later.
The key point is that the Attorney-General relies on the information given to him by those who will become witnesses in a case. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that they themselves should be the promoters of such cases. If the argument is that it will lead to intimidation—and that argument has been put forward—the intimidation of witnesses is the problem of Northern Ireland, not the intimidation of the promoters of a case.
To advocate that the declaration will fail because intimidation will make it impossible for witnesses to testify as applicants in cases is a counsel of total despair. I ask those who advance such an argument whether they have so little faith in the continuing operation of civil justice in Northern Ireland that they suppose that nobody will bring cases. As hon. Members from Northern Ireland know well, many actions have been brought in recent years. which show that such pessimism is ill-founded. I am sure that there are many brave and determined people in Northern Ireland who, if the advocates of violence breach their declarations, will bring such actions in future.
On costs, it is perfectly possible for applicants to claim legal aid against the usual criteria. Of course, if councils bring well-founded actions, it will be a charge on the rates.

107
The hon. Member for Yeovil asked me about parties and parties supporting councils. If parties support their councils in an action, that will no doubt be another way of getting around the cost problem.
Speaking at his annual conference last week, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said of Sinn Fein and the IRA:
"They are more Irish than the rest of us, they believe. They are the pure master race of Irish. They are the keepers of the holy grail of the nation. That deep seated attitude, married to their method, has all the hallmarks of undiluted fascism.
They have also the other hallmarks of the fascist—the scapegoat—the Brits are to blame for everything even their own atrocities."
The hon. Member for Foyle is absolutely right—they are Fascists. I remind him, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) of what happened when democracy failed to stand up to Fascists. The arguments that we heard today from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Walton, who spoke about the 1640s or 1660s are no different in style from the arguments heard in the 1920s. But what were the arguments then? Bring Mussolini into the political process and he will change and become like us. Do not make martyrs of those who advocate violence. Treat them reasonably and they will behave reasonably. What happened? The leader of the Socialist party in Italy, Matteoti, was shot on the Parliament steps, in Rome. That was the way the Fascists behaved in Italy in the 1920s. If the hon. Gentleman is right about Fascism, these members should be treated as they are, as Fascists.
Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Needham: I do not wish to give way. I have only a few minutes to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the Bill was a farce and would worsen the sectarian bear pit of local government politics. Moreover, he said that Sinn Fein would welcome the Bill, although my quotation from Mr. Morrison went on to criticise the SDLP, claiming that the suggestion that the declaration would help Sinn Fein was nonsense. As to the hon. Gentleman's pejorative comments about a sectarian bear pit in the councils of Northern Ireland, he ignores those councils which are trying to run local services in a non-sectarian, bi-partisan efficient way, such as Derry, Dungannon, Fermanagh, and North Down councils. None is being run in a sectarian way.
What would the hon. Gentleman do? In a recent article in The Irish Times he said that he wishes to be the last Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and wants to see a united Ireland by consent. Yet what does he propose to do about the violence in Northern Ireland council chambers? He claims that the declaration is
"ill-thought out, hastily put together, pernicious and downright dangerous."
No doubt that is why he is abstaining tonight. He also said of the declaration:
"Surely instead of arguing for the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the democratic process, the Government should be seeking to draw its members into electoral politics and away from the politics of the gun. As the reaction to the Enniskillen tragedy has shown, accountability to the electorate has already led to demands from within Sinn Fein that the worst excesses of the Provisional IRA be curbed."
108
That is absolute nonsense. There is no conceivable example that Sinn Fein has changed its spots in any way.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) said in a recent article in Newsweek when talking about Sinn Fein's relationship with the IRA:
"We come from the same family. We draw water from the same well. The IRA's rule is armed political action, ours is unarmed political action."
Yet the hon. Gentleman says that if we do anything we should rely on the criminal law. We are introducing this legislation because the criminal law does not do what we wish it to do. It does not stop people supporting the IRA. It does not meet the problems that we face in council chambers. Eighty-four per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland, including 20 per cent. of those claiming to support Sinn Fein, think that our proposals to. introduce a declaration against violence are right.
Local government is the bedrock on which democracy depends. This measure, together with the series of proposals I announced last week to make local government more accountable, more efficient and more competitive, show that the Government will do what they can to create conditions in which councils can perform their duties in a non-sectarian, efficient and open way. As President Kennedy said in 1963:
"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
This Bill deserves the support of the whole House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 291.

Division No. 7]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cousins, Jim

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Crowther, Stan

Allen, Graham

Cryer, Bob

Anderson, Donald

Cummings, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Armstrong, Hilary

Cunningham, Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Darling, Alistair

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barron, Kevin

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

Battle, John

Dewar, Donald

Beckett, Margaret

Dixon, Don

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dobson, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Doran, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Duffy, A. E. P.

Blair, Tony

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Blunkett, David

Eadie, Alexander

Boateng, Paul

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Boyes, Roland

Fatchett, Derek

Bradley, Keith

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Field, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Flannery, Martin

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Flynn, Paul

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Buchan, Norman

Foster, Derek

Buckley, George J.

Foulkes, George

Caborn, Richard

Fraser, John

Callaghan, Jim

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Galloway, George

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Canavan, Dennis

George, Bruce

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clay, Bob

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clelland, David

Gordon, Mildred

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Graham, Thomas

Cohen, Harry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Corbett, Robin

Grocott, Bruce

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

109

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Heffer, Eric S.

Mowlam, Marjorie

Henderson, Doug

Mullin, Chris

Hinchliffe, David

Murphy, Paul

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Nellist, Dave

Holland, Stuart

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Home Robertson, John

O'Brien, William

Hood, Jimmy

O'Neill, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hoyle, Doug

Patchett, Terry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pike, Peter L.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Prescott, John

Hume, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Illsley, Eric

Radice, Giles

Ingram, Adam

Randall, Stuart

Janner, Greville

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

John, Brynmor

Reid, Dr John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Richardson, Jo

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Robinson, Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Rogers, Allan

Leadbitter, Ted

Rooker, Jeff

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lewis, Terry

Rowlands, Ted

Livingstone, Ken

Sedgemore, Brian

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sheerman, Barry

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Loyden, Eddie

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McAllion, John

Short, Clare

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum A.

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

McFall, John

Snape, Peter

McGrady, Eddie

Soley, Clive

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Steinberg, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Stott, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Strang, Gavin

McTaggart, Bob

Straw, Jack

McWilliam, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Madden, Max

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Turner, Dennis

Mallon, Seamus

Wall, Pat

Marek, Dr John

Walley, Joan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wareing, Robert N.

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Martlew, Eric

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Maxton, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Meacher, Michael

Wilson, Brian

Meale, Alan

Winnick, David

Michael, Alun

Worthington, Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wray, Jimmy

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Morley, Elliott

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bellingham, Henry

Alexander, Richard

Bendall, Vivian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Allason, Rupert

Benyon, W.

Alton, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amess, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Amos, Alan

Body, Sir Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ashby, David

Boswell, Tim

Ashdown, Paddy

Bottomley, Peter

Atkins, Robert

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Baldry, Tony

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brazier, Julian

Batiste, Spencer

Bright, Graham

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Beggs, Roy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

110

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Howard, Michael

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Burt, Alistair

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Butler, Chris

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Howells, Geraint

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carrington, Matthew

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cartwright, John

Hunter, Andrew

Chapman, Sydney

Irvine, Michael

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Irving, Charles

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jack, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jackson, Robert

Conway, Derek

Janman, Tim

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Curry, David

Key, Robert

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Kilfedder, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Day, Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Dorrell, Stephen

Kirkhope, Timothy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knapman, Roger

Durant, Tony

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Emery, Sir Peter

Knowles, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knox, David

Evennett, David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Latham, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lee, John (Pendle)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forman, Nigel

Lilley, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lord, Michael

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Forth, Eric

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

McCrindle, Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Freeman, Roger

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

French, Douglas

Maclean, David

Fry, Peter

Maclennan, Robert

Gardiner, George

McLoughlin, Patrick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gill, Christopher

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Madel, David

Goodlad, Alastair

Malins, Humfrey

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mans, Keith

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Maples, John

Gow, Ian

Marland, Paul

Gower, Sir Raymond

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mates, Michael

Gregory, Conal

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Grist, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ground, Patrick

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Grylls, Michael

Miller, Sir Hal

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mills, Iain

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Miscampbell, Norman

Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hannam, John

Moate, Roger

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Monro, Sir Hector

Harris, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hawkins, Christopher

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hayward, Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Heddle, John

Neale, Gerrard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Needham, Richard

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Nelson, Anthony

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Neubert, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nicholls, Patrick

Hind, Kenneth

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Holt, Richard

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

111

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Page, Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Paice, James

Sumberg, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Summerson, Hugo

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Temple-Morris, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Portillo, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Powell, William (Corby)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Raffan, Keith

Thorne, Neil

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thornton, Malcolm

Redwood, John

Thurnham, Peter

Renton, Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rhodes James, Robert

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Riddick, Graham

Tracey, Richard

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Roe, Mrs Marion

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Walden, George

Rost, Peter

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Rowe, Andrew

Wallace, James

Ryder, Richard

Waller, Gary

Sackville, Hon Tom

Ward, John

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Warren, Kenneth

Scott, Nicholas

Watts, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wheeler, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Whitney, Ray

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Wilshire, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wolfson, Mark

Speller, Tony

Wood, Timothy

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Woodcock, Mike

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Squire, Robin

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steel, Rt Hon David

Tellers for the Noes:

Steen, Anthony

Mr. David Lightbown and

Stern, Michael

Mr. Alan Howarth.

Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment. on Second or Third Reading):— —
The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 41.

Division No. 8]

[10.14 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alexander, Richard

Benyon, W.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Allason, Rupert

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alton, David

Body, Sir Richard

Amess, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Amos, Alan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bottomley, Peter

Ashby, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ashdown, Paddy

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Atkins, Robert

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Baldry, Tony

Brazier, Julian

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bright, Graham

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Batiste, Spencer

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Beggs, Roy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

Bendall, Vivian

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

112

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Jack, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jackson, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Janman, Tim

Cartwright, John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Key, Robert

Conway, Derek

Kilfedder, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Cope, Rt Hon John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Cormack, Patrick

Kirkhope, Timothy

Curry, David

Knapman, Roger

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Day, Stephen

Knowles, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Durant, Tony

Lang, Ian

Dykes, Hugh

Latham, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Evennett, David

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fallon, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lilley, Peter

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lord, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Forman, Nigel

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

McCrindle, Robert

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Forth, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Maclean, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maclennan, Robert

Freeman, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

French, Douglas

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Gardiner, George

Malins, Humfrey

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mans, Keith

Gill, Christopher

Maples, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Marland, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gow, Ian

Mates, Michael

Gower, Sir Raymond

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Gregory, Conal

Miller, Sir Hal

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mills, Iain

Grist, Ian

Miscampbell, Norman

Ground, Patrick

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Grylls, Michael

Moate, Roger

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hanley, Jeremy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hannam, John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Moss, Malcolm

Harris, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Haselhurst, Alan

Neale, Gerrard

Hawkins, Christopher

Needham, Richard

Hayward, Robert

Nelson, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Neubert, Michael

Heddle, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hind, Kenneth

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Holt, Richard

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hordern, Sir Peter

Pge, Richard

Howard, Michael

Paice, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patnick, Irvine

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howells, Geraint

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Powell, William (Corby)

Irvine, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Irving, Charles

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

113

Redwood, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Renton, Tim

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rhodes James, Robert

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Riddick, Graham

Temple-Morris, Peter

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thorne, Neil

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Thornton, Malcolm

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Thurnham, Peter

Rost, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Ryder, Richard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Tracey, Richard

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Tredinnick, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Scott, Nicholas

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Walden, George

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wallace, James

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Ward, John

Shersby, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Warren, Kenneth

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Watts, John

Speller, Tony

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wheeler, John

Squire, Robin

Whitney, Ray

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wiggin, Jerry

Steen, Anthony

Wilshire, David

Stern, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Wood, Timothy

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Yeo, Tim

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Summerson, Hugo

Mr. David Lightbown and

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. Alan Howarth.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hume, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lamond, James

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lewis, Terry

Battle, John

Livingstone, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Loyden, Eddie

Bermingham, Gerald

McAllion, John

Boateng, Paul

Madden, Max

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Buchan, Norman

Mallon, Seamus

Canavan, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Clay, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Nellist, Dave

Cohen, Harry

Patchett, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Cryer, Bob

Sedgemore, Brian

Duffy, A. E. P.

Skinner, Dennis

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Wall, Pat

Flannery, Martin

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Galloway, George

Wray, Jimmy

Gordon, Mildred

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Tellers for the Noes:

Heffer, Eric S.

Mr. Chris Mullin and

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Eddie McGrady.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

(b) any expenses incurred under section 14A(4) or 14B of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

10.26 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: We should not let money resolutions go through on the nod. In the case of this one, we have not yet received an explanation.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Prime Minister is leaving.
Mr. Cryer: I can understand why the Prime Minister is departing. She is going to get hold of an egg as fast as she can to prove that a junior Minister is wrong yet again. However, at the moment we want to discuss this money resolution because, in the absence of any explanation, it would be worthwhile to speculate on the consequences of the legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are not staying to debate the money resolution kindly leave quietly?
Mr. Cryer: The money resolution provides for money to be payable as a consequence of the legislation. Therefore, we have to take a look at the legislation in general terms to see whether any increase in expenditure is likely.
For a start, there are under schedule 2 what I imagine to be trivial amounts relating to the printing and arrangements for the declaration against terrorism by potential candidates. I would not raise the matter if it were not for the consequences of that, which are shown in clause 6. It says:
"A person who has made a declaration required for the purposes of section 3, 4 or 5 of this Act acts in breach of the terms of the declaration if—
(a) he expresses support for or approval of—
(i) the activities of a proscribed organisation,".
That is fairly straightforward, but it continues by referring to "acts of terrorism". There is a definition:
"(that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
That is a very wide definition. I wonder whether the Minister had assessed the consequences of such a vast, unfettered definition.
For example, vendettas may be played out. People may go to the High Court with allegations about people breaching the declaration. They might claim that people supported acts of terrorism—violence for political ends —if, in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, they supported the police using violence against the miners. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone would argue that.

115
As I argued earlier, if people support the retention and development of nuclear weapons by the Conservative Government, that may be construed as an act of terrorism, that is, violence for political ends. That is precisely the definition, because the Government tell us that our nuclear weapons are deployed to save us from Communism. That political aim is entirely within the definition given in the Bill.
If people raise such issues, if councillors or public representatives make such statements, many people can trip off to the High Court to get a ruling that various public representatives have breached the declaration. To obtain the evidence, people will have to be present at the meetings. Will the police be asked to attend the meetings, either in uniform or plain clothes, to act as informers on what is said in a public meeting, as suitably defined?
What about giving evidence? Presumably public officials will have to attend the High Court to give evidence on the validity or otherwise of the claims that declarations have been breached. All in all, it is clearly an area of great dissension in a section of the United Kingdom that is split by dissension anyway. There are factions using every possible means against each other, and this legislation will give them the opportunity to extend that practice.
Therefore, it is inevitable that there will be an increase in the charges on public expenditure. The Minister may say that my fears will not be realised and that there will not be any significant increase in public expenditure. Indeed, that is the suggestion in the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
"The Bill is not expected to result in any significant addition to public sector expenditure."
Will the Minister explain what that means? If someone goes to the DHSS and receives an extra £5 by illegal means, the Department does not ignore that and say that that is not a significant increase in expenditure; it prosecutes. It is important that the House knows what the Minister has in mind by the use of the word "significant". What is the definition? Is it £5,000, £10,000, £100,000 or £500,000?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has just come into the Chamber, most providentially. He knows how these debates start through our asking a Minister for an explanation, to which we are entitled. We discovered during the debate that the Minister asked for certain rights in the Bill which he could not finance. I do not want the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be placed in the same position. The Government have been embarrassed by junior Ministers over the past few days. I do not want other junior Ministers to cause the Government yet further embarrassment—and I can see a Government Whip nodding sagely at my comments about the Under-Secretary of State for Health. Perhaps he anticipates a promotion opportunity. I suspect that in two or three months' time that opportunity may arise.
I am trying to encourage the Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to give the House an adequate explanation on these matters. As he knows, during a debate on a Bill there is never an explanation of the financial background. This debate presents the House with an opportunity that should not be missed for the Minister to give us the financial details, and I am sure that he is eager to do that.
10.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I am always eager to assist the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in any way that I can. We all enjoyed his presence during the debate. Had he been here, he would have heard some of the questions on money being debated extensively and carefully.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, litigation is expensive. During today's debate many hon. Members made the point that litigation is so expensive that they were not sure that applicants would be able to afford the costs of bringing such actions. While legal aid will be available against the usual criteria, those criteria will include a test of merit in the courts, so ill-founded cases will not attract legal aid. Secondly, the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss cases that are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. In those circumstances, I am sure that the courts will have no hesitation in exercising that jurisdiction, so I do not believe that there will be a large amount of frivolous, vexatious or costly litigation.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, South so perceptively realises, there is a possible cost if applicants apply for legal aid. Those extra costs of any such actions cannot be calculated with any precision, but the Northern Ireland court service which supports the legal aid fund administered by the Law Society has sought provision of about £100,000 for the forthcoming financial year on a contingency basis. That, plus a very few minor expenses, is the only financial consequence of the Bill.
10.36 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: No price is too high for the extension of democracy. The people of Chile and, in Britain, the Chartists and the suffragettes realised that. Many of them paid with their lives for the extension of democracy. A money resolution for the extension of democracy would therefore have our whole-hearted support, but the Bill is concerned with manipulating and fixing democratic arrangements. Even if that could be justified, we should not be spending a great deal of money on it. At least we should manipulate on the cheap instead of paying extensive amounts of money for it.
What is needed to extend democracy in Northern Ireland is not the measure before us, but more rather than less democracy. There should be a Bill of Rights, which would be expensive because of the cases that would be brought in connection with it and the cases that would be used to overturn much of the Government's legislation. There should be a devolved assembly, which would also be expensive because of the massive problems that it would have to handle.
Furthermore, Northern Ireland needs economic advance more than anything else. On Second Reading, the Minister claimed that that was taking place, but I disagree with him fundamentally. The rosy picture that he painted does not exist in Northern Ireland. However, we should concern ourselves now with money and its connection with the democratic process. We have been discussing a genuine democratic dilemma. There has not been sufficient consideration by either side of the House—and certainly not by the Government—of the dilemma and the different factors that need to be considered in connection with it.

117
The problem with democracy is how far it can tolerate the intolerant. There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and other paramilitary groups operate in an intolerant fashion. Usually, democrats err on the side of tolerance to the intolerant. Those who have the best arguments and democratic principles should win in the democratic market place, but undoubtedly there are exceptions in Northern Ireland. The circumstances in Northern Ireland are almost such that we should not tolerate the intolerant, but are hon. Members in a position to decide? Are the Government in a position to tell Northern Ireland that they will no longer tolerate the intolerant?
We should apply very high standards of democracy when considering the Bill, but the Government are not doing so. By their bans, proscription and impediments on trade union activities and other action, they are attacking civil liberties, undertaking a fantastic amount of centralisation and manipulating the franchise with the poll tax. The Bill must be considered against that background. A Government operating in such a way cannot ask Parliament to be intolerant of those who are intolerant.
On Second Reading, mention was made of a declaration that must be signed. It was said that if Sinn Fein and other paramilitary organisations failed to sign it they would be banned. They would obviously take a pragmatic view of that. This is relevant to the money resolution because massive expense will be incurred in taking cases to court. Sinn Fein and other paramilitary groups will sign the declaration when they believe it is to their advantage to do so and then face the problems of being debarred and the civil actions when they arise. On some occasions, they will refuse to sign and will gain much political advantage from doing so.
Only people who act morally will be faced with the problem of whether to sign the declaration. They are worried about oaths and declarations and their civil liberties being attacked. They will refuse to sign the declaration, which is supposed to extend and develop democratic processes.
Clause 9 provides that people should be debarred from membership of local councils for five years in addition to facing any other action that may be taken. If people are debarred from local government, like the Clay Cross councillors, they have to pay a surcharge and serve their five-year disqualification after their bankruptcy has been discharged. Are we saying that the sentences imposed by the courts will not work and that people should serve a further five years disqualification, with all the various financial considerations that flow from that?
The Bill defines terrorism, but "terrorism" is a purely evaluative term. Sinn Fein and Protestant paramilitaries are terrorists and I condemn them. Others call them "freedom fighters" and praise them. We should not pass laws that include the term "terrorism". That commits us to saying not only that certain actions are contrary to the law but that those actions lead to our criticism of them. The law should be empirical and factual. In our debates we should use evaluative arguments either for or against those actions. On those grounds, I oppose the money resolution.
10.45 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wonder whether the Minister can clear up a technical point. It is probably a silly technical point, but the English legal system has been known to be very silly and, no doubt, will be very silly in the future. I have looked at schedule 2 as a lawyer. It states:
10.48 pm
Mr. Needham: If the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) had been here during the debate on the Bill, he would have heard that point discussed at length. It has nothing to do with the money resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,

119
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
120

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

(b) any expenses incurred under section 14A(4) or 14B of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill [Money]
  DECLARATION AGAINST TERRORISM
    PART I

      FORM FOR INCLUSION IN CONSENT TO NOMINATION
      I declare that, if elected, I will not by word or deed express support for or approval of—

      (a) any organisation that is for the time being a proscribed organisation specified in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978; or

      (b) acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

  PART II

    FORM FOR USE IN CASE OF DISTRICT COUNCILLOR CHOSEN TO FILL CASUAL VACANCY
    I, (name in full), of (home address in full) declare that, if I am chosen to be a councillor for the District of (name of district), I will not by word or deed express support for or approval of—

    (a) any organisation that is for the time being a proscribed organisation specified in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978; or

    (b) acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."

    How is "deed" defined? What are the implications for the expenditure of public funds?
    A person may say that X has done a deed which expresses support for an
    "organisation that is for the time being a proscribed organisation specified in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978"
    or that X supports
    "acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
    He may say, "My evidence that he has committed that deed is that he is a member of Sinn Fein." The court can, with no other evidence, deduce from the fact that X is a member of Sinn Fein that he supports an organisation that is proscribed as specified in schedule 2 or that he supports acts of terrorism. Does the deed require some act other than that X is a member of a political party of which we are all aware and about whose political views on terrorism the Government make certain claims? Have we predetermined that a whole class belonging to a whole political party has committed the deed which renders something a crime under an Act of Parliament? If we have done that and no other deed is involved, that would be a startling development by the Government which has not been dealt with during the debate.

European Community (Budget)
10.49 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7271/88 and 7758/88 on the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989, 7908/88 on the Draft Budget for 1989, 8996/88 on Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989 and 9286/88 on the European Parliament's proposed Amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1989.
The 1989 Community budget is the first to be subject to the new arrangements for budgetary discipline which have been put in place since the February European Council. This debate gives us a useful opportunity to consider how those arrangements are working.
Three aspects of the new arrangements are particularly relevant to the documents before us today: the ceilings on the growth of the Community's own resources; the control of agricultural and other expenditure; and improved budget management.
First, let me deal with own resources. Under the new own resources decision, which the United Kingdom has now formally ratified, annual sub-ceilings have been imposed for the first time on the overall level of the Community's resources. The ceiling for 1989 is 1·17 per cent. of Community gross national product. The sub-ceilings set an absolute upper limit on the growth of the Community's total expenditure, year by year.
As regards control of agricultural expenditure, the situation has been transformed over the last 12 months. In the context of today's debate, I draw particular attention to the financial guideline and to the new provisions for stock depreciation. The guideline limit relating to expenditure on agricultural market support is legally binding. The limit will grow each year at no more than 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community GNP, which is likely to mean a real increase of around 2 per cent. a year, compared with 10 per cent. a year between 1984 and 1987. Happily, expenditure in both 1988 and 1989 is set to grow even more slowly than this. I shall come back to this point later on. As regards stocks, provision has been made to ensure systematic depreciation in the year of purchase, and special funds have been earmarked to pay for the disposal of existing stocks. This should ensure that the overhanging expenditure commitments on intervention stocks are eliminated by 1992 at the latest.
The second aspect of the new budget discipline arrangements which I want to touch on is the interinstitutional agreement. Under this, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have bound themselves to respect a procedural and financial framework designed to implement the budgetary conclusions of the Brussels European Council. An integral part of the IIA is a financial perspective which establishes ceilings for each of the main categories of Community expenditure between 1988 and 1992.
The Council has undertaken to apply the IIA in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Brussels conclusions. This paragraph introduced a jargon-ridden but operationally important distinction between so-called "privileged" and "non-privileged" non-obligatory expenditure. Privileged expenditure includes the structural funds, the research and development framework programme and the integrated Mediterranean programmes. The growth of this
122
category of expenditure between 1988 and 1992 has been pre-ordained by decisions taken at, or before, the Brussels Council. However, for the remainder of DNO—the non-privileged element—the Council has agreed to respect the maximum rate of increase calculated by the Commission at the start of each year's budget procedure within the framework of article 203(9) of the treaty. The calculated maximum rate for the 1989 budget is 5·8 per cent.
The final aspect of the new arrangements to which I should refer is improved budget management, including, in particular, the new regime to reinforce annuality, which is designed to make the carry-forward of appropriations from one year to the next the exception rather than the rule.
I apologise if the next section of my speech is something of a ball-by-ball commentary on the 1989 budget procedure, but I am sure the House would expect me to say something about each of the documents referred to in the motion.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has referred to those exciting new provisions which will prevent overspending in the future and has made several recommendations. Does he recall that, when almost identical assurances were given in 1984, the EEC got round all those restrictions by calling for extra expenditure in advance, thus ensuring that we had a year which was basically one of 10 months? Will he give us a cast-iron assurance that advance payments will not be permitted as a means of getting round budgetary controls?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is vigilant and persistent in these matters. I would be hesitant to give him cast-iron assurances on anything and he would be the first to acknowledge that I would be rash to do so, given the history. However, the principles of annuality that we have built into the arrangements, in terms of the new regulations, should provide a better defence than we have historically had. My hon. Friend knows that the arrangements to which he refers were addressed to a particular problem, but did not lead to excess expenditure in the budget in question.
The commentary begins with the preliminary draft budget—PDB—which the Commission presented in June and which is dealt with in documents Nos. 7271/88 and 7758/88. There were two especially noteworthy aspects of the PDB. First, it included provision of almost 3·25 billion ecu for the depreciation of agricultural stocks. including 1·4 billion ecu in respect of existing stocks. Secondly, the PDB proposed an increase in DNO as a whole of around 20 per cent. in terms of commitment appropriations. Much of that, of course, was for the preordained expansion of the structural funds to which I referred earlier. The figure for non-privilaged DNO alone was some 12 per cent., more than double the calculated maximum rate of 5·8 per cent.
Overall, the PDB was about 450 million ecu within the ceiling in the financial perspective. The Commission noted, with some justification, that its proposals marked a start in the process of restoring a balance between agricultural and non-agricultural expenditure.
The Budget Council considered the PDB in July. The main issue was the level of non-privileged DNO That was procedurally important, because of the rules laid down in paragraph 14 of the Brussels conclusions. The Council

123
decided by a large majority to stick rigidly to the letter of the Brussels conclusions and to confine the growth of non-privileged DNO in the draft budget to half the calculated maximum rate—that is, to 2·9 per cent. That involved cutting the Commission's proposals by 365 mecu in commitments and 356 mecu in payments.
At the July Council, I urged the Commission to keep the prospective level of agricultural expenditure in 1989 under close review, especially in the light of the American drought. I asked it to submit an amending letter to the 1989 budget, if necessary.
The amending letter was eventually tabled in October —document No. 8996/88. Its overall effect, compared with the PDB, was to reduce by almost 3·5 billion ecu the own resources which member states would have to contribute to the Community in 1989. That reduction, amounting to more than 7 per cent. of the PDB, is largely the product of two things—first, a cut of almost 1·4 billion ecu in the provision for agricultural market support in 1989 and, secondly, an expected revenue surplus of more than 2 billion ecu in respect of the 1988 Budget.
The reduction is largely fortuitous. Part of it reflects higher world prices caused by the American drought and a further part reflects higher than expected revenue from Customs duties, which in turn reflects faster than expected economic growth. It is extremely encouraging that a reduction in next year's agricultural appropriations has already been made. The principle has been established that surplus provision needs to be stripped out of the budget as soon as it is identified. No less encouraging is the fact that the amending letter provides for an increase of 50 mecu —to a total of more the 1,780 mecu—in the United Kingdom's Fontainebleau abatement for 1988. That is the first occasion on which the abatement has been increased during the course of the budget year to which it relates. Finally, on the amending letter, it is worth noting that the 1988 surplus stems, in part, from unused appropriations that have been cancelled as a result of the new budget management regime.
The Parliament gave its first reading to the draft budget in October. It voted to take on board the reduced agricultural provision in the amending letter by means of a broadly corresponding modification to the draft budget. The details of that modification, and of the Parliament's other proposed changes, are given in document No. 9286/88. Most of the other changes were in respect of non-privileged DNO. In summary, the Parliament voted to restore most of the reductions in that type of expenditure that the Council had made in July. That was, however, no more than the Parliament was entitled to do under the treaty and it did not involve any breach of the ceilings for individual categories of expenditure in the IIA.
I come now to the final overs of the ball-by-ball commentary, which were bowled, so to speak, at the second Budget Council on 22 November. The Council's task was somewhat complicated as it involved giving a First Reading to the amending letter at the same time as giving a Second Reading to the draft budget and considering the Parliament's amendments and modifications. Despite that, the revised draft budget that the Council established was coherent and disciplined.
Very briefly, the Council did two things. First, it agreed all the main elements of the amending letter. In the
124
process, it rejected the Parliament's modification to agricultural provision, because it had become technically redundant. Secondly, the Council rejected around two thirds of the Parliament's amendments to non-privileged DNO, thereby bringing the growth of such expenditure back within the calculated maximum rate of 5·8 per cent. So, just as it did at its First Reading, the Council followed the letter of the procedure agreed in February.
Therefore, we have a draft budget for 1989 in which commitments are around 2·3 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective; in which provision for agricultural market support is around 1·8 billion ecu below the guideline limit; and in which the own resources call-up rate is 1·02 per cent. of GNP, compared with the annual sub-ceiling for 1989 of 1·17 per cent.
In line with the shuttlecock diplomacy which characterises the budget procedure, the action now shifts to Strasbourg, where the Parliament will have its Second Reading debate in the week beginning 12 December. The Parliament can be expected to amend the provision for DNO in the draft budget to some degree, but the amount which it can add within the relevant ceilings in the financial perspective is relatively small.
For its part, the Council has agreed the basis on which it will enter into a formal process of co-decision with the Parliament, under article 203(9) of the treaty, in order to agree the overall growth of DNO for the 1988 budget. That overall growth will substantially exceed the calculated maximum rate as an inevitable consequence of the increase in structural fund appropriations agreed at the Brussels Council.
It is gratifying to note that the new procedures and parameters that were put in place after the Brussels Council have had a benign and moderating influence on both the level of the 1989 budget and the atmosphere in which negotiations have been conducted thus far. The Council has respected in an exemplary way the Brussels conclusions on budgetary discipline.
11.1 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: Opposition Members are grateful to the Paymaster General for taking us ball by ball, as he said, through the commentary. He did not actually say anything about how well we are playing in the matter of the EEC budget, other than on the rebate. There are certain issues arising from the budget which Opposition Members would like to address and a number of specific questions which we would like to put to him. For example, it is already very clear, as he has said, that one of the reasons why the budget is in better shape this year is the overall situation of the world food market, and especially the rise in food prices because of the drought in the United States.
There is an underlying issue on which we would like to know the Government's view and also what the Government have been doing in the preparation for the budget and what position they took. For example, granted that the Government, and not least the Prime Minister, are especially concerned about public expenditure, what is the Minister's view of the current meetings between the United States and the European Economic Community in negotiations in the framework of GATT for the reduction of food subsidies?
As has been recognised many times by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we still have a very high price

125
food support system in the European Community. The fact that we now have stabilisers with only 74 per cent. growth of GNP being reflected in a diminished share—let us trust that it is indeed finally a diminished share—of agricultural spending and total spending none the less leaves us in a situation where, on average, about two thirds to three quarters of the total Community budget over the last decade has been allocated to agricultural subsidies.
What is the Minister's view on the fact that the OECD, for example, estimates that overall, on a global basis, about $220 billion or £118 billion, a year is being spent by developed countries in subsidising agriculture? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made in the framework of the GATT session, through the European Community or directly in response to the United States proposals as, for example, reported by Bailey Morris in today's edition of The Times, for a major reduction of protection in agricultural products? That is the sort of move for which the Government deserve the support from both sides, unlike the simple trimming of expenditure, which continues to swamp the Community budget.
I do not wish to detain the House at length on this, but it also relates to the availability of expenditure for the structural funds and especially the regional fund. The recent doubling of the regional fund looks dramatic, but as the regional fund amounts to a minor fraction of I per cent. of Community GDP and only about 10 per cent. of that results in net transfers between member states, other than the special category of the integrated Mediterranean programmes, we are not talking about a major shift from agricultural to regional spending.
In that respect, if Le Monde today was accurate in reporting the Prime Minister at the Rhodes summit as saying that the structural funds are already more than the Marshall plan, she should retract that. It is arrant nonsense. The Marshall plan was equivalent to a transfer of between 3 and 4 per cent. of United States' GDP to Europe each year for four years from 1948. The whole Community budget is not scheduled to exceed 1·4 per cent. of GDP. Therefore, the whole Community budget is only one third of the contribution made under the Marshall plan to Western Europe after the war and the structural funds are only a minor fraction of 1 per cent. of Community GDP.
The Paymaster General may not be able to respond directly, but perhaps as the allegation that the structural funds amount to more than the Marshall plan is circulating in Whitehall, he is familiar with the statement and the Prime Minister intended to say that. If so, I hope that he will recognise that it is an unfounded and wholly misleading statement. It gives the impression that the structural and regional funds are far greater than they are.
Document 7908/88 budget 16 provides interesting figures on agricultural levies. Page 17 estimates revenue under the draft budget. Agricultural levies for the 1989 draft are estimated at 1·33 billion ecu—I shall not trouble with the succeeding range of decimal points—and sugar-isoglucose levies are estimated at 1·35 billion ecu. Granted that levies on sugar militate against the exports from some lesser developed countries, not least Caribbean countries, why do the Government tolerate that? Why are we not pushing for a reduction of those levies and allowing for a higher volume of imports of sugar from developing countries?
126
We appreciate that not everyone is making supernormal profits from beet sugar in the Community and that many small and medium-sized farmers' average income may not be in excess of the average industrial wage in this country and may be considerably less than that of their own country. We are not saying that marginal farmers' incomes should be wiped out by no Community agricultural policy whatever, but sugar is a special case.
We should be glad to know whether in the preparation of the draft budget the Government have been fighting to ensure that there is a reduction of those levies.
If one puts the 1·33 million ecu from the agricultural levies or the 1·35 million ecu on sugar-isoglucose levies against page 76 of the same document, which refers to an absolutely parsimonious 2 million ecu in food aid, one sees that that is out line—despite the considerable degree of self-congratulation with which, with unaccustomed modesty, the Paymaster General entered into his exposition.
Some hon. Members might be prepared to say that food aid should not be a priority of the Community and that there should be food development programmes. Depending on the relative balance and scale of food aid programmes, one could well agree with hon. Members making such a point, were any on their feet to do so. However, I do not encourage them to rise to their feet, although it might at least interrupt the monologue from this Dispatch Box.
Expenditure on IFAD—the International Fund for Agricultural Development—is precisely related to developing food production in the less-developed countries. If I recollect the figures, during the last major famine in Ethiopia, IFAD could gain a year's production of grain on a farm in the highlands of Ethiopia for something like a tenth of the cost of one week's drop of food aid to the area, so why on page 81 of the budget is there no commitment for 1989 whatsoever under IFAD? Why have those commitments not been made? The United Kingdom's contribution to IFAD is low. Why can we not get the Community to make that kind of commitment to IFAD, which would mean that, with its cost-effective programmes in agricultural development, it could assist the developing countries?
Again in the context of developing countries, page 73 contains a series of statements of co-operation with developing and non-member countries. Page 75 reiterates —Opposition Members are well aware of this—that the European development fund is not included in the budget. Therefore, chapters 90 and 91 on the European development fund and co-operation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific states and on co-operation with the overseas countries and territories associated with the Community have been deleted from the budget. Perhaps the Minister will give us his view on why that is the case. We appreciate that that has been the convention for some time, but why can the House not scrutinise those budgets within the framework of the overall budget of the Community? What, in practice and in terms of the specific allocations are the subtitles of the allocations in the Community budget, and why can those not be published in the budget? I refer, for example, to page 73, item 93, headed,
"Co-operation with Latin American and Asian developing countries".

127
Lumping Latin America and Asia together in that category gives an almost meaningless figure. Why can we not have a breakdown and why are the Government not pushing for a breakdown of such figures?
Perhaps the Minister will be a little more forthcoming on some of the items in the Community's draft general budget and in the document with the amendments and proposed modifications from the European Parliament. I shall still refer to the pages of the documents as that is simpler than giving multi-digit references for each item. I refer to page 1, which the Paymaster General did not mention, which calls for the Parliament to promote the interests of women. What was the Government's attitude to that in the preparation of the draft budget?
On page 5 there is a programme to promote information for local and regionally elected representatives on Community activities in preparation for 1992. I happen to know that that is taken seriously by national Governments in the rest of Europe. What is the Government's attitude to that?
On page 178-9 of the European Parliament document there is an item on the harmonisation and amelioration of working conditions in the Community. What representations did the Government make on that, other than the purely negative comment that they are not interested in a social dimension to Europe? What of the European Parliament's proposals for disabled people set out on page 180? What about page 195 and the proposals for the protection of the environment? We would certainly like answers from the Government to those questions.
What is the Government's attitude to the proposal on page 398 to combat world hunger? Why has the European Community pledged only 5·6 milion ecu to combat hunger in the developing countries?
I can see one reason for a report in Le Monde today about the harmonisation of taxes on savings and the different responses that we are getting from the Prime Minister and the EC. According to Le Monde, the Prime Minister said that we should be concentrating on those areas where consensus already exists. In that respect it seems that the Prime Minister does not believe that the harmonisation of tax on savings is a priority.
There are several reasons for saying that there should not be a harmonisation of taxes where they do not necessarily impede capital flow within the Community. The capital flow which really counts within the Community and which is overwhelmingly important is that which relates to the Eurodollar and Eurobond markets where such fiscal barriers hardly impede the functioning of markets which, overall, handle trillions of dollars on a global scale each year. Therefore, we would not consider that the harmonisation of taxation on capital flows was a priority. Far more important is whether or not the Community will have an industrial strategy.
At the end of the century, will there be sectors within the EC that will have regenerated themselves and are capable of facing the competitive challenge from Japan or will many of such sectors—for example the electronic consumer goods industry—simply have disappeared? That is the real challenge on savings—the translation of savings into investment in a competitive, offensive, go-getting, long—term industrial strategy. The Community budget has not addressed the need for such a strategy, despite the
128
proposals in the Esprit programme for the translation of technical progress into innovation in individual countries. There is no attitude towards a joint, common industrial policy in the Community.
Such a policy does not imply federalism—it does not have to be formally confederal. It could be an effective, pragmatic joint approach to industrial strategy. We suspect—we would be glad to hear the Minister's views on this—that the Government are not pushing for such a strategy and that they will leave 1992 to market forces. We have already stressed that if it is left to market forces, the big business will benefit and the small business will go to the wall. We shall be glad to know whether the Government accept that that is the likely outcome of 1992, and whether the Government pressed for the question of Europe's industrial competitiveness to be addressed in the whole approach to and debate on these budget issues in the Council of Ministers.
11.19 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: These debates are pointless, because we have masses of paper, our views do not count one bit and whatever we say and however we vote it will not make the slightest difference. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to come along to these debates every year and to hear a Treasury Minister express the view that, happily, matters have been resolved, spending is under control and we can look forward to the future with more confidence than we did last year. Bearing in mind that the last time we debated this we discovered that our net contribution for 1987—88, which was originally £500 million, had been stepped up gradually to a record £1,698 million, I hope that the Minister is right. It would be helpful if we could start the debate with the Minister's opening bid in terms of what he thinks that the net contribution will be in 1989.
Why can we not have in the budget separate amounts for the levies on goods which are being imposed by the Council of Ministers and the Commission? The Minister will be aware that it is a blinkered form of protectionism. The Common Market is imposing levies on many imported goods, up to a rate of 33 per cent. Those levies bring in large amounts of money which go direct to the EC.
The Minister said that we have a new spirit of careful, cautious consideration of spending, so there will be no money wasted and no silly spending. Have the Government agreed to the proposal to spend more than 1 million ecu celebrating the French revolution? That is at page 66 of the budget. From all that I have heard about the French revolution, I believe that it was a thoroughly nasty business during which things were done of which the Government would not approve in any respect. My constituents in Southend would like to know whether the Government supported the proposal to spend all the money celebrating the French revolution. How will that benefit the Community and my constituents?
Did the Government agree to the massive increase in expenditure proposed as a grant to the European Movement? We know that the Government give a great deal of money to the European Movement, but this is said to be extra money necessary to encourage a higher percentage poll in the so-called European elections to the so-called European Parliament. I have never known an occasion when a Government have spent money on a

129
device to encourage more people to vote in elections. High polls or low polls can often be advantageous to one party or another. Sometimes Members from strange parties are returned in by-elections on the basis of low polls. Those things happen from time to time. Did the Government say that our taxpayers' money should go to the European Movement for the sole purpose of encouraging more people to vote in these silly Euro-elections, which everyone knows have no effect? If the European Parliament disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice.
Thirdly, did the Minister vote for the donation of a substantial sum to support rehabilitation centres for torture victims? Which torture victims did he have in mind, and what will the money be used for? Do the Government support a substantial increase in the amount of money going to something called the European Migrants Forum? That has the specific job of trying to deal with the increase of Fascism and racism in Europe. I am not sure whether the Government have had a clear indication of how Fascism is rising in Europe, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could say whether he thinks that the Common Market is the best body to deal with this and whether our taxpayers' funds should be used in this way.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Despite all the profligacy of the EEC and the millions of pounds spent on storing and destroying food, the item on which the hon. Gentleman chooses to pour scorn is the tiny amount of money to be used to fight racism in Europe—racism which is, in part at least, a product of the EEC and the drawing of migrant labour into EEC countries.
Mr. Taylor: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman. Surely he recognises the blatant scandal of the terrible misery and degradation that we are heaping on the Third world by the traditional policy, which is raised time and again, of spending £200 million per week on dumping and destroying food. We all know that that is in the budget and that the people who are starving and who are hit most of all are people in the Third world. They are not getting a decent price for their food products, so they cannot buy machinery or pay their debts. That comes up time and again and every time the Government say that the amount will be reduced it increases. It is sad to think of Bob Geldof sweating his guts out to raise £100 million for the world's poor, only to find that the same amount was being spent by the Common Market every three days on dumping or destroying food. I accept what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) says about that—it is an almighty scandal, but nothing is being done about it and nothing can be done about it.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the hon. Gentleman serious in what he says?
Hon. Members: Never.
Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in the Mediterranean area, for example, there is a long history of the transfer of people from north Africa to places such as Marseilles, and there has been a considerable problem of racism to the point that people have been murdered for no other reason than that they come from the Arab race? Is he not also aware that over the next 20 years there will be an enormous shortage of labour in every European Community country? That shortage will be made good only by bringing in people from places such as Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia. If we
130
do not tackle racism now, on an all-Community level, it will not be tackled and will become a major problem. Would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to address major problems such as that rather than nit-picking his way through as he is doing?
Mr. Taylor: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention staggering. Of course there are major problems in the EEC —I have mentioned some of them—but if the hon. Gentleman's experience of the Common Market is such that he regards it as the appropriate body to deal with the problems that he has outlined, he is living in a dream world. Does he not accept that the Common Market is a most profligate, wasteful and useless organisation? Of the things that it has tried to tackle, the common agricultural policy is a perfect example. If we give money to that organisation to deal with a problem, we are wasting our money. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt, he should read the budget statement—especially page 60—to see how we are to fight Fascism and racism. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will also read this. It says that we are to
"improve the coordination and distribution of administrative measures".
That is how we are to deal with Fascism and racism. I do not know what that means, but my hon. Friend is an enthusiast and will know exactly what it means.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend says that the EC is a profligate, wasteful, useless organisation. When does he want to leave the European Community and why does he not say so? Would it not be better if he said so honestly and straightforwardly?
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is trying to make me prolong my speech, but I shall not do so because this is a short debate. He knows that there is no way in which we can leave the Common Market, that we are in it and can do nothing about that. The only country ever to leave the Common Market is Greenland and it got out only because every member state passed a Bill allowing it out. There is no way in which we can legally withdraw from the Common Market. I am trying to stop the scandalous waste of public money that my hon. Friend knows is going on day in, day out, and I wish that he would do the same.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister think it appropriate for the British taxpayer to pay for the teaching of German to 200,000 people who have come from Russia and Poland to the West German Republic? I do not know whether this is actually happening, or why, but is it an appropriate use for EEC cash?
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the Community is far from spending money carefully and wisely. Our Ministers, who have many problems in dealing with the expense of our health and social services, and in paying for our pensions, will be outraged when they see the amount of money in this budget being poured into dumping food and celebrating the French revolution.
11.30 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: When he opened the debate, the Paymaster General, with his characteristic modesty, said that he was simply giving a ball-by-ball commentary. In this limited over match, he was batting as well; in due course, he will be bowling at the end of the match.

131
The cricketing analogy highlights what I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is the futility of these debates. We are trying to debate 3 in—or should I say 7 cm—of paper in an hour and half. These debates do nothing to increase the country's understanding of the European Community, though of course they provide opportunities for the virtuosity that we have heard from the Labour Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), and from the hon. Member for Southend, East. If he were to admit that he wants us out of Europe, it would spoil his fun; there would be nothing left for him to talk about.
It would be far better if, unlike the hon. Member for Southend, East, we did something to increase the credibility of the European Parliament. The budget should be and is debated in detail in the European Parliament; but that can happen effectively only in a European Parliament that is truly accountable and that commands the respect of the nation. I applaud the payment of grants to the European Movement if those grants are to be used to achieve some greater understanding among the public at large of the role and purpose of the European Parliament, a Parliament that, in the budget that we are debating, has played a more important and greater role than in past years.
I broadly welcome the budget for four reasons. First, it provides considerable impetus towards the completion of the internal market by 1992. Secondly, it provides for greater economic and, dare I say it, social cohesion between member states. The hon. Member for Southend, East, if he will forgive me for saying this, is a little older than me, and therefore has a longer memory than I. One of the greatest ends that can be served in a European community is social cohesion, and the removal of the divisions that were such a detriment to Europe in the earlier years of this century.
Thirdly, this budget speeds up the production of a common policy on research and development. If European manufacturing industry is to be successful in the decades to come—and the work done by the Commission has shown that European manufacturing industry, and particularly ours, should do extremely well after 1992—we must have a policy of research and development so that we can compete in real economic terms with the Japanese and the United States and other parts of the world where economic development is happening quickly.
Fourthly, I welcome the budget because it is at least a start in tackling the enormous problems of environmental policy that we must tackle if we are not to face natural disaster, affecting the whole world, but to a great extent caused by our manufacturing activities in the manufacturing countries in the European Community. It seems that the budget begins at least to tackle all these issues and is to be welcomed for that reason.
The key to the acceptability and utility of the Community within member states is the way in which the structural funds are applied. I represent a Welsh constituency, and I and others in Wales can see both the success and the failure of the funds. Successes have been produced in south Wales, and the Wrexham area of north Wales, by the spending of European regional development fund moneys on the building of factories and the creation of new industries and infrastructure, alongside the work of
132
the Welsh Development Agency. The funds can be and have been applied to regenerate areas which were on their economic last legs.
In my constituency and the surrounding area there is a declining agriculture industry. It has not had the benefit of significant support from the structural funds. I accept, however, that the common agricultural policy has been the lifeblood of the industry for many years. The Government, in considering the way in which the funds are used in future, and their size, in the development of new industries must not lose sight of the decline of old industries. To put the issue in a more homely way, if there are not sheep on the hills in mid Wales, there will not be anyone living at the bottom of the hills. If that happens, our communities will decline and we shall again face depopulation and the wholesale takeover of rural communities by those who wish to move in from elsewhere. The de-Cymricisation of rural Wales could be the direct result of a reduction of CAP funds. The farmers and everyone else in mid Wales understand that the CAP has been too expensive, but the Government must ensure that the targeting of its funds is not so narrow that agricultural areas in my constituency, for example, are unable to survive.
At the Rhodes summit, the Prime Minister's criticism of the Belgian Government was justified. There was blatant political interference by the Belgian Cabinet in the due legal process of the Belgian courts. I hope that that would not happen in the United Kingdom. However, the perhaps over-strident criticism that has been directed at Mr. Martens, especially on the occasion of the European summit, has tended to distract attention from the real issues. It seems that the major decision of those who attended the summit was to defer some of the most important real decisions that have to be made for 1992, whether on border controls or harmonisation of taxes. I understand fully the Prime Minister's concern about the way in which the Ryan affair was handled, especially in Belgium, but I hope that that will not be used as an excuse for reducing the effectiveness of the Community, including the way in which its budget is applied.
11.39 pm
Mr. David Curry: It would be a shame if the debate were to pass without someone giving two cheers for the budget, which marks a number of firsts. It is the first budget to be based upon the new financial arrangements which were agreed by the Heads of Government at the February summit, including the fourth resource. There are 3·5 billion ecu of fourth resource in the budget. Secondly, it bears the imprint of the agriculture guidelines. The preliminary budget proposed only a 7 per cent. increase in farm spending, and that will be substantially underspent in 1989, as it has been in 1988. It also reflects the increase in the structural funds following the Brussels decision.
The structural funds should be judged much more on the efficiency with which they are spending money and less on the sheer volumes that are being devoted to them. There is a tendency to judge them purely in terms of quantity. The great problem with the structural funds over the years has been the inefficiency of the spend in terms of the targeting. The relationship between the Commission and the national organisations which have been applying for funds has meant that a large amount of money has fallen

133
out in the process. If the new regulation tightens the procedure and ensures that that money is targeted effectively, it will do quite a considerable service.
The budget has been drawn up in the light of the institutional agreement, that rather ungainly offspring of the three institutions between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. It is worth noting that, touch wood, until now the budget has passed without that habitual frontier warfare which characterises relations between the Parliament and the Council. I hope that the Parliament, having remained in its margin until now, will see the budget home and dry in a little over a week's time.
When we talk about the effective spend, we are talking about 1 per cent. of GNP rather than 1·15 per cent. in the preliminary budget. What characterises this budget, and what to some extent characterised the 1988 budget, is the emergence of the new cash mountain in Brussels. The savings in the 1989 budget will be realised thanks to what has happened in 1988 and the shortfall in the 1988 harvest. The harvest in 1988 will be exported in the spring of 1989.
That reduced call on own resources is due, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, largely to FEOGA savings which depend upon the world price and the American harvest, but not simply the American harvest. Many other major countries have had a poor harvest, including the Soviet Union. We must all regard Mr. Gorbachev's plans to reform Soviet agriculture with the greatest alarm. The day he succeeds in producing two good crops in succession, we are all down the drain in terms of financing agriculture.
The reduced call on own resources is also due to the boost in receipts which has transferred unspent appropriations. It is also due to a number of cancellations in the structural funds and the increased buoyancy of the customs revenues. However, it would be unfair to ignore some of the real improvements due to the depreciation of stock, the cuts in farm prices consequent to the operation of stabilisers and to a series of zero-price increases in farm prices. It is also due to the disposal of stocks, although no one would deny that that has been achieved at immensely heavy costs to the taxpayer.
However, much of the saving is fortuitous and it would be equally wrong to overlook the fortuitousness of what has happened. The FEOGA figure has been reduced by about 1·37 billion ecu. Had we been talking in July, we might have been considering a saving of some 2·5 billion to 3 billion ecu. That was because of the dollar factor. At its peak, the dollar was trading at about 0·9 ecu and now, after only a few weeks of decline, it is trading at 0·83 ecu. Almost all those factors are outside the control of the European Community. Farm spending in terms of the amount that it costs the taxpayer is very largely outside the control of the Finance Ministers or even the Heads of State of the Community.
The budgetary discipline rules insist that the Commission must take the average ecu dollar rate over the first three months of the preceding year. That dollar rate, which is a notional rate for the 1989 budget, was 0·81 ecu to the dollar. In other words, we are now within a fraction of getting back to the notional rate. That shows the extent to which we are at the mercy of exchange rate fluctuations that are not directly under our control. That saving of 1·37 billion ecu, which at one stage looked to be remarkably over-modest, may now be too modest only to the tune of 150 million or 200 million ecu.
134
Therefore, it is right that we should bring great caution to bear on the budget. It is particularly important that we do not allow to happen what happened in 1984 and blow the agricultural savings in farm price increases. It is important that the farm price review, which the new Commissioner for Agriculture will bring forward early next year, should continue the policy of rigorousness in relation to the general level of farm price increases. We must not forget that new pressures are around the corner because the United States has increased its plantings substantially this year in response to its own drought, and in a couple of years there will be a substantially increased American grain harvest on the world market.
As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, one particularly positive feature of the budget is the four-year stock depreciation programme of 1·4 billion ecu a year agreed by Heads of Government. By the end of 1989 that will have seen the total depreciation of existing stocks. Therefore, looming on the horizon is a saving in the two subsequent years of that money which has been provided already. The practice of depreciation on entry is crucial for getting some honesty and sanity into the budget.
There has been a very real increase in structural funds because it reflects the decisions taken in Brussels. The problem remains that we are looking at an underspend in the regional fund of between 150 million and 400 million ecu and an underspend of 320 million ecu in the social fund. That is because of cutting the funds in a linear way if they are oversubscribed. Therefore, those who ask for the funds tend to ask for too much in order not to be cut back and are then unable to spend the money that is allocated to them. That is the sort of technical problem that lies in the interface between the Commission and the national institutions which are managing these issues. The new funds should assist in that.
The budget deserves a careful welcome, and should be the first of what I hope will be a new breed of much more rigorously managed budgets. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) described the debate as a completely wasted occasion, which would have no influence on anybody. He then described the European Parliament as a completely wasted institution. If this House is useless in so far as it is debating the Community budget and if the European Parliament is useless in so far as it is debating the European Community budget, who is accountable on behalf of the people for whom the decisions are taken? The denigration of both institutions will not get my hon. Friend very far, and he would be better advised to concentrate his energies on devising how the two institutions can share the burden of accountability so that, in the name of the electorate that we both claim to represent, we can be seen to be doing our job.
11.47 pm
Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is being a little less than fair. We have had debate after debate, year after year, on these budgets. I have attended most of them, and we have made a number of constructive suggestions. We have made various criticisms. some of them substantial and some of them more trivial, but important contributions have been made from both sides of the House about the budgets of the past. Looking back, one must recall that they have had very little effect. I would

135
say that they have had virtually no effect, so the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is right.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was the only hon. Member to refer to that part of the budget which deals with environmental matters. That is a fresh page to turn, but he went a little too far in suggesting that it would enable us to deal with all the environmental issues in Europe. In my judgment, what is wrong with the European Community is that it is too small, and so long as it is constituted in its present form it will remain too small to deal with any of the major environmental issues which will afflict the continent of Europe in the 1990s. That is why some of us who are critical of the constitution of the European Community wish for something far wider and looser which will enable all countries in Europe to take part in decisions in which their interests are affected.
One example that affects my constituents very considerably is the North sea. The European Community discussed cleaning up the North sea, but it is powerless to do so because only half the countries causing the pollution or affected by it are members of the Community. Until we have an organisation that will embrace all the countries which border the North sea or contribute to the pollution of the North sea we shall not be able to cope with that problem.
Mr. Holland: I have one minor point. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was not the only Member to refer to the environment. The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is already an institution which concerns the whole of Europe—the Regional Economic Commission for Europe. Even if he does not think that that institution is ideal for addressing environmental issues, it includes all the eastern and western European countries. Should not such an institution play a role in environmental issues?
Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman knows my views. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on a previous occasion on this subject. The Council of Europe can do much, but the European Community as at present constituted sadly cannot.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on the way in which he has grasped the complexities of the budget, but I am less sanguine than he about agricultural expenditure. When we speak of surpluses and their disposal, we think mainly of grain, dairy products and sometimes sugar, but in future the largest surpluses may be from southern Europe—olives, citrus fruit, tobacco, paddy rice and wine. An attempt may have been made to curb those surpluses, but anyone who has visited those parts and spoken to farmers who are poised to expand production considerably can have no faith in a policing system for arrangements to curb production. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this problem carefully and to comment on it when he replies.
How can we curb production in southern Europe, which does not have marketing boards or producer co-operatives as well organised as those in northern Europe? It will be almost impossible to monitor the
136
production of commodities in southern Europe. Producers are acquiring the technical skills to expand production and I see no prospect of curbing agricultural expenditure there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to the little item of expenditure on the European Movement. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General say that he is opposed to federalism. So am I, but often one receives invitations to speak at universities, chambers of commerce and elsewhere about federal Europe. On every occasion when I have done so, my opponent in the debate has been paid by the European Movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has opposed me on some occasions, but obviously he was not paid by the European Movement. However, it is a small point of principle. The sort of Europe about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in Bruges is not being promoted by the European Movement at present. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say how this little item of expenditure crept into the budget? Why did we allow it to be slipped in? Surely it cannot be the Government's view that we should progress towards a federal Europe. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ensure that such expenditure is not repeated in the next budget.
11.54 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The motion, in the form of a "take note", is a departure from recent motions taking note and expressing an opinion, and that is appropriate. As hon. Members have said, elaboration of the budget has taken place within a disciplined framework. That is welcomed by the member states, including this country. It has taken place also in a much calmer atmosphere—perhaps the one produces the other. In recent years, the budget was the product of highly charged and extremely emotional interchanges between representatives of member states and institutions, especially the European Parliament. That is not so in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) gave an expert analysis of the European budget. We remember his work in the European Parliament as budget rapporteur at least once and as an important agricultural spokesman for the European Democratic Group. He acquired a knowledge of his subject that is second to none, and I agree with all his points.
An increasingly fascinating subject is the accumulation of the financial surplus in the Community, emanating mainly from agriculture. Between now and 1992 is a short period in which to go through this painful, but welcome, process. I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) because, when this is achieved, he will not have so much to grumble about. I am sure, however, that with his characteristic ingenuity and creativity he will find a raft of new points to which to object. We could do the same with the United Kingdom domestic Budget. We could look at subheadings and sub-sub-headings and find nitpicking examples of mysterious territories on which the national Government propose to expend money. We could say, "What a terrible thing—we do not approve of that."
Mr. Wilson: This is just a minor point. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government are spending £1 million on propaganda to promote the poll

137
tax is at least as offensive as the European Movement spending a few bob on promoting voting in European elections?
Mr. Dykes: It is tempting to go down that path, but I shall not. A classic technique in debates if one wants to indulge in nitpicking is to produce a few funny examples like that. People who want to think in that limited way say, "Yes, isn't that awful and ghastly?" To do that is to go away from the main points.
Because of the acceptance of the control mechanisms suggested and exerted by central Government and others and in recent years the change in emphasis on budgetary matters, there is a much better atmosphere, although the functioning if the new constitutional arrangements and the Single European Act is not involved in these measures. The European Parliament always had an enhanced power over the elaboration of the various stages of the budget and particular responsibilities for non-compulsory expenditure. The two come together in a constitutional political nexus and give the European Parliament a much stronger role. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General would be the first to admit that the European Parliament has played a constructive role. That is particularly true of members of the United Kingdom delegation, including some members of the Labour delegation.
I object to the excessive use by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East of dismissive adjectives such as "useless", "wasteful", "extravagant", and so on. He is a dignified politician, but he demeans his dignity by using overdramatised words to describe a complicated process of co-operation—
Mr. Wilson: Steady.
Mr. Dykes: Perhaps I was going too far, but I think that hon. Members know what I mean. The process of working out the European Community budget is complicated. The amount is small compared with European GDP and European central Government public expenditure. Some of the money is included in local authority budgets and some is not—it depends on the country. I think that I am right in my understanding of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. I agree that short debates are insufficient, especially on the budget. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I have had many discussions on this matter. We could return to the old idea of European Supply days, with full days of European debate.
The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, despite some controversial remarks which he apparently made recently and which were taken out of context, said that the West German Parliament and the British House of Commons and House of Lords carry out considerable scrutiny of the budget. Very few other member states do so, apart from an annual debate such as takes place in the National Assembly in Paris.
I approach the matter from a different vantage point from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, and other hon. Members who are not so enthusiastic about our membership of the Community; sadly there is still a small but, I hope, diminishing number of them. Both they and I are right, for different reasons, in wanting to see a more substantial debate. There should be a full day's debate on the European Community budget. My hon.
138
Friend the Member for Southend, East will no doubt part company with me when I say that 1 should like to see that coupled with our developing personal, collective and individual relationships with Members of the European Parliament of all parties, both through party committees and House of Commons arrangements.
Then there should be the normative, logical and regular liaison with Members of the European Parliament on that subject which undergoes its most elaborate process in the European Parliament and has the greatest amount of time devoted to it there. I cannot think of any other subject which is debated at such length. The process is divided into three stages and is preceded by a much more elaborate stage in the appropriate committee. If we could do that, we would be equipped to interrogate the Executive in a much more effective way about the European budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would probably reject that idea because he does not want the European Parliament to have that role with its associated liaison, access and facilities. When, for example, will we have fax machines for Members of Parliament as well as for visiting Members of the European Parliament? What a reckless expenditure it would be to spend all that money on a fax machine.
Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a sensitive issue. A number of Opposition Members find it amazing, when we are members of the European Community, that we can telephone anywhere in this country at public expense for the public purpose but we cannot telephone the European Community or send any material there. We have to pay our own postage to the European Community. That is a substantive matter. As an Opposition opposing a Government with massive resources, we are not easily able—except at our own expense—to ring our counterparts in other national Parliaments or in the European Assembly to discuss their views on the budget. The Government should face the fact that that should be funded and that Members should have those facilities.
Mr. Dykes: Is the hon. Gentleman really willing to give up the masochistic and agonising torture of going through the switchboard and asking Doris to get a number in Brussels? She asks, "Where's Brussels? Is this a private call or is it official? Can I have that in writing please?" It is perhaps rather rash of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should give up those time-honoured customs.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Some people in the Labour party are beginning to talk about proportional representation, and more enthusiastically about Europe. That is an interesting new development. The all-party Europe group, which was formed in July, includes two Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and had a third until her portfolio responsibility was recently removed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
Many hon. Members will agree with what I have said. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and I can phone Edinburgh easily, but although that experience is pleasurable I regret that I rarely need to phone Edinburgh or Glasgow in the course of my political duties. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will forgive me for saying that, although as he also speaks on European affairs he, too, will need to phone Brussels. Unlike some members of the British Civil Service, officials

139
in Brussels, including British officials, are much more approachable and amenable and are often delighted to receive calls from politicians of all the member states, in whatever language it may be. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will respond to that point by saying that he will ensure that either European or national funds will be provided for that purpose, liaising with the House of Commons Commission. That would be a wonderful achievement.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General for having steered us between the Scylla and Charybdis of this budget process. We are now in calmer seas. There is now support for the Government's policy of controlling those matters more effectively, but I should like to see Parliament have a greater say in that control.
12.5 am
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the slightly enlarged abatement that has been negotiated and also the signs that, in the current year, the budget is below its quite generous ceiling.
I want to raise the question of the opportunity that many hon. Members feel now exists once again to tackle the problem of agriculture. All hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that the most acute problem is agricultural expenditure. While we all welcome the ceiling and the stabilisers, there are reasons—because of Mediterranean products and the possible harvests in two or three years for northern products—why the Government should urge other member nations to return to the drawing board on some aspects of the farm support system.
We have a system that is expensive both to the taxpayer and to the consumer, to say nothing of its impact on Third world countries. The way to cut through that is well known. It is to rediscover the old mechanism of market prices, which has a great impact on balancing supply and demand and which is rightly the centrepiece of industrial strategy in the Community, where many good decisions are taken to strengthen competition and to allow market forces, free of play, to open markets to greater competition between companies and countries both within and outside the Community. If only some of those fine words from the treaty of Rome could be built into the agricultural system in Europe, it would save money and leave more resources in the budget for other purposes.
The aim to reduce the proportion of spending on agriculture within the budget total is worthy, but I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to try to secure that not so much by increasing other expenditure but by reducing the agricultural expenditure which, it is generally agreed, is wasteful. It would be unfortunate if, through the Community, we rediscovered, supported or allowed to develop some of the spending programmes that we have, with some pain but with much success, chipped away with good results. I think, for example, of certain capital grants to industry within the industrial and regional policies that this country used to follow. There is a notable coincidence between the beginnings of a recovery in some parts of the urban centres and industrial heartlands of the north and west and the termination of capital grants in a bold reappraisal of regional policy. We do not want that policy to be redeveloped through the European Community. It
140
would cost jobs and taxpayers' cash and would cause disruption within the evolving economies of the European Community, rather than helping in their growth and development.
We must beware that, under many of the headings of expenditure in the Community budget, there are items where there are also domestic programmes. I do not want to judge what would be the right body, in any given case, to pursue those programmes. There may well be cases where the programmes can be most sensibly pursued at the European level. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, where we have agreed to a European programme in a particular area, we make corresponding savings or some reappraisal in the domestic programme because we may otherwise find not only duplication but a wasteful overlap of expenditure. That would do no one any good.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the opportunity afforded by the United States overtures on farm subsidies to determine whether the principles of competition and open markets, which we welcome in Europe, can be extended to the very expensive agricultural sector and whether Europe can make a good response to the American offer of multilateral disarmament in agricultural subsidies.
12.9 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I do not share hon. Members' enthusiasm about structural funds. As they exist at the moment, there is simply not enough cash in any of the funds to make sure that the treatment of projects that are applied for can be dealt with in an even-handed manner. There will inevitably be winners and losers. Some may say that that is fair enough. It is acceptable if one is a winner, but it is totally unacceptable if one is a loser.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to FEOGA. Nowhere is my argument better demonstrated than in the case of FEOGA funds. A project in my hon. Friend's constituency, which might stand absolutely four-square with a project in my constituency, might be lucky enough to attract funds and the project in my constituency might not. That is palpably unfair. It cuts across what we believe to be fair competition in the market in which we so earnestly believe. Clearly, if one company is advantaged to the extent of FEOGA funds and its competitor is not, that company is in an unfairly disadvantageous position.
There is a smokescreen in terms of the goal and the prizes that are to be won from the market if we concentrate on removing the barriers—whether they be real, imagined, financial, technical or practical—to the free movement of goods and services throughout the Community. That must be our goal. To a greater or lesser extent, the structural funds are a smokescreen and a distraction from the achievement of that most important objective, which, in the long run, is the only one that can deliver benefits and dividends to this country and the other 11 nations.
12.12 am
Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, may I say that I agree with those hon. Members who spoke warmly about the tone of the debate. I am conscious that I have been asked many questions, and I shall do my best to respond to them in the limited time left in the debate.
At present, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is attending the mid-term

141
review of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations in Montreal. He will be pursuing the United Kingdom Government's aim of an immediate freeze in support for agriculture, combined with a long-term reduction in agricultural subsidies to free resources for more productive use in the rest of the economy. As I said earlier, at the July Budget Council, the United Kingdom pressed hard for the Community to recognise the scope for savings in agricultural spending at the earliest possible opportunity.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asked me several questions about individual budget lines and specific amendments made by the Parliament. I will write to him in detail about the position that the November Budget Council adopted on those points.
The same applies to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who asked me about the celebration of the French revolution. I recall the quotation from Burke, which states:
"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France … the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever."
The sophisters and economists appear to have got hold of the celebration of the French revolution.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me about the balance between agriculture and the rest. A shift in the balance of the budget is taking place. Even if expenditure on agricultural market support grows to the full extent allowed by the guideline, the annual rate of increase in real terms would be only about 2 per cent. a year between 1988 and 1992. However, for the budget as a whole, the figure implied by the financial perspective is 4 per cent. What the Prime Minister said about structural funds and Marshall aid was that, in real terms, the value of structural funds in the three years up to 1993 will exceed the value of the Marshall plan in the three years for which it ran.
Mr. Holland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brooke: I shall not give way, given the limited amount of time.
Mr. Holland: We have conventions in the House and I agreed not to conclude for the Opposition. What the Paymaster General said is not the case. It can be true only in nominal terms. The impression given is wholly misleading. Marshall aid was a major programme whereas the structural funds are a minor programme.
Mr. Brooke: I stand by what I said and we can both read it again in the morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked a series of questions. The revenue figures in the budget documents, including the PDB, the draft budget and the amending letter, show the yield from customs duties in detail, but again perhaps we may engage in correspondence. He said that nothing was being done about stocks, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, stocks have been reduced substantially in certain areas. Community stocks of butter fell by 85 per
142
cent. between January 1987 and November 1988 and of skimmed milk powder by 99 per cent. over the same period.
My hon. Friend asked for our estimate of the United Kingdom's net payments to the Community institutions in 1989. He and I know from frequent cross-examination of the difficulty of comparing a calendar year for the Community with a fiscal year in which we report our public expenditure. He knows our forecast for public expenditure of £1,970 million in 1989–90 and £1,950 million in 1990–91, and I look forward to his comparison. I stress that the proportion of GDP represented by our net contribution is lower than it was in the late 1970s.
My hon. Friend intervened in my speech to make a point about advances. To have peace between us, advances are a legitimate means of dealing with cash flow problems. They do not facilitate higher spending. On the other hand, delayed payments require a proposal from the Commission. The present drift of the budget is away from delayed payments. Thus we have the substantial provision for stock depreciation.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an admirable speech, in part of which he referred to research and development. I hope that he will acknowledge as a result of the British Government's efforts that the difference between good and bad research has emerged. I am making a similar point on his speech to that which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made about the effectiveness and efficiency in the structural funds.
In response to my hon. Friends the Members for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I recognise the Government's responsibility to watch new areas of production carefully. I will investigate the European Movement's alleged support of federalism, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston would always wish to have a worthy opponent when he fought the opposite cause in order to improve his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) raised the subject of the European Parliament's role. It has been valuable for agriculture and I shall return to the telephone matter, although without commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham added considerably to the tone of the debate on agriculture and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) joined in with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon on the subject of the use of the funds.
Finally, I hope that if some of the things which we think might come to pass do come to pass my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will have the generosity in due course to acknowledge that they have.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7271/88 and 7758/88 on the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989, 7908/88 on the Draft Budget for 1989, 8996/88 on Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989 and 9286/88 on the European Parliament's proposed Amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1989.

Young Persons (Benefits)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
12.19 am
Mr. Brian Wilson: We move in one step from the politics of gross profligacy to the politics of gross parsimony.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to draw specific attention to what I regard as an act of wickedness perpetrated by this Government. I use those words advisedly to describe the cynical decision to cut off all legal sources of income from thousands of vulnerable youngsters in the full knowledge that many of them would be left without money, homes or hopes.
Charitable organisations and social services departments around the country are now anxiously awaiting the inevitable consequences of last year's social security legislation affecting the under-18s.
The director of social work for the National Children's Home has written to express his grave concern about the implications for young people with no family support to fall back on when this Government deprive them of all income despite being unable to offer them jobs or youth training scheme places.
The Central London Society Security Advisers Forum concludes from the early workings of the legislation:
"If you are young and anything better than really quite ill you can be left to sleep out."
That was based on the guidance offered by the Minister for Social Security who is to reply to the debate.
The social work chairman of Strathclyde region, the Rev. David Lane, has pointed out in stark and compassionate terms the moral danger into which the Government are pushing thousands of young people who now have no income from legal sources. He is not, of course, talking about the majority of youngsters who have been stripped of all their income because in many, probably most cases, families will succeed in protecting the youngsters from the fates to which I have alluded and to which that highly selective creature, the Tory conscience, is so wretchedly indifferent. However, when we are legislating about the very means of survival for 16 and 17-year-olds, is there not a binding moral obligation to consider the large number of exceptions, rather than hide behind the generality that most of them, one way or another, will manage to put hand to mouth?
This national scandal is based on a lie of Goebellian proportions from the Government. Since I cannot attribute an act of studied mendacity to individuals in this House or even to Lord Young of Graffham, I shall have to quote instead from the press release made parallel to statements in this House which was issued by the Department of Employment on 27 October 1987, confirming the effect of the Employment Act 1988. That press release stated without equivocation:
"This Bill, together with the social security changes, will give effect to our manifesto commitments to 16 and 17-year-olds. Every unemployed school leaver in this age group is guaranteed a place on the youth training scheme. No one who is able to take up a place on the YTS needs to live on benefit."
We knew, and said then, that that was a lie. We know now that it is a lie. In many parts of the country the guarantee of a YTS place has not been fulfilled, yet on the
144
basis of that fraudulent prospectus and without regard to the consequences on individual young lives, the Government proceeded to take away all means of support.
Opposition Members disagree philosophically with the conscription of younsters on to youth training schemes of variable quality on pain of losing all benefits. However, in constituencies such as mine, that is not the issue. The issue is that the Government guaranteed YTS places but failed to deliver them and yet have proceeded to withdraw all benefit. I reckon that throughout the country at least 20,000 youngsters have no legal income tonight. The figure may be much higher and it will certainly be much higher after the next wave of school leavers who will not even qualify for the eight weeks' bridging allowance in the absence of jobs or YTS places, but who will straight away face having no income.
The case was put more eloquently by a young constituent who wrote to me, saying:
"How do young people survive after the bridging allowance? Has Mrs. Thatcher abdicated all responsibility for the younger generation? Before this legislation I received £19·20 per week. On bridging this has been cut to £15. After bridging allowance I will receive nothing. What hope is there for people like myself—no work, no money! I did not see this in the Conservative manifesto."
Perhaps the Minister will answer some of that young woman's questions. What price does he place on the value of a young life? I fear that it is not very high. I recently asked two questions of the Secretary of State for Social Security. I asked him to state how many YTS vacancies exist in each region of the country, which he did. I asked him to state also the number of people looking for YTS places in each region of the country—the other necessary half of the equation—which he refused to do, on the ground that the information could not be obtained "except at disproportionate cost".
Today, I received answers to parallel questions, not about the whole of the United Kingdom—I understand that it is beyond the means of the public purse to supply the information on a nationwide basis—but about the Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway area. Once again, the answer about the number of vacancies was given and, once again, an answer about the number of applicants was refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost. Behind such deceits Ministers shelter, but the victims are the young people of that area and of the country.
Tonight we shall hear about youngsters who are left bereft of income, but who can appeal on grounds of severe hardship. We know from our own areas, however, how harshly the criteria are being applied, presumably on the Minister's instructions. I have to hand a letter from the Scottish Education Department to principal careers officers in which it is made clear that they have no say in assessing severe hardship in individual cases. That is the unique function of a small central unit within the DHSS working on ministerial instructions. There is nothing to suggest that it is a liberal regime or that it will be so.
The only urgent answer is to restore income support to youngsters who do not have jobs or YTS places, at least until some semi-humane scheme, based on a far less broad-brush approach and which takes account of the human tragedy that is unfolding throughout the country among youngsters of whom we know little and about whom the Minister cares little, is put in place. If the Minister cannot do that in the name of humanity, I hope, at least, that he will spare us any festive cant about Christian society or suffering little children. To treat 16

145
and 17-year-olds in this way reveals the darkest side of a society that cares very little for young life or human dignity.
12.26 am
Mr. Dave Nellist: I wish to associate myself with the criticisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has just made. I am conscious of the time restrictions in half-hour Adjournment debates and I shall restrict myself to asking the Minister to investigate a single case, which is symptomatic of many others.
Will the Minister assure me that his Department will investigate the case of 17-year-old Terry Flowers of Freeman street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes)? Last Friday, Terry was interviewed on the television programme "Central Weekend". Terry is 17 and his birthday is at Christmas. Nobody will have him on YTS for a month when they can have a 16-year-old for a full two years. He has had no money from the DHSS for one month. His mam is on income support and he has no prospect of any money before Christmas as a result of the Social Security Act 1988.
The only advice that has been given to him by the local office of the DHSS is that he should "Try the Salvation Army." Is that the face of caring capitalism that the Minister discussed with me when we sat on opposite sides of the fence on the Committee that considered the clauses and schedules that became part of the Social Security Act 1988? What can the Minister say tonight to the Terrys of this country about the future?
12.28 am
Mr. Bill Michie: This is an important debate even though it is taking place late at night. I want to raise one issue that supplements what my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) have said. It relates to young people who have come out of care and who cannot rely on families once they reach the age of 17 or 18. Once those young people come out of the care of local authorities, which are themselves subject to financial constraint, they find themselves in difficulty.
The one example that I shall quote, also by coincidence, relates to a 17-year-old boy. He had been in care for three years after a family breakdown and he went into voluntary care. In July 1988 he left care and was working on a YTS placement. He received £28·50 from that scheme and out of that he had to pay £10·74 in rent and rates. That left him with £17·76 per week, out of which he had to pay for gas, electricity, food, household needs, clothing, fares to work, and so on.
In the second year, that youngster's pay increased to about £35, but the new housing benefit rules meant that he had to pay about £16 in rent and rates, leaving him £19 a week to pay for gas, electricity, clothes and fares. The position is much worse than it was before April 1988, when in the first year he would have been £7·74 better off and in the second year £11 better off.
I have intervened in the debate because I believe that those young people have had enough trauma in life. They do not have a loving family and have had to be brought up by the local authority, which does its best. At the age of 18
146
they are forced into circumstances in which they could not afford to take council accommodation even if it were offered to them.
Mr. Jim Sillars rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister to intervene?
Mr. Wilson: It is all right with me.
12.30 am
Mr. Sillars: The Minister is nodding, so I assume that he does not mind.
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). It is a pity that the Minister for Social Security must answer for a policy that is widely regarded in the west of Scotland as malicious, wicked and totally evil. I hope that the Minister will not argue that there are guaranteed places for young people on YTS and that my hon. Friend's points are invalid. There is a big difference between the statistical promise of a place on YTS and the places available for young people.
The social work department of Strathclyde regional council, which is not given to extremist statements or statements without validity, has said during the past month that thousands of people in the west of Scotland —many of them in Glasgow—cannot find places on YTS and are, therefore, under this Government's policies, penniless. The social work department points out that many of those young people come from the most vulnerable sections of our society which for the past 10 to 12 years have been under enormous pressure from rising unemployment and family breakdown. How is it possible to justify making young people penniless? That is the effect of the Government's policy.
12.32 am
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have taken note of the points made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). What I cannot accept for one moment is that the underlying thrust of the policy concerning the cases that have been mentioned this evening is wicked or unreasonable—.
Mr. Wilson: It is.
Mr. Scott: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will listen with some care to what I have to say. They know as well as I do that all hon. Members have a real concern for people of that age group who may be vulnerable—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North doubts that. I shall have a word to say later in the debate about some of the allegations that he has made, not surprisingly in the Morning Star, which is the most appropriate place for him to make such allegations.
Mr. Wilson: Like anyone else who wishes to raise an issue, I sent out a press release through the Press Association. Who uses it or does not use it is not within my control.
Mr. Scott: I am not surprised that the Morning Star was the only newspaper to pick up the point.

147
The point that we are trying to make in the new provisions is that, at the age of 16 or 17, young people are at the stage of transition from childhood to the young adult world. We must all be careful about the provision that we make for them. I hope that I can show the limited number of hon. Members in the House that the Government have been careful in that regard. I am convinced that it would be healthy neither for society nor for those young people if they could move straight from education into dependence upon state benefits as a normal stage in their transfer to adult life. I can think of nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits. That is why from September we implemented the manifesto commitment that those under 18 who choose to remain unemployed should not be eligible for benefit. I shall later defend that assertion. However, at the same time, through our regulations I think that we have made sure that vulnerable young people will still be protected. We linked these measures with the guarantee of an offer of a place on the youth training scheme for every school leaver under 18 who applies for one and who is not in work or full time education.
I say not just in terms of my ministerial responsibility but as the Member of Parliament for Chelsea in central London and representing Earl's Court that I can think of no greater danger than for young people to be attracted to leave home and have the opportunity to live on state benefits and come into some sort of life in inner London or any of our other big cities and be exposed to the dangers, moral and otherwise, that can confront them. We are determined to ensure that that is not an easy option open to young people.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has had the chance of initiating an Adjournment debate. I have to finish shortly and I hope that he will allow me to continue my argument.
I know that some Opposition Members have doubts about the training opportunities that we are offering to young people. They have doubts about the extent and quality of the training that will be available for young people. I maintain with certainty that the youth training scheme is a real and high quality opportunity for those who leave school without a job to make a sound start in their adult lives. Modern skills and qualifications will be essential to enable young people to get the jobs that Britain needs if it is to compete internationally in future.
Mr. Bill Michie rose—
Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would listen for a moment.
Seventy-four per cent. of young people who leave the YTS go into jobs, further education or other opportunities for training. Eighty per cent. of people who have completed YTS schemes say that they have benefited from them. Of course, once young people are on the youth training scheme, income support is available to top up the training allowance, if appropriate. That is paid if, for example, the young person has a board and lodging charge to meet.
148
Those are the arguments about why it is right for the young people themselves to have an opportunity to take part in the youth training scheme. This country is moving steadily into a climate in which we will experience a shortage of skills and manpower. The best thing that we can do for the economy as a whole and for our young people is to make sure that they are trained and have opportunities to participate in what will be an increasingly tight employment market in the next five to 10 years. I have no hesitation in commending this as being important to young people and to our economic development.
I appreciate that some young people will still require the protection of benefit. Many of them, through no fault of their own, find themselves in unfortunate circumstances. The regulations provide for such people so that benefits will still be available for them between the ages of 16 and 18. Lone parents looking after children, the severely disabled, the long-term sick and girls within 11 weeks of giving birth to a child will not be affected by the new arrangements. Many thousands of young people will come within those groups.
For those school leavers who can go on to YTS and who are living at home, child benefit is now available until the end of the year, by which time the offer of a YTS place will have been made. For those who can go on to YTS but who cannot live at home—either because they have no home or because they would be at risk of physical or sexual abuse if they did—income support is available for the same period. Again the offer of a YTS place is guaranteed. Therefore, we have gone to not inconsiderable lengths to protect young people who are most in need. [Interruption.] I can hear rumbles on the Opposition Benches, and no doubt hon. Members are saying that this is not enough. My answer to that is that it is not possible to regulate for every particular circumstance in which it would be unreasonable to refuse benefit to somebody under 18. That is why we expressly took the power to enable income support still to be paid to somebody under 18 who would otherwise suffer severe hardship, and this is a power that we have used.
In the 12 weeks since the new provisions took effect, 1,688 applications under the severe hardship provision have been received. In 1,139 cases, a direction resulted and in 549 a direction was refused. Each case has been considered on its merits. Examples of the factors that are taken into account include the young persons' health and vulnerability—for example, the risk of being led into crime, the risk of eviction and subsequent homelessness as a result of inability to meet accommodation costs, the availability of any income which would normally fall to be disregarded, the availability of any savings, the prospect of a speedy entry into YTS, the prospects of getting casual work, the young person's financial commitments and prospects for postponing payment, and whether the young person has any friends or relatives who could help. We gave a commitment to give decisions on these cases of severe hardship within 24 hours, and I am glad to say that that commitment has been met.
A point has been made about the places available on YTS. It has been suggested in some parts of the media that the restrictions on the availability of benefits for young people have been a way for the Government to save money, but the money that we have been spending on the expansion of the YTS has been far in excess of any savings that we could have had on the income support scheme. The

149
hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will remember the debates that we had in Committee about this, and the practice has borne out the arguments that I made then.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North talked about 20,000 young people across the country who have not been offered places. There are 120,000 vacancies available in the YTS scheme today. In Scotland, there are 13,000 places, in Strathclyde, 5,000 and in Cunninghame 267 places.
Mr. Wilson: How many applicants are there?
Mr. Scott: There are 20,000. The hon. Gentleman claimed in the Morning Star this morning that there is a shortage of 20,000 places, so he must believe that there are that many applicants. There are 120,000 places—six times as many places as he claimed were unfilled—available now to young people if they come forward and claim them. These are not young people left without a YTS place. We know that, of these people, many made no effort to seek a place during the eight weeks that they received a bridging payment. That was a payment specifically designed to bridge them through to the point at which they could take a YTS place.
Some of those who are said not to have achieved a place may by now have got a job. Other YTS places that were waiting for them may have been taken up. Some will have returned to full-time education. The careers service has not reported that it has been inundated with young people seeking places once their bridging allowance has run out. The places are there for them if they want them, and the figures that I have given to the House make that clear beyond peradventure. It will be clear in due course whether what I am saying is true or whether what hon. Gentlemen have said is true, but there is now an excess of places available over and above the number of young people who say that they have not been able to get such a place.
Mr. Wilson: If what the Minister says is right, will he explain why the cost is disproportionate to identify the number of applicants in each area? Whatever the global number, there are many areas in which there is a shortfall of places. The information that the Minister gave us earlier about the quality of youth training schemes is not germane to the debate. We are talking about those who have not been offered YTS places or jobs. They have had their supply of benefit cut off. They have not "enjoyed" any of the intermediate steps that the Minister has described. They have lived in poverty, or at least hardship, unless someone has taken up their cases. If the Minister believes that these cases do not exist in large numbers, he lives in a different world from the rest of us.
Mr. Scott: My departmental colleagues and I watch these matters carefully. If hon. Members can present clear and specific examples of young people in certain regions who are willing to accept YTS places, who have used the time while they are in receipt of bridging allowance to seek such places, who have not refused to accept a moderate journey from their locality to take up their places, and who still cannot find YTS places, I am sure that my departmental colleagues will take serious note. I am advised by them, however, and the careers service that there is no such picture arising across the country. There are places in excess of the number of young people who claim that they have not received an offer.
Mr. Nellist: The Minister has said that it is not healthy to move directly from education to state benefit dependence. How healthy is it for people such as Terry Flowers to be without any help for eight weeks—there are hundreds like him—before his 18th birthday?
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is unwise to raise individual examples unless he is prepared to write to me, or to my departmental colleagues, to present specific examples. If he is prepared to do that, we shall respond in detail, having investigated the specific circumstances of individuals, irrespective of whether they have received YTS offers. I shall ensure that the specific case to which he has referred is investigated. I know that he has a deep concern, as I have. I do not want to see youngsters deprived of benefit or left without benefit.
I am determined, however, that those who fall within the age group that we are discussing I think that I carry many with me on this issue—do not have the easy option of moving from education into dependence on state benefit when training opportunities are available to them. I am sure that those opportunities will be of considerable benefit to them, to society and to the country as a whole.
All that young people have lost as a result of the implementation of the new arrangements is the option of doing nothing at the public's expense. We have sought to encourage them to take up worthwhile options in employment, education or training. If they take them up, they will be provided with a sound foundation for their adult life. It is easy to raise the individual hard case—we examine such instances with care, and the action that we have taken under the exceptional hardship provisions demonstrates how seriously we have done so—but I believe that on principle the Government are on sound ground. I make no apologies for the steps that we have taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  M1-M6 (Commercial Traffic)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his Department's projection of the increased volume of commercial traffic on the M1 and the M6 following the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department prepares forecasts of national traffic. Where specific trunk road improvements are being assessed, local traffic forecasts are prepared. Projections are not otherwise made for specific roads.

  Drivers (Disqualification)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to ensure that individuals convicted and disqualified from driving in any part of the United Kingdom will be denied the right to drive throughout the United Kingdom during their period of disqualification.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Northern Ireland (like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) has an entirely separate driver licensing system to that for Great Britain.

  (a) National Roads £ millions

  (b) Local roads £ millions (price base Autumn 1978)

  Current1

  Capital1

  Current2

  Capital

  1974–75

  86

  620

  689

  566

  1975–76

  101

  640

  664

  557

  1976–77

  106

  547

  617

  522

  1977–78

  101

  398

  610

  346

  1978–79

  115

  392

  661

  318

  11979–80

  116

  51

  404

  475

  608

  633

  372

  410

  1980–81

  49

  469

  617

  407

  1981–82

  65

  479

  663

  349

  1982–83

  52

  543

  657

  394

  1983–84

  57

  512

  654

  400

  1984–85

  61

  516

  643

  385

  1985–86

  59

  493

  639

  390

  1986–87

  67

  494

  681

  406

  1987–88

  58

  549

  3682

  3370

  1 Structural maintenance of national roads was reclassified as capital expenditure in 1983. Figures in the series 1979–80—1987–88 reflect this classification while figures in the series 1974–75—1979–80 do not.

  2 excludes local authority professional and technical support.

  3 approximate estimate based on quarterly data.

  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London borough councils about the causes and cures of recent widespread traffic jams in inner London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has regular contact with the police, London borough officers and the traffic signals control unit about traffic conditions. In the highly interdependent London network, congestion is often caused by incidents (breakdowns, accidents,
  2
  British courts have no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland on driver licensing matters, and disqualifications imposed on the mainland are not valid there. There are at present no plans to change these arrangements.

  Bus Drivers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of bus drivers employed by London Buses Limited, bearing on their health and the safety of bus passengers, since he assumed responsibility for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  Limits on public service vehicle drivers' hours of duty are prescribed by law to ensure safety. The requirements are standard for all bus operators. Other terms and conditions of employment are matters for the operators themselves.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of both capital and current expenditure by(a) central Government and (b) local government on Britain's roads in each year since 1974–75.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Expenditure figures for local roads spending prior to 1978–79 are not readily available in cash. In order to give (as nearly as practical) a consistent series of data, the following table gives expenditure for 1974–75 to 1979–80 on a price base of November 1978 (source Cmnd 7841), and expenditure for 1987–88 (source, Transport Statistics Great Britain) adjusted for the change in GDP since the third quarter of 1978–79.

  roadworks) on local roads. Because traffic volumes are high, minor incidents can have a widespread knock-on effect.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the partial closure of Battersea bridge on the traffic flow in inner London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is primarily a matter for the London borough of Wandsworth as the highway authority and for neighbouring authorities.

  Crash Barriers
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for installing crash barriers on duel carriageway stretches of the A34 particularly at Gore hill in Berkshire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have a major programme to install central reserve safety fencing along the dual carriageway lengths of the A34 between the M3 at Winchester and Oxford. Work is due to start early in the new year. It will take about two years to complete. Precise timing of the Gore hill section depends on overcoming certain technical difficulties.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will invite tenders for the second Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has sent a notice to the Official Journal of the European Communities for publication today asking groups of firms interested in bidding:

  Academic year beginning in

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  API

  Universities

  7·4

  7·5

  7·2

  6·8

  6·6

  6·8

  6·9

  7·0

  7·3

  PSHE

  5·0

  5·2

  5·9

  6·5

  6·6

  6·9

  7·0

  7·0

  7·3

  All higher education

  12·4

  12·6

  13·1

  13·4

  13·2

  13·7

  13·9

  14·0

  14·6

  QPI

  Universities

  50·4

  50·3

  47·7

  44·4

  40·7

  41·3

  41·8

  43·2

  44·9

  PSHE

  33·6

  34·8

  39·5

  42·4

  40·9

  41·5

  42·0

  42·9

  44·5

  All higher education

  84·0

  85·0

  87·1

  86·8

  81·5

  82·8

  83·9

  86·1

  89·4

  Note:

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the young mature entry index and the older mature participation index from 1979 to the most recent date for

  Academic year beginning in

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  19871

  Young Mature Entry Index

  All higher education

  8·8

  7·6

  7·5

  7·2

  6·9

  7·2

  7·8

  7·4

  7·5

  Universities

  2·7

  2·4

  2·0

  1·7

  1·5

  1·6

  1·7

  1·7

  1·7

  P.S.H.E.

  6·1

  5·2

  5·5

  5·5

  5·3

  5·6

  6·1

  5·8

  5·8

  Older Mature Participation Index

  All higher education

  0·218

  0·219

  0·245

  0·246

  0·261

  0·261

  0·272

  0·281

  0·295

  Universities

  0·054

  0·051

  0·052

  0·046

  0·048

  0·051

  0·053

  0·056

  0·057

  P.S.H.E.

  0·165

  0·168

  0·193

  0·199

  0·213

  0·208

  0·219

  0·226

  0·238

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many advanced level secondary school pupils from(a) local education authority maintained secondary schools and (b) private sector maintained secondary schools, applied for a place at

  Cambridge

  Maintained

  3Direct grant

  Independent

  FE Institutions

  Scottish and Irish

  Other and OSEAS

  Total

  1979

  Applications

  2,410

  697

  1,385

  110

  211

  416

  5,229

  Acceptances

  906

  363

  733

  24

  99

  114

  2,239

  4
  (i) for the design, construction financing and operation and
  (ii) for the design and construction only
  of a second Severn crossing to submit themselves for selection as tenderers. This initial selection process has been introduced at the request of the industry to cut down wasted effort in preparing a full tender. Applications to be considered for selection must be returned to the Department of Transport by mid-January. The groups selected to submit full tenders will be announced towards the end of February. Guidelines for these tenders will be published in the spring.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Students (Statistics)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the age participation index and qualified participation index for each year since 1979 (a) for universities only, (b) for PSHE institutions only and (c) for all higher education institutions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information required is as follows:

  which the figures are available (a) for all higher education institutions, (b) for universities only and (c) for P.S.H.E. only.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information required is as follows:

  Oxford university and at Cambridge university in each year since 1979; and how many, from each sector, each university finally accepted.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  5

  Cambridge

  Maintained

  3Direct grant

  Independent

  FE Institutions

  Scottish and Irish

  Other and OSEAS

  Total

  1980

  Applications

  2,403

  688

  1,375

  122

  214

  405

  5,207

  Acceptances

  947

  387

  732

  29

  99

  128

  2,322

  1981

  Applications

  2,251

  654

  1,341

  105

  147

  443

  4,939

  Acceptances

  774

  372

  668

  25

  48

  134

  2,021

  1982

  Applications

  3,774

  ..

  2,910

  217

  280

  621

  7,802

  Acceptances

  1,154

  ..

  1,328

  47

  99

  164

  2,792

  1983

  Applications

  3,678

  ..

  2,806

  221

  309

  714

  7,728

  Acceptances

  1,223

  ..

  1,332

  55

  123

  166

  2,899

  1984

  Applications

  3,358

  ..

  3,031

  174

  337

  836

  7,736

  Acceptances

  1,117

  ..

  1,456

  48

  120

  244

  2985

  1985

  Applications

  3,365

  ..

  3,557

  205

  333

  1,043

  8,503

  Acceptances

  1,160

  ..

  1,564

  53

  108

  213

  3,098

  1986

  Applications

  2,895

  ..

  3,701

  207

  286

  1,300

  8,389

  Acceptances

  1,027

  ..

  1,550

  60

  110

  382

  3,129

  11986

  Applications

  3,506

  ..

  3,495

  ..

  ..

  1,337

  8,338

  Acceptances

  1,230

  ..

  1,410

  ..

  ..

  380

  3,020

  1 In earlier years FE institutions, Scottish and Irish schools were shown separately. For 1987 they are included under maintained or independent as appropriate.

  2 Information for 1988 is not readily available.

  3 Direct grant schools were abolished in 1980–81.

  Oxford

  Maintained

  Direct grant1

  Independent

  Sixth form college

  Other and OSEAS

  Total

  1979

  Applications

  3,489

  815

  2,035

  ..

  433

  6,772

  Acceptances

  1,320

  408

  975

  ..

  85

  2,788

  1980

  Applications

  3,661

  644

  2,133

  ..

  460

  6,898

  Acceptances

  1,378

  299

  1,058

  ..

  79

  2,814

  1981

  Applications

  3,924

  670

  2,093

  ..

  306

  6,993

  Acceptances

  1,414

  280

  1,051

  ..

  91

  2,836

  1982

  Applications

  4,138

  ..

  2,925

  ..

  476

  7,539

  Acceptances

  1,404

  ..

  1,325

  ..

  111

  2,840

  1983

  Applications

  3,638

  ..

  2,980

  727

  356

  7,701

  Acceptances

  1,088

  ..

  1,265

  248

  85

  2,686

  1984

  Applications

  3,306

  ..

  3,045

  775

  437

  7,563

  Acceptances

  1,122

  ..

  1,359

  262

  110

  2,853

  1985

  Applications

  3,282

  ..

  3,819

  687

  342

  8,130

  Acceptances

  1,098

  ..

  1,684

  234

  104

  3,120

  1 Direct grant schools were abolished in 1980–81.

  Oxford

  State

  Independent

  Others

  Total

  19861

  Applications

  3,680

  3,096

  861

  7,637

  Acceptances

  1,395

  1,324

  221

  2,940

  67

  Oxford

  State

  Independent

  Others

  Total

  1987

  Applications

  3,278

  3,065

  847

  7,190

  Acceptances

  1,399

  1,415

  256

  3,070

  1988

  Applications

  3,979

  3,743

  990

  8,712

  Acceptances

  1,448

  1,535

  243

  3,226

  1 The classification used by Oxford changed in 1986.

  Teachers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will implement the International Labour Organisation rulings on the rights of employees to negotiate with their employers in relation to teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 November at column 318.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect he expects that state schools that opt out and function independently will have on preparatory schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Schools which become grant-maintained will remain within the maintained sector of education, and will increase the diversity of provision available to parents within that sector. There will be no direct effect on preparatory schools although ultimately we expect that increased diversity and competition will encourage all schools (including preparatory schools) to maintain and improve their standards and responsiveness to those they serve.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the Education Reform Act on school-theatre and museum and theatre visits.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the level of school visits to theatres and museums need change markedly as a result of the provisions of the Education Reform Act. The Act clarifies earlier legislation in establishing that schools may not charge for any provision offered during school hours, with the exception of individual music tuition. Charges may be made for visits and activities provided outside school hours, unless these are required for a prescribed examination syllabus or for the national curriculum. Restrictions on charging do not prevent local authorities and schools from seeking voluntary contributions in support of particular activities and we expect that parents will continue to support activities which they regard as educationally worth while.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider the limitations on mature students, particularly those nearing or at retiring age in respect of the Government's proposals in the White Paper on "Student Top-up Loans," where 8
  anyone commencing higher education at the age of 40 years or over will have to repay the loan up to and until the age of 60 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have invited comment on the repayment regime but we want students up to the age of 50 to have the benefit of loans. Under our proposals the annual repayments made by graduates approaching the age of 60 will be no more and no less than repayments made by younger graduates in the same economic circumstances. Any debt still outstanding at the age of 60 will be cancelled.

  Veterinary Schools (Research)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what have been the sources of funding in veterinary schools over the last five years;

  (2) what revenue from commercial sources has been derived from publicly funded research in veterinary schools over the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Universities (of which veterinary schools are component parts) receive general funding in the form of block grant from the University Grants Committee and from various other sources. It is not possible to identify how elements of that income flow to individual faculties and schools. The available data on specific income (for research contracts and other services) in veterinary science are shown below. Information is not available on the revenue from commercial sources derived from publicly funded research.

  £ thousands

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  A. Research Grants and Contracts

  Research Council Grant

  1,066

  1,049

  1,154

  Other Central Government

  1,062

  1,370

  1,686

  United Kingdom Public Corporations

  71

  17

  24

  Other United Kingdom Industry and Commerce

  373

  426

  452

  United Kingdom Charitable Bodies

  922

  1,074

  1,838

  Overseas1

  85

  202

  265

  Other Sources

  107

  87

  271

  Total Grants and Contracts

  3,686

  4,223

  5,690

  B. Income from other services rendered

  Total1

  1,542

  1,627

  1,846

  C. Total Specific income From veterinary science

  5,228

  5,850

  7,836

  1 Includes income from commercial sources.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the research objectives of veterinary schools.
  9
  Mr. Jackson
  Such objectives are for each university to determine.

  Scientific Equipment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to his Department regarding expert estimates of the annual percentage increase in real terms of costs of scientific equipment needed for priority areas of research identified by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend receives advice each year from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the sums to be allocated to each of the research councils in support of priority areas of research. This includes provision for scientific equipment and takes account of cost movements and of changes in the nature and standard of equipment which is available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils arising from the board's commissioned survey of scientific equipment provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the ABRC has not yet received the report of the survey it has commissioned on scientific equipment provision, and that it is unlikely that the board will offer my right hon. Friend advice on this matter before next spring.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library his letter and attachment of 28 November sent to the hon. Member for Blackburn in answer to his question of 19 October.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Copies of my letter and attachment have been placed in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Ballots)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the names, areas and type of those schools in respect of which he received a notification by 30 November concerning a governors' resolution or parent petition for a ballot for a grant-maintained school, the schools being ones affected by a section 12 and 13 proposal undecided on 4 August; and what was the total number of schools so affected.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Notification of a governors' resolution or parent petition for a ballot has been received in respect of the following 18 schools which were subject to published section 12 or 13 proposals published by but undecided on 4 August:

  School

  LEA

  Type

  Queensbury

  Bedfordshire

  13-18 County Mixed Comprehensive

  Ravensbourne

  Bromley

  11-18 County Girls Comprehensive

  Ramsden

  Bromley

  11-18 County Girls Comprehensive

  Netherthorpe

  Derbyshire

  11-18 Voluntary Controlled Mixed Comprehensive

  Chesterfield

  Derbyshire

  13-18 County Boys Comprehensive

  Frances Bardesley

  Havering

  11-18 County Girls Comprehensive

  Gaynes

  Havering

  11-18 County Mixed Comprehensive

  Forest Lodge

  Havering

  11-18 County Mixed Comprehensive

  Sir James Altham

  Hertfordshire

  11-18 County Mixed Comprehensive

  10

  School

  LEA

  Type

  Hadham Hall

  Hertfordshire

  11-18 County Mixed Secondary

  London Nautical

  ILEA

  11-18 County Boys Comprehensive

  Wilmington Grammar

  Kent

  11-18 County Boys Grammar

  Wilmington Grammar

  Kent

  11-18 County Girls Grammar

  South Park

  Lincolnshire

  11-18 County Mixed Comprehensive

  Blessed Hugh More RC

  Lincolnshire

  11-16 Voluntary Aided Mixed Secondary

  Queen Elizabeth's

  Rochdale

  14-18 Voluntary Controlled Mixed High

  Audenshaw

  Tameside

  11-16 County Boys Comprehensive

  Droylsden

  Tameside

  11-16 County Girls Comprehensive

  Student Unions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will place in the Library the correspondence between his Department and the National Union of Students concerning automatic membership of student unions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received from the National Union of Students regarding the automatic membership of student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: The NUS has made no recent representations. The last exchange of correspondence between the NUS and Ministers on this subject followed a meeting which I held with the NUS on 29 February. This exchange preceded the announcement of the survey and I do not think that it would now be appropriate to place it in the Library.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the returned questionnaires for his review of student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: No.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what was the total number of questionnaires for his Department's review of student unions(a) sent out and (b) returned, and what is the percentage of the latter to the former;

  (2) how many questionnaires for his review of student unions were sent to (a) student unions, (b) institutions of higher and further education and (c) the National Union of Students; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: Questionnaires were issued to 70 institutions in Great Britain. Each institution received four copies but it was for each to determine, against the definition of a student union used for the survey, how many separately completed questionnaires to return. Institutions were invited to involve their local union(s) in completing the questionnaire but no questionnaires were issued direct to local unions for return to the Department. A copy was sent to the NUS for information.

  By 1 December a total of 86 returns had been received from 68 institutions. Returns from the remaining two institutions are expected within a few days.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards treating the National Union of Students as a representative negotiating body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer of 2 December 1988]: The Department consults as appropriate, but does not negotiate, with the National Union of Students.

  Natural Environmental Research Council
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he assesses will be the impact of funding cuts for the Natural Environmental Research Council on working on practical projects involving volunteers in the area of nature conservation: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: The staff reductions NERC has announced include one post concerning bat ecology, where work done in the past has involved volunteers. Otherwise, volunteers are involved only on projects commissioned by customers, and their future involvement will be dependent on customer support.

ENVIRONMENT

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what grants were authorised to be paid by his Department for capital works carried out under the Civil Defence (Water Supplies) Regulations 1949 in each of the financial years 1985–86 to 1987–88 inclusive; to which authorities they were paid; and for what purposes;

  (2) what grants were authorised to be paid by his Department for capital works carried out under the Civil Defence (Sewerage) Regulations 1949 in each of the financial years 1985–86 to 1987–8, inclusive; to which authorities they were paid; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Grant authorised by the Department since 1985–86 for capital works relating to water authority civil defence functions has been for structural and accommodation works for emergency control centres, as follows:

  Water authority

  Financial year

  Amount of grant (75 per cent. of cost)£

  Anglian

  1985–86

  3,794

  1986–87

  102,750

  1987–88

  19,156

  Severn Trent

  1987–88

  173,905

  Southern

  1987–88

  4,050

  Wessex

  1985–86

  2,639

  1986–87

  18,731

  1987–88

  128,974

  Yorkshire

  1985–86

  4,908

  1986–87

  23,625

  1987–88

  262,267

  TOTAL

  744,799

  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to amend section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 following the decision in the case of Rubinstein and another v. Secretary of State for the Environment.
  12
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our intention is to introduce legislation, when a suitable opportunity occurs, to return to the situation that was assumed to exist prior to the judgment in the Rubinstein case. This will enable surveying authorities, on the discovery of evidence, to make orders correcting mistakes in the recording of rights of way on the definitive map.

  Water Quality (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many individual occasions the level of(a) nitrate (b) aluminium and (c) other substances in Nottingham water supplies has exceeded the levels in EEC drinking water directives.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand from the water authority that within the last 12 months there have been no individual occasions when aluminium has exceeded the limits laid down in the EC drinking water directive in the city of Nottingham drinking water supplies.

  The nitrate standard has been marginally exceeded (at times of peak demand) from a source serving about 2,000 people in the city but this does not constitute a risk to health.

  A single sample failed to meet the directive requirements relating to iron.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy on the import of foreign toxic waste into the United Kingdom for treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 23 November at columns 4-5.

  Toxic Chemical Incinerators
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many toxic chemical incinerators there are in the United Kingdom; and what are their locations.

  Mr. Virginia Bottomley
  There are three merchant incinerators in the United Kingdom which process toxic chemical wastes: at Ellesmere Port (Cheshire), Fawley (Hampshire) and Pontypool (Gwent). These are subject to the control of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. In addition, the inspectorate, together with Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate (in Scotland) and the alkali and radiochemical inspectorate (in Northern Ireland) exercise control over 77 chemical incinerators which burn only waste generated on the site by a related industrial process.

  Raptors (Illegal Sales)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain information from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds relating to the prices commanded by illegally sold British birds of prey.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Although the Department's licensing and registration functions are useful inhibitions to the sale of illegally taken birds of prey, it has no direct responsibility for enforcing the law prohibiting their illegal taking, which is a matter for the police. I therefore have no reason to seek information about the prices at which birds of prey are sold.

  Lowland Heath
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of voluntary conservation bodies to discuss the draft flora, fauna and habitat directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, met representatives of voluntary conservation bodies to discuss the draft directive on 18 November. I explained the current position on the directive in my answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 29 November, at column 200-20.

  Nuclear Waste (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations have been made in the county of South Yorkshire to see if the soil strata is suitable for low or high-level nuclear waste; and how many suitable sites have been discovered.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  UK Nirex Ltd. is responsible for the field work necessary to identify potential sites for a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. No part of the United Kingdom is ruled out at this stage.

  Heat-generating (high-level) radioactive waste is being stored at British Nuclear Fuels works at Sellafield for about 50 years until levels of radioactivity have declined sufficiently to facilitate disposal. No work is being undertaken to identify potential disposal sites for this type of waste.

  PCB Levels
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution proposes to publish the report arising from the investigation, undertaken two years ago, and carried out jointly by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the university of East Anglia, into national background levels of PCBs and including an investigation into the area surrounding ReChem international (Pontypool).

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  During the period 1985 to 1987 the hazardous waste inspectorate, now part of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, conducted a national survey into background levels in soils of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-furans (PCDFs). A summary of that work was published this year in the third report of the hazardous waste inspectorate and the full technical report will be published in 1989.

  A further study, which involves more detailed sampling around potential sources of PCBs, including the ReChem International incinerator at Pontypool, has begun. The full results of this study are expected in two years' time. In the interim, preliminary findings will shortly be communicated to local authorities concerned.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of additional staffing requirements for the Housing Corporation for the financial year 1988–89.
  14
  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is currently discussing with the Housing Corporation its additional staffing requirements for 1988–89 for new responsibilities under the Housing Act 1988. Final decisions have yet to be taken.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he is taking to encourage the development of non-toxic alternatives to lead shot;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on the substitution of steel for lead shot in game shooting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have asked the Nature Conservancy Council to assess any potential danger to wildlife from the residues from lead shot and to consult interested parties. In addition, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has set up a working group to co-ordinate research into all aspects of the use of lead shot. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has undertaken research into the effect of residues from lead shot in animal feedstuffs. We are encouraged to see that both BASC and the Gun Trades Association are assessing the use of steel and other materials as possible substitutes for lead shot. Decisions on the continued use of lead shot will be made as and when the results of all these studies are available.

  Football Club Membership Scheme
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the response of the football authorities to his proposed national football membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The football authorities contributed fully in the working party which I chaired on the national membership scheme and agreed the report which the working party produced. They have made clear that they are opposed to the principle of the scheme but I am very glad that both the new president of the Football League and the chief executive of the Football Association have recently repeated their willingness to co-operate with the Government in producing a workable scheme. I look forward to discussing the details of the scheme further with them.

  Croxteth Hall
  Mr Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of Croxteth hall and Country park, Liverpool.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are awaiting the Merseyside residuary body's proposals on detailed arrangements for ensuring the future of Croxteth hall and country park. We hope to make a statement shortly.

  Truscon RD27 Houses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from Liverpool city council about the possible repurchase of Truscon RD27 houses situated in Storrington avenue, Liverpool; and what his response has been.

  Mr. Trippier
  Liverpool city council have applied for consent to repurchase three privately owned Truscon
  15
  RD27 type houses at Storrington avenue and the Department's officials recently wrote to the council about the repurchase terms. It is now for Liverpool city council to take the matter forward.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications were received by the London borough of Croydon in each of the last 10 years; how many were granted; how many appeals were made; how many appeals were allowed; and how many appeals were refused.

  Mr. Chope
  The information available in the Department is given in the tables.

  London Borough of Croydon

  Table 1—Applications under section 29 of the Town and Country

  Planning Act 1971

  Year

  Decided

  Granted

  1982–83

  11,400

  11,182

  1983–84

  2,101

  1,812

  1984–85

  2,178

  1,809

  1985–86

  2,163

  1,746

  1986–87

  11,775

  11,426

  1987–88

  2,456

  1,997

  1 Three quarters of the year only.

  Table 2—Planning appeals under sections 35 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971

  Year

  Received

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  1984–85

  79

  22

  47

  1985–86

  117

  38

  47

  1986–87

  128

  50

  45

  1987–88

  136

  54

  67

  National Park Year

  Decided

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Peak District

  1984–85

  23

  6

  26·1

  17

  73·9

  3

  1985–86

  25

  5

  20·0

  20

  80·0

  7

  1986–87

  38

  9

  23·7

  29

  76·3

  6

  1987–88

  38

  9

  23·7

  29

  76·3

  5

  Exmoor

  1984–85

  7

  4

  57·1

  3

  42·9

  0

  1985–86

  6

  4

  66·7

  2

  33·3

  0

  1986–87

  4

  2

  50·0

  2

  50·0

  1

  1987–88

  4

  0

  —

  4

  100·0

  1

  Northumberland

  1984–85

  2

  0

  —

  2

  100·0

  0

  1985–86

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  1986–87

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  1987–88

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  1

  Dartmoor

  1984–85

  32

  6

  18·8

  26

  81·2

  2

  1985–86

  29

  8

  27·6

  21

  72·4

  4

  1986–87

  22

  9

  40·9

  13

  59·1

  3

  1987–88

  24

  7

  29·2

  17

  70·8

  0

  Lake District

  1984–85

  17

  6

  35·3

  11

  64·7

  1

  1985–86

  37

  18

  48·6

  19

  51·4

  5

  1986–87

  37

  16

  43·2

  21

  56·8

  1

  1987–88

  76

  34

  44·7

  42

  55·3

  2

  Yorkshire Dales

  1984–85

  22

  7

  31·8

  15

  68·2

  2

  1985–86

  21

  6

  28·6

  15

  71·4

  1

  1986–87

  14

  4

  28·6

  10

  71·4

  3

  Planning Controls
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which are the current planning controls now protecting water authority lands from developers because of(a) their outstanding natural beauty, (b) their value to urban or rural communities as spaces of recreation or as environmental protection, and (c) their character as national parks.

  Mr. Chope
  The Town and Country Planning Acts and subsidiary legislation, and the Government's planning guidance, apply to water authority land as they do to land in other ownership. The Town and Country Planning General Development Order grants planning permission, subject to limitations, for development by water authorities for the purpose of their functions.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of planning appeal decisions which were(a) allowed, (b) dismissed, (c) withdrawn and (d) undetermined in each of the English national parks, including the Broads authority in each of the last five years; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 December 1988] The available information in respect of the English national parks is given below. Similar information in respect of the Broads authority area is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  17

  National Park Year

  Decided

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1987–88

  15

  4

  26·7

  11

  73·3

  0

  North Yorkshire

  Moors

  1984–85

  28

  8

  28·6

  20

  71·4

  3

  1985–86

  23

  3

  13·0

  20

  87·0

  1

  1986–87

  17

  11

  64·7

  6

  35·3

  4

  1987–88

  31

  12

  38·7

  19

  61·3

  0

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of planning appeal decisions which were(a) allowed, (b) dismissed, (c) withdrawn and (d) undetermined in England in each of the last five years; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined;

  (2) if he will give for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of planning appeal decisions which were allowed, dismissed, withdrawn and undetermined, respectively in England; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined;

  (3) if he will give for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of planning appeal

  Year

  Decided

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  In hand on 31 March

  Number

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Number

  1984–85

  12,714

  4,161

  32·7

  8,553

  67·3

  2,109

  8,049

  1985–86

  14,130

  5,581

  39·5

  8,549

  60·5

  2,143

  9,615

  1986–87

  15,613

  6,208

  39·8

  9,405

  60·2

  2,533

  11,325

  1987–88

  18,474

  6,955

  37·6

  11,519

  62·4

  3,173

  12,160

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of planning appeal decisions which were(a) allowed, (b) dismissed, (c) withdrawn and (d) undetermined on green belt land in each of the last five years; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has anything to add to his answer of 30 November, with regard to division 3 and 4 football matches at which no arrests were made in the 1987–88 season.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As opposed to individual club information for the season, information about the number of arrests at individual matches for the 1987–89 season is not held centrally. The total number of arrests at division 3 and 4 matches in the 1987–88 season was as follows:

  Total arrests

  Division 3

  866

  Division 4

  929

  18
  decisions which were allowed, dismissed, withdrawn and undetermined, respectively, in each of the English national parks, including the Broads authority; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined;

  (4) if he will give for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of planning appeal decisions which were allowed, dismissed, withdrawn and undetermined, respectively on green belt land; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: The available information is as follows:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Councillors (Pecuniary Interests)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all cases since 1 January 1978 in which successful action has been taken against councillors under section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972 for failure to declare a pecuniary interest in contracts in which local authorities, of which they are members, are engaged.

  The Attorney-General
  As far as it has been possible to ascertain, during the period mentioned no prosecutions have been brought under section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972,

  Sir Harold Cassel
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will be taking any action in respect of the comments of Judge Cassel at Knightsbridge Crown court on 29 November; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  His Honour Judge Sir Harold Cassel has retired on medical grounds.

  The judge tendered his resignation on grounds of ill-health in a letter which he sent to the Lord Chancellor on the day before his controversial comments in a case of indecent assault dealt with by him at Knightsbridge Crown court. The Lord Chancellor received the letter on the day of the case. In the light of medical advice, the Lord Chancellor has decided to accept Judge Cassel's resignation.
  19
  In his capacity as head of the judiciary the Lord Chancellor issued a statement in the following terms:
  "It would not be right for me to comment on the sentence passed by Judge Cassel in a recent case of indecent assault. But, having now seen a report of the case, I wish to put on record my personal disapproval of the remarks he made when passing sentence. It is regrettable that a judge should have expressed himself in a way that suggested that there are any circumstances that can excuse or condone indecent assault on children."

  "Satanic Verses"
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received requesting prosecution of the publishers of the book, "Satanic Verses"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions and I have received written representations concerning the contents of the book "Satanic Verses" from a number of individuals, from two hon. Members, and from two organisations writing on behalf of the Moslem community. The director is considering the matter.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will ensure that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has available to him any additional staff necessary for the expeditious conclusion of his investigation into the Department of Trade and Industry's handling of the Barlow Clowes affair.

  Mr. Luce
  The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 provides that the commissioner may appoint such officers"as he may determine with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and conditions of service."
  My understanding is that the commissioner has already appointed some additional staff with a view to ensuring the completion of his investigation as swiftly as its complexity permits and that he is continuing to keep his resource requirements under review.

WALES

  Water Bill
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what environmental safeguards he proposes to make to the Water Bill in order to protect the public access, recreational and amenity value of the 100,000 acres of land owned by the Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The hon. Gentleman will by now have seen the Water Bill, which provides the environmental safeguards he refers to.

  Nursing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to improve confidence and morale among the nursing profession and ancillary workers in the National Health Services in Wales.
  20
  Mr. Grist
  We continue to recognise the value to the NHS of all the staff who work within the service. I hope that the Government's commitment to the Health Service is a source of encouragement to the staff.

  Employment Measures
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales of he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Government's employment measure in Wales; and how many were benefiting from them at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  At October 1988 there were 115,130 people benefiting from the Government's employment and training measures in Wales. In the last year unemployment has dropped by 23,000.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Martin Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make funds available to the Child Poverty Action Group in Clwyd; and what further steps he proposes to take to protect children in(a) Clwyd and (b) the whole of Wales from the effects of poverty.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The Government are directing substantial additional resources towards families eligible for income support and family credit. Next year, a total of £70 million will be made available above a social security uprating based on price rises. This extra expenditure will be to the greater benefit of up to 3 million children in Great Britain and will help to protect children in Wales.

  Road Planning
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take following the National Audit Office's report on road planning as it relates to his Department.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Public Accounts Committee is expected to take evidence on the report in January. In the meantime we are studying it carefully.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments he has made to public bodies in Wales in 1987 and 1988; and what total costs are involved in each year in respect of(a) salaries, (b) expenses and (c) other costs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since taking office in June of last year, I have made 300 appointments to public bodies in Wales. The numbers of such appointments for each non-departmental public body concerned, together with details of any salaries paid can be obtained from "Public Bodies", the 1988 version of which will be published on 7 December and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The other information requested is not readily available.

  M4
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that the M4 will be complete and continuous from England to Pont Abraham by 1992.
  21
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Work on the missing section of the M4 between Baglan and Lonlas is expected to start before the end of 1990, as indicated in "Roads in Wales".

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is yet able to estimate the effect on the Welsh economy of the projected second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The existing Severn bridge has been a notable success in contributing to economic growth in south Wales and I am convinced that a second crossing will help to accelerate the economic achievements of the area. Its construction will in due course also offer substantial employment opportunities.

  Gwynedd Area Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met Mrs. Noreen Edwards, chair of Gwynedd area health authority; and if he will make a statement on the financial problems facing that authority.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I last met Mrs. Edwards on 30 November together with all other Welsh health authority chairmen. Gwynedd Health Authority—like all health authorities—is statutorily required to ensure that its financial position is in balance. It has submitted various service rationalisation proposals towards this end and these are currently under consideration.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 13 October 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent, and Wales were 6,313, 18,978 and 117,683 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Welsh water authority; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I meet the chairman on a regular basis to discuss a range of matters.

  Council House Sales
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council tenants in Wales have bought their dwellings up to the last convenient date.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of 61,261 council houses and flats have been sold to tenants in Wales between October 1980 and September 1988 under both right-to-buy and voluntary terms.

  Water Authorities (Land)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the area of land owned by the Welsh water 22
  authority which has been designated as (a) sites of special scientific interest, (b) national parks and (c) areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Grist
  The acreage of land owned by the Welsh water authority within national parks in Wales is as follows:

  Acres

  Brecon Beacons

  13,783

  Pembroke

  Nil

  Snowdonia

  5,399

  Major landholdings in areas of outstanding natural beauty are as follows:

  Acres

  Lleyn AONB

  72

  Anglesey AONB

  151

  Clwydian AONB

  206

  There is a total of 32 SSSIs on Welsh water authority landholdings of greater than one hectare (2·5 acres) and the total authority landholdings within such areas is about 51,000 acres.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the area of land sold by the Welsh water authority as being land surplus to operational requirements for each calendar year since 1983.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is more readily available on a financial rather than a calendar year basis. The acreage of land disposed of by Welsh water since 1 April 1983 is as follows:

  Acres

  1983–84

  222

  1984–85

  240

  1985–86

  113

  1986–87

  492

  1987–88

  323

  1988 to date

  1,001

  Total

  2,391

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the area of land owned by the Welsh water authority which is currently registered under the provisions of the Local Government and Planning Act 1981 as being unused or underused.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh water authority. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is, in respect of each statutory water company, the area of land which has been designated as(a) sites of special scientific interest, (b) national parks and (c) areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters for the statutory water companies. I have asked the chairman of Chester waterworks company and of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company to write to the hon. Member.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any representations proposing the corporate status of the institutes of higher education in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has neither received nor expects to receive any representations proposing corporate status for any of the institutions of higher education in Wales. This is a matter for discussion and agreement between the institutions and their maintaining local education authorities.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the budget for Wales for the introduction of employment training in 1988–89; how much has been spent to date; how many places have been allocated for Wales; how many places have been taken up; and of these places taken up, how many are considered to have been those relating to the residual community programme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am satisfied that the financial allocation for Wales for the 1988–89 financial year is sufficient to meet the expenditure employment training will incur during the year. Employment training will offer some 50,000 unemployed adults an opportunity to find and keep work in Wales each year; and it is expected that during 1988–89 about 24,000 will be in training at any one time. In the first two months of the programme over £4 million was spent in Wales. At 30 November 1988 there were 5,996 in employment training in Wales, but it is not known how many of those who were taking part in the former community programme and were eligible to join employment training have done so.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the training agents in Wales to whom contracts have been given for the employment training programme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The following organisations have been contracted by the Training Agency to operate as employment training agents in Wales:

  Cardiff Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd

  Careers Service Adult Guidance Agency (Mid Glamorgan County Council)

  Clwyd Local Education Authority

  Clwyd Training Agency

  Dyfed County Council

  Gwent County Council

  Gwynedd County Council

  Manpower Development Agency

  Maud and Grove Management Associates Ltd

  Powys County Council

  Psychological Consultancy Services

  South Glamorgan County Council

  West Glamorgan County Council.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the qualifications and experience of those training agents in receipt of a contract who are operating in Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Contracts were awarded to training agents in Wales who, in the judgment of the Training Agency, are best able to deliver the assessment, guidance and counselling to meet the quality standards necessary to assist their client groups.
  24
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to inspect the performance and quality of work of those training agents in Mid Glamorgan in receipt of contracts under the employment training programme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is vitally important that the people who organise and deliver employment training have the necessary skills and competence to do so. Training agents (and training managers) will need to meet stringent criteria as part of the process of obtaining approved training agent status—without which they will not be able to continue with employment training. Training Agency staff will regularly monitor training agents, while helping them develop the skills of their staff, as will the training standards advisory service.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give, for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of planning appeal decisions which were allowed, dismissed, withdrawn and undetermined, respectively, in each of the Welsh national parks, and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined;

  (2) if he will give, for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of planning appeal decisions which were allowed, dismissed, withdrawn and undetermined, respectively, in Wales; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available.

  Owner-occupied Dwellings
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings in Wales were owner-occupied at the end of 1960, 1970, 1980, and at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available in the form requested. Estimates of owner-occupied dwellings at the closest dates to those requested are:

  Dwellings

  April 1961

  374,000

  April 1971

  532,000

  December 1980

  637,000

  December 1987

  777,000

  Dwelling stock estimates in census years are based upon information collected in the census of population for that year. In inter-censal years they are based on the previous census figures adjusted to take account of new house building and demolition.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Welsh water authority has implemented the recommendation in paragraph 7.49 of the 11th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution by consulting the relevant industries in their area with a view to increasing the removal of metals from industrial discharges at source and reducing the metal content of sewage.
  25
  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh water authority in exercising its responsibilities for the disposal of sewage sludge takes every opportunity to achieve, by consultation with dischargers, the application of best technology so as to reduce the levels of metal contaminants in sewage and sewage sludge.

  Grant-related Expenditure (Clwyd)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assumptions he used about the pupil-teacher ratio in his calculation of grant-related expenditure for the county of Clwyd;

  (2) what assumption he made about the sum to be allocated for the local element of educational supplementary grant for in-service training in his calculation of grant-related expenditure for the county of Clwyd;

  (3) what assumptions he made about the sum to be allocated for special needs provision in his calculation of grant-related expenditure for the county of Clwyd;

  (4) what assumption he made about the sum to be allocated for nursery provision in his calculation of grant-related expenditure for the county of Clwyd.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Grant-related expenditure calculations for local authorities in Wales do not form a basis for calculating notional allocations of GRE to any particular service. The GRE determined for each county council is constructed using indicators of need such as numbers of pupils (including those in special schools) rather than indicators of provision such as pupil/teacher ratios. The portion of costs associated with the local education authority training grants scheme not met by specific grant is accounted for in counties' GREs, using pupil numbers as an indicator of need. Nursery provision is part of the component of GRE relating to all children aged one and over but under five, and the indicator used is the population in this age group. All GRE formulae are agreed in consultation with the local authority associations. Full details of the indicators used or the current year are given in the Welsh rate support grant report 1988–89.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Designation
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, on his Department's personalised stationery, he will cause to be printed that his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs is a Member of Parliament.

  Mr. Forth
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to my attention.

  Having thoroughly investigated the matter and established that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs is indeed a Member of Parliament, I have arranged for the Department's stationery to be altered appropriately.

  Mr. Morton Graham
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Office of Fair Trading proposes to take in the case of Mr. Morton Graham, who has been named on the consumer credit licence issued by the Office of Fair Trading, in spite of a criminal conviction for conspiracy to defraud.
  26
  Mr. Maude
  The day-to-day operation of the consumer credit licensing system is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading and I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  FIMBRA (Suspensions)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will make a statement outlining the information which must be given to members of FIMBRA if they are suspended by that body;

  (2) what steps he has recently taken to ensure that cases of suspension dealt with by FIMBRA are treated efficiently, courteously and discreetly by that organisation;

  (3) if he will make a statement outlining the requirements which are placed upon FIM BRA to provide suspended members with a full and fair hearing at which to put forward their case against suspension;

  (4) if he has any plans to ensure that FIMBRA does not make public the knowledge that individual members have been suspended without providing to the affected member full details of the reasons for that suspension.

  Mr. Maude
  It is a criterion for recognition of a self-regulating organisation under the Financial Services Act 1986 that the organisation's rules and practices relating to the discipline that it exercises over its members must be fair and reasonable and include adequate provisions for appeals. The Securities and Investments Board is responsible for recognising self-regulating organisations and has recognised FIMBRA. I am not aware of any evidence that FIMBRA's rules and practices do not meet the relevant criterion.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the consultants who were asked to quote for the study into the operation of the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride.

  Mr. Forth
  The consultants who were asked to quote for the restructuring study into the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride are as follows:

  a. Touche Ross

  b. PA Consulting Group

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost of the contract announced on 29 November given to the consultants Touche Ross for their study into the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride.

  Mr. Forth
  It is not customary to publish the cost of consultancy contracts. This information is commercially confidential.

  World Trade
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's share of world trade.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the first six months of 1988 the United Kingdom share of the 12 main manufacturing countries' exports of manufactures was 8·2 per cent. It is estimated that our share of total world trade in manufactures in 1988 will be a little over 6 per cent. Our share of world invisible earnings has been rising steadily and our receipts are second only to the United States of America.

  Growish Limited
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made on investigations into offences under the Companies Act 1985 in respect of Growish Ltd.

  Mr. Maude
  I am not aware of any Companies Act offences committed by Royel Investments Ltd, formerly Growish Ltd, but I shall consider any information the hon. Member may have about the matter.

  Restrictive Practices (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to amend the restrictive practices legislation to allow the self-employed and small firms to act together when pursuing industrial action.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 1 December 1988]: In its Green Paper on restrictive trade practices policy (CM331) the Government have proposed fundamental changes to restrictive trade practices legislation.

  Under the proposals, agreements which have significantly anti-competitive effects would be prohibited but controls on agreements with no such effects would be relaxed. There would also be provision for restrictive agreements which meet certain criteria to be exempted from the prohibition. It is too early to say how the proposed new legislation will apply to co-operation arrangements between the self-employed and small firms; this will depend to an extent on the object or effect of the particular arrangements.

  My Department is currently developing the proposals in the Green Paper in the light of comments received from interested bodies and the views of organisations representing the self-employed and small firms are being taken into account.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest OECD development assistance committee's review of the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This review took place on Thursday 1 December. 1 shall arrange for a copy of the press release to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Tanzania (Aid)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid projects are at present being discussed with the Government of Tanzania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have just signed a new grant agreement with the Government of Tanzania for £16 million of balance of payments support to help with the implementation of agreed economic reforms. These funds will be used in the agriculture, transport, industry and health sectors.

  I have also approved the offer of an £8 million grant as cofinancing for the World Bank's industrial rehabilitation
  28
  and trade adjustment credit. This will be available as soon as the credit is signed, which I expect will be early next month. In addition to this assistance, my officials are continuing talks on identifying projects for the use of an £18 million project aid grant.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to make a visit to sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I hope to visit sub-Saharan Africa early next year.

  Buses (Sri Lanka)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he can yet give the date when the 40 London double deck buses will be sent to Sri Lanka as part of the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The buses are being shipped from Sheerness on 15 December, to arrive in Sri Lanka in early January.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Export Refund Computer System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (I) what is the cost of the International Board for Agricultural Produce computer scheme to date; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the IBAP export refund scheme computer system is still working; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether private contractors have been brought in to devise a replacement system for the IBAP export refund computer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The costs incurred in developing and implementing the intervention board's external claims computer system from its inception in 1982 to date are estimated at just under £4 million. The bulk of the system covering most commodity sectors was delivered in July to September 1987. This then required substantial modification when new Customs and Community documentation came into effect on 1 January 1988. The system currently in use was delivered in March to July 1988. Before this became available substantial payment delays had built up, and recovering these has been handicapped by technical problems with the software in the system. Substantial progress has however been made. In the first nine months of this year the board processed some 540,000 transactions valued at £440 million. 70 per cent. of commodity sectors and of export refund claims by value are now being paid within two months of becoming payable, and the board is working to extend this to the remaining sectors as soon as possible.

  In August 1988 the board brought in external consultants to assist with the recovery. They recommended that substantial enhancement of the current system was required in the short to medium term. Work to that end is now being undertaken by these consultants.

  The consultants also recommended that this system should be succeeded by a new system able to respond flexibly and effectively to the intervention boards needs in

  29
  the longer term. The board has accepted this recommendation and is initiating a full business and systems analysis which will be undertaken by private sector consultants.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any redundancies have been caused by the workings of the export refund system in the current year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am not aware of any redundancies in exporting firms which can be attributed to the payment delays resulting from this year's changes in the intervention board's external claims computer system.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the relationship between salmonella poisoning in eggs and current conditions in battery farms with particular respect to the methods of disposal of dead fowls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Modern intensive farming methods pose no more threat of introducing salmonella into eggs than do traditional farming methods. Dead fowls are disposed of in a manner which does not contribute to the problems of salmonella dissemination.

  Departmental Dp Division
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many system professionals are employed in his Department's Dp division; and what is the turnover rate.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Currently there are 170 functional specialist computing staff at programmer level and above, employed in the Ministry's computer services division at Guildford, of whom some 135 are fully trained. Since the beginning of the current financial year 37 trained staff have left and 40 trainee programmers have joined the division. These are comparable figures to those of previous years.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the volume of sewage sludge deposited in each sea dump around the United Kingdom coast over each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  '000 wet tonnes

  Location

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Off the Tyne

  364·4

  480·5

  456·8

  498·9

  485·0

  Off the Tees

  8·1

  2·0

  7·5

  1·3

  1·6

  Spurn Head

  91·2

  78·3

  89·0

  114·9

  95·1

  Roughs Tower

  138·3

  85·4

  127·1

  112·2

  132·4

  Barrow Deep

  4,150·0

  4,200·0

  4,240·4

  4,543·3

  3,637·6

  South Falls

  98·3

  105·0

  88·4

  50·2

  134·1

  Nab Tower

  202·2

  231·8

  291·8

  288·6

  243·0

  Lyme Bay

  47·7

  44·0

  49·5

  45·4

  48·3

  Off Falmouth

  63·7

  (use of dumpsite discontinued)

  Off Plymouth

  83·0

  103·0

  85·0

  76·9

  81·6

  Bristol Channel

  230·2

  305·2

  262·5

  257·4

  237·9

  Liverpool Bay

  1,299·2

  1,282·9

  1,499·0

  1,541·4

  1,626·0

  Firth of Forth

  219·9

  230·2

  209·6

  172·9

  248·5

  30

  Location

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Firth of Clyde

  1,574·5

  1,714·2

  1,686·8

  1,698·7

  1,689·6

  Off Belfast

  289·8

  299·1

  314·4

  275·9

  309·5

  Off Coleraine

  10·5

  11·0

  11·6

  9·5

  —

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has considered ways and means of assisting the further reduction of the heavy metals load in sewage sludge.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In recent years substantial reductions have been achieved in heavy metal concentrations, which are well within the trace limits permitted by the international dumping conventions. The levels of heavy metals in sewage sludge for sea disposal have been strictly controlled by the provisions of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 and its successor legislation, part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The Government are seeking further reductions in metal concentrations; water authorities are required to draw up action plans incorporating reviews of authorisations that they have granted for discharge to sewers of industrial effluent containing heavy mentals.

  The Government also intends to improve the control of sewage sludge spread on agricultural land by introducing statutory regulations next year backed up by a code of practice, both designed to provide an appropriate level of environmental protection.

  Agriculture White Paper
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the annual review of the Agriculture White Paper.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I have decided to extend and improve the information which has up to now been published in the White Paper on the annual review of agriculture. The new publication will be designed to give data on the state of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom. It will contain enhanced information on commodities and on the general financial situation of the industry. The new document will be published annually and copies will be made available in the Library of the House.

  It will, however, no longer be published as a White Paper. The origin of that practice is that, before our accession to the European Community, the annual review led to the determination of commodity price guarantees for the coming year, which we published as part of the White Paper. Since our accession, the emphasis has shifted towards the annual negotiation of agricultural prices in the European Community, and the annual review White Paper has effectively become a compendium of agricultural statistics. It is therefore appropriate to discontinue publication in the form of a White Paper.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men, (b) women, (c) boys under 18 years of age and (d) girls under 18 years of age

  31
  were reported as missing during each of the last five years for which records are available; and how many and what percentage in each category were subsequently traced.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only readily available information relates to persons recorded by the Metropolitan police missing persons bureau. I understand from the commissioner that these records are incomplete in respect of persons who are reported missing to other police forces and persons who reappear within a short time of being reported missing. The information for the Metropolitan police district is given in the following table. Further details of missing persons are given in the commissioner's annual report.

  Persons reported missing during the year and proportion of each yearly total who were traced by the end of that year.

  Metropolitan Police District

  Number of persons

  Under 18

  18 and over

  Year

  Number reported missing

  Percentage traced end of year

  Number reported missing

  Percentage traced by end of year

  Males

  1983

  1,340

  93

  682

  92

  1984

  1,416

  92

  1,007

  83

  1985

  1,283

  96

  1,009

  87

  1986

  1,291

  92

  1,069

  81

  19871

  1,504

  92

  1,719

  78

  Females

  1983

  1,534

  90

  642

  89

  1984

  1,733

  93

  950

  88

  1985

  1,699

  94

  931

  88

  1986

  1,586

  95

  964

  85

  19871

  1,623

  91

  1,609

  80

  1 New counting procedures were introduced from the beginning of 1987: hence the figures for previous years are not comparable.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ask chief officers of police in England and Wales to supply him with such information regarding missing persons and their subsequent tracing, alive or dead, as is conveniently available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Responsibility for investigating reports of missing persons is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Records of missing persons are held locally, and may be circulated to other forces or to the missing persons bureau at New Scotland yard as chief officers consider necessary. There is no requirement upon chief officers to provide the Home Office with statistics relating to missing persons. Information could be collated only by means of a special exercise which would involve disproportionate expense.

  Security Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the need for authorisations for the security services to access computer records and systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The conditions under which personal data may be disclosed for the purpose of safeguarding national security are provided in section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984. It would be for the data user to respond to any request for access made in accordance with the Act.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in Her Majesty's prisons are known, and diagnosed, to be schizophrenia sufferers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Mohammed Arshad Mehar
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Mohammed Arshad Mehar, date of birth 1 March 1958 and Ref: C 484704, of 45C Park Street, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, a Pakistani national who applied in September 1987 for an extension of his visa, 888760, to enable him to continue with his work as a specialist chemical worker, had his passport returned by hand to his wife a few days ago without any visa extension or any indication of the Home Office decision on his application; if he will consider the application for the extension of stay in the United Kingdom; if he will complete this in order that Mr. Mehar can return to Pakistan for an urgent family matter and then return to the United Kingdom thereafter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Mr. Mehar's passport was returned without further endorsement because he wished to travel urgently and it was not possible to complete his application. Inquiries in this case have not yet been completed but I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.

  NUS (March)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis's estimate of the number of Socialist Workers party members present in the breakaway section of the National Union of Students march of Thursday 24 November.

  Mr. Hurd
  As I said in my reply on 29 November to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) at column 174, the faction which first broke away amounted to about 1,000 demonstrators many of whom were thought to be members of the Socialist Workers' party. The action of this group encouraged several thousand others to follow suit.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis's estimate of the number of police officers injured during the National Union of Students march of 24 November, the types of injury and the numbers that had to go to hospital, and the numbers of students injured, the types of injury and the numbers that had to go to hospital.

  Mr. Hurd
  As I said in my reply on 29 November to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) at column 174, it is estimated that 72 police officers were injured, and seven demonstrators of whom the commissioner is aware. There is no central record available of how many were taken to hospital, but it is understood that most injuries were minor. One woman police constable suffered concussion, spent four nights in hospital, and is

  33
  now experiencing severe memory loss. I have received separately a letter describing a serious leg injury to one of the demonstrators.

  Security Service
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory powers members of the Security Service have, in the past, entered on or interfered with property as defined in the Security Service Bill.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is not the practice to comment on the operations of the Security Service.

  There have been no statutory provisions giving the Security Service special powers in this respect.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to encourage pensioners to install smoke detectors in their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A television advertising campaign to encourage the public, including pensioners, to install smoke alarms in their homes is planned to start on Boxing day.

THE ARTS

  Ethnic Minority Support
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what measures he has taken to promote the arts and culture of black and Asian British people.

  Mr. Luce
  I fully support the Arts Council's action plan for ethnic minority arts, which provides for a minimum of 4 per cent. of the council's expenditure to be committed in this field.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many ethnic minority musicians or musical organisations the Arts Council funded on a revenue or annual basis in 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  Fourteen organisations.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of total Arts Council expenditure was spent on ethnic minority arts in 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council report on ethnic minority arts, due in the new year, will show the exact proportion.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many ethnic minority film, video and broadcasting projects were funded on a revenue basis by the Arts Council in 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  Seven.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following his recent arts settlement announcement following the Autumn Statement.
  34
  Mr. Luce
  The arts organisations which I sponsor welcomed my three-year funding strategy and its recent extension to 1991–92, and they are responding positively to the opportunities which the strategy presents.

  Incentive Funding Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many Liverpool arts projects, funded by Merseyside Arts Association, have made applications to the Arts Council under the incentive funding scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  Three Liverpool organisations funded by Merseyside Arts applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding; one of these receives the majority of its funding from the Arts Council.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many west midlands arts companies, currently funded by the West Midland Arts Association have applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding.

  Mr. Luce
  A total of 14 organisations funded by West Midlands Arts applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding; three of these are also funded by the Arts Council.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many arts organisations in(a) Oxford and (b) the area covered by the Southern Arts Association, who are currently clients of Southern Arts, have applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding.

  Mr. Luce
  Six organisations funded by Southern Arts applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding; one of these receives joint funding; none are Oxford organisations.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many arts companies in Wales, currently funded by the Welsh Arts Council, have applied to the Arts Council of Great Britain for help under the incentive funding scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  Thirteen.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many arts organisations in Leeds who are clients of the Yorkshire Arts Association have applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding.

  Mr. Luce
  Four.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the photographic organisations who have applied to the Arts Council for help under the incentive funding scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  Eight applications were made by the following organisations:

  Blackfriars Photography Project;

  Cambridge Darkroom;

  Camerawork;

  Creative Camera;

  F Stop Photography;

  Photographers' Gallery;

  The Photography Workshop; and

  The Untitled Gallery.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many arts companies who are clients of Northern Arts have applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding.
  35
  Mr. Luce
  A total of 13 organisations funded by Northern Arts applied to the Arts Council for incentive funding; three of these are jointly funded by the Arts Council and Northern Arts.

  Young People (Books and Plays)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will run a competition for contemporary authors of books and plays for young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  This is a very interesting idea which I hope might be taken up. I am concerned to increase access to the arts; encouraging young people is an important part of this.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many new museums and galleries have been opened in the last 12 months; and how many are expected to open in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Luce
  The Museums Association database indicates that at July this year there were 2,400 museums and galleries in the United Kingdom, and that 10 per cent. of those had opened since 1982, a rate of about 40 per year. There is every indication that interest in the creation of new and specialist museums continues.

  Initiatives and Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish a table listing all the initiatives and schemes launched by(a) the Office of Arts and Libraries and (b) the Arts Council in each of the last three years the administration of which has not been devolved to regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  No. The Arts Council's annual reports for 1986–87 and 1987–88, its three-year plan and awards and schemes folder for 1988–89 have been placed in the Library. The council operates only schemes which are essentially national in character. The Office of Arts and Libraries administer only the business sponsorship incentive scheme and the arts marketing scheme.

  Regional Arts Associations
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans the Arts Council has to devolve the responsibility for more clients to the regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council constantly reviews the division of responsibility between itself and the regional arts associations.

  Arts (Economic Importance)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the findings of the report entitled "The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain", from the Policy Studies Institute.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 19 October at column 879.

  Mappa Mundi
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will use his powers to prevent the departure from the United Kingdom of the Hereford Mappa Mundi in the event of its purchase by a buyer who seeks to export it.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have given this afternoon to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Should a sale prove necessary, and an application for an export licence be made, this will be dealt with under our existing procedures. I cannot anticipate decisions on export applications.

  Welsh Arts Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chair of the Welsh Arts Council and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council on 9 November when we discussed matters of mutual concern.

  Dramatic Arts
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to visit a drama college to discuss funding of the dramatic arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I visited the Guildford school of acting and dance on Friday 18 November. I have no plans to visit other drama colleges at present.

  Statues
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will encourage the erection of statues to prominent public figures of the past in inner cities.

  Mr. Luce
  I see this as a matter for local communities to decide.

  Rural Arts Centres
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has visited any rural arts centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have visited the Piers art centre in the Orkneys and the Brewery arts centre in Kendal and the Eden court theatre in Inverness this year; I have previously visited the Beaford centre in the hon. Member's constituency and also met its director in my office this year; all are good examples of arts centres which make a vital contribution to the life of rural communities. In March this year I visited the Newent library which doubles as an arts venue for small scale performances.

  Library Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if his Department has undertaken any research into the link between the quality and availability of free library services and the needs of the unemployed or low-waged undertaking part-time study.

  Mr. Luce
  No. Some research in this area has been supported by the British Library research and development department.

  Touring
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what moneys for touring have been set aside by the Arts Council for the next financial year.

  Mr. Luce
  I have made £6 million available for incentive funding and additional touring in the United Kingdom in 1989–90. The Arts Council will be determining the precise allocation of this sum in due course. In the current financial year the sum set aside for additional touring is £1·5 million.

  Private Funding
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the current level of private funding for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 30 November 1988]: There are no precise figures available, but the most important source of private funding for the arts remains the box office. The PSI report on the economic importance of the arts indicates a figure of some £433 million spent on admission to arts venues (museums and galleries; built heritage; theatres and concerts; and cinemas). In addition, business sponsorship brings in around £30 million annually to the arts and I expect this figure to grow in the future. Information is not held centrally on private donations but evidence suggests that some are substantial.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Subjects (Murder)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects were murdered in foreign countries in 1986, 1987 and 1988 to date, by country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Not all deaths of British citizens who die overseas, whether in suspicious or other circumstances, are reported to British consular officers. However, according to records held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 80 British citizens have been murdered, or are suspected to have been murdered, overseas between 1 January 1986 and 30 November 1988. The breakdown by year and country is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Afghanistan

  —

  1

  —

  Antigua

  —

  —

  1

  Australia

  —

  4

  —

  Belgium

  —

  1

  —

  Bermuda

  —

  —

  1

  Botswana

  —

  1

  —

  Canada

  1

  —

  1

  Colombia

  1

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  1

  Djibouti

  —

  1

  —

  Dominican

  Republic

  —

  1

  —

  France

  3

  1

  —

  Germany

  (Federal Republic)

  2

  1

  1

  Greece

  1

  1

  —

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  1

  Israel

  1

  1

  —

  Jamaica

  1

  —

  —

  Jerusalem

  1

  —

  —

  38

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Kenya

  —

  —

  1

  Malta

  —

  —

  1

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  1

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  2

  Philippines

  1

  2

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  1

  1

  South Africa

  2

  1

  1

  Spain

  3

  3

  3

  St. Lucia

  —

  —

  1

  Sudan

  —

  —

  5

  Thailand

  —

  1

  3

  Turkey

  —

  1

  1

  Uganda

  —

  2

  —

  USA

  2

  3

  3

  Zaire

  —

  1

  —

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  —

  TOTAL:

  20

  29

  31

  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he intends to give to the recent urgent representations from Miss Lydia Dunn, senior member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, concerning the situation of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are urgently considering, with the Home Secretary, all aspects of the problem, including those raised by Miss Dunn. The reply will inter alia emphasise the priority that we attach to achieving a comprehensive solution to the problem as soon as possible and the considerable efforts that we are devoting to this end.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese refugees there are currently in Hong Kong; and what are the comparable figures for the same period in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 30 November there were 25,197 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, of whom 15,323 were refugees. Figures at the end of November since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  People

  1979

  53,236

  1980

  23,980

  1981

  13,135

  1982

  12,787

  1983

  12,950

  1984

  12,254

  1985

  9,577

  1986

  8,047

  1987

  9,331

  Iraqi Diplomats (Expulsion)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the reasons for the recent expulsion of Iraqi diplomats; and if he will place in the Library any copies of correspondence with the ambassador.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 18 October we requested the withdrawal of three diplomats from the Iraqi embassy and served an exclusion order on a fourth, all for activities
  39
  incompatible with their status. It has been the invariable practice of successive Governments not to comment on details of security and intelligence matters.

  Palestine
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the decisions taken at the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers, the Government will now seek a meeting at the highest level with the Palestine Liberation Organisation in order to advance the peace process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We keep contact at official level with the PLO, which is aware that it must remove ambiguities in certain of its policies if further and wider contact is to be considered.

  Namibia
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what specific steps are being taken by his Department to establish in Namibia a system which will protect the rights and freedoms of the different ethnic and social groups in that country following its independence;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to promote the adoption of a pre-independence constitution in Namibia in order to protect the rights of minority ethnic and social groups following independence;

  (3) if he will make a statement outlining his policy on and involvement in those current efforts in Namibia which are designed to bring about national reconciliation and a pre-independence constitution;

  (4) if he will make it his policy to discuss with leaders of all the different ethnic and political groupings in Namibia the possibility of bringing about in that country national reconciliation and a pre-independence constitution.

  (5) what steps he is taking to ensure that ethnic and social groups other than SWAPO continue to be represented in the Government of Namibia following independence.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to support Namibian independence on the basis of the UN plan endorsed by Security Council resolution 435. We are satisfied that the existing provisions of the plan, in particular the constitutional principles agreed in 1982, provide sufficient safeguards for all ethnic and social groups in Namibia. The UN plan also provides for a transition period before independence in which an elected assembly will draw up a constitution.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on any diplomatic steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about an end to hostilities between the Government of Ethiopia and the guerrilla fighters in Tigray and Eritrea.

  Mrs. Chalker
  When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the Ethiopian Foreign Minister on 11 September, he urged him to seek a negotiated settlement based on genuine regional autonomy. In the declaration on the Horn of Africa issued on 24 October, we and our EC partners called for such a settlement.

  Khmer Rouge
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent the Khmer Rouge from occupying Kampuchea's seat in the United Nations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We see no reason to change our present policy, shared by the great majority of United Nations members, of supporting retention of Democratic Kampuchea's credentials at the United Nations. This policy signifies neither recognition of the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, nor support for the Khmer Rouge.

  Convention Against Torture
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the United Nations convention against torture; and whether the relevant declarations under article 21 and article 22 of this convention will also be made in order fully to recognise the competence of the committee against torture.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We intend to ratify the United Nations convention against torture later this month. We are still considering what reservations/declarations we shall need to submit.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many former residents of Zimbabwe now resident in the United Kingdom are affected by the exchange controls imposed by the Government of Zimbabwe; and what action he proposes to take to assist such people to regain control of their funds.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We cannot be sure of the number of former residents of Zimbabwe now resident in the United Kingdom who are affected by the existing controls. In their exchange control regulations the Zimbabwe authorities have made provision for special consideration of individual cases on hardship grounds. Whenever appropriate, we continue to make representations on individual cases in order to take advantage of this provision. I raised a number of cases with Zimbabwe Ministers during my visit there last month.

EMPLOYMENT

  Worker Representatives
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current European Economic Community discussions on worker representatives on the boards of companies; and whether such measures fall to be dealt with under the majority voting procedures set out in the Single Act.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government are opposed to European Community proposals which would require statutory employee participation as such participation is more effective on a voluntary basis. The only relevant European Community proposal currently under discussion for which a legal base has been proposed is the fifth company law directive. The proposed legal base would entail qualified majority voting.

  Coal Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations regarding the accident rate of companies contracted to British Coal; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received no direct representations on this subject. However, accident trends are regularly discussed at meetings between British Coal, trade unions and Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines and quarries and the proposed new legislation to replace the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 is intended to improve safety standards for all persons employed at mines, including contractors.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total of underground fatal and major accidents among(a) British Coal employees and (b) employees of companies contracted to British Coal.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is tabled for the years 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  British Coal employees

  Fatal

  13

  8

  Major injuries

  727

  560

  Contracted employees

  Fatal

  —

  1

  Major injuries

  45

  52

  Source: British Coal. Accidents reported under the Reporting of Incidents, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations 1985 do not distinguish between British Coal Corporation employees and those of contractors.

  Redundancy Payments (Women)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether legislation will be introduced this session to increase the age limit up to which women can receive a statutory redundancy payment from 60 to 65 years, as announced by the Minister of State on 29 October 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  Yes. The proposal is included in the Employment Bill.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourism development action programmes were established in the last two years; and where.

  Mr. Lee
  During this period 12 new tourism development action programmes have been established covering the following areas: Bridlington, Carlisle, Cornwall, Forest of Dean, Isle of Wight, Lancaster, Nottingham, Norwich, Portsmouth, Shropshire, Torbay and Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the numbers of hotels and tourism-related establishments that have benefited from receiving section 4 grants in the year 1987 and the amounts of those grants as applied through each tourist board region.

  Mr. Lee
  Offers of section 4 assistance by regional tourist board region for 1978–88 are given in the table. Figures for the 1987 calendar year could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.42

  Tourist board

  Number of Projects

  Total value of S4 offers (£ thousand

  Cumbria

  39

  469

  East Anglia

  34

  502

  East Midlands

  31

  759

  Heart of England

  47

  1,049

  London

  12

  1,030

  Northumbria

  26

  1,480

  North West

  73

  2,062

  South East England

  44

  1,221

  Southern

  52

  922

  Thames and Chilterns

  30

  880

  West Country

  157

  3,125

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  64

  1,346

  Total

  609

  14,845

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Terry Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government will ratify International Labour Organisation convention 161 and recommendation 177 on occupational health services.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding reply 2 December 1988]: The Government have deferred a decision on whether to ratify International Labour Organisation convention 161 and to accept recommendation 171 on occupational health services for a period of three years because of anticipated developments in this field. At the end of that time we expect to receive further advice from the Health and Safety Commission.

SCOTLAND

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent on research into(a) mental disorders and (b) schizophrenia in the last year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figure for research into mental disorders funded by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1987–88 is £176,300. Of this amount £21,950 is for projects specifically related to schizophrenia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he gives any guidance to mental illness hospitals on the retention of patients whose condition is unlikely to improve similar to the other advice contained in the Department of Health's policy paper on mental illness services, Cmnd. 9674; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Decisions about the treatment of individual patients involve issues of clinical judgment. Nearly all NHS mental illness hospitals in Scotland have facilities for those patients who require long-term care in conditions of medium security. My right hon. and learned Friend has not issued any specific guidance in this area.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community psychiatric nurses there have been in Scotland in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally, but arrangements are under discussion to make it available for the first time next year.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of members of staff employed for emergency planning in district authorities whose salary costs are funded either wholly or partly by Scottish Office civil defence grant.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no such district council posts which are funded by civil defence grant.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of staff are employed by each regional and island authority(a) as emergency planning officers and (b) as emergency planning team administrative and support staff.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is in respect of grant-aided emergency planning posts. The number of staff employed by regional and islands authorities in such posts at 30 September was as follows:

  Region or Islands Authority

  Emergency Planning Officers

  Clerical/Support Staff

  Borders Region

  4

  1

  Central Region

  4

  2

  Fife Region

  4

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  4

  2

  Grampian Region

  3

  2

  Highland Region

  6

  2

  Lothian Region

  5

  2

  Strathclyde Region

  11

  5

  Tayside Region

  5

  2½

  Orkney Islands

  2

  0

  Shetland Islands

  1

  1

  Western Isles

  1

  0

  TOTAL

  50

  20½

  YTS
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many YTS places are currently available in the Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway area.

  Year to 31 March

  3Science budget

  Public sector commissions

  Staff total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  £K (cash figures)

  1988

  1,347

  394

  67·5

  64·5

  3

  1987

  1,378

  544

  72·5

  70·5

  2

  1986

  1,256

  472

  78

  75

  3

  1985

  1,024

  655

  84

  82

  2

  1984

  1,001

  628

  92

  88

  4

  1983

  860

  772

  101

  95

  6

  1982

  1,037

  783

  98

  92

  6

  1981

  990

  456

  100

  95

  5

  1980

  906

  1—

  101

  101

  0

  1979

  817

  —

  99

  98

  1

  1978

  540

  —

  95

  94

  1

  1977

  418

  —

  96

  94

  2

  1976

  618

  2—

  100

  94

  6

  1975

  557

  —

  103

  97

  6

  1 Separate figures for public funds are not available prior to the year ending March 1981. The total from public and private funds was (£K): 1980, 399; 1979, 383; 1978, 268; 1977, 264.

  2Information on commissions prior to the year ending March 1976 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  3 Includes Capital Expenditure.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government's target of 33,000 hectares of new planting per year has been met to date.
  44
  Mr. Lang
  On 11 November 1988, the latest date for which information is available, there were 1,172 unfilled YTS places in the Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway area.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will investigate the disappearance of pacemakers from Greater Glasgow health board with a view to proceedings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This matter is being investigated by Strachclyde police and a report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal, Glasgow in due course.

  Marine Biology
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the main research projects on marine biology carried out in the North sea by Scottish research institutes and laboratories for each year since 1974; and if he will list those projects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not collected or held by the Department. Details of research carried out by the DAFS marine laboratory, Aberdeen, have been given in its triennial reports for the period 1973–84 and annual reports for 1985–86 and 1986–87. I am arranging for copies of these reports to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is, for each year since 1974, the amount of public funds given to the Scottish Marine Biology Association and its laboratory at Dunstaffnage.

  (2) what is the number of staff in full-time and part-time jobs in the marine laboratory at Dunstaffnage for each year since 1975.

  Mr.Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follow:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's target has not yet been met. However, some 29,000
  45
  hectares of new planting was achieved in the year to 31 March 1988, and the figure for the current year is expected to be of the same order.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government are taking to ensure that long-term confidence in both the forestry and wood processing industries is not adversely affected by low planting levels.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have made clear their continued support for the expansion of the forestry industry, and substantial grants are available under the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme. A close watch will be kept on planting trends.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the 70,000 hectares estimated by the Forestry Commission to have been cleared for planting under the previous taxation/grants scheme will be fully utilised.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the transitional arrangements announced on 15 March 1988 by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tax reliefs will continue to be available until 1993 in respect of planting approved under those Forestry Commission grant schemes which have been closed to new applications. The amount of such planting that actually takes place will depend on the decisions of a large number of individual landowners.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will list the total number of hectares:(a) approved for planting under the woodland grant scheme in each of the Forestry Commission conservancy areas and (b) awaiting approval for planting under the woodland grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows, covering the period from the 15 June 1988, when the woodland grant scheme was first opened to applications, to 31 October 1988:

  Conservancy

  Area approved for planting (including replanting) under the Scheme (hectares)

  Area awaiting approval for planting (including replanting)under the Scheme (hectares)

  North England

  207

  1,366

  East England

  106

  3,055

  West England

  226

  1,330

  Wales

  302

  675

  North Scotland

  2,262

  5,727

  Mid Scotland

  751

  2,894

  South Scotland

  344

  4,782

  Totals

  4,198

  19,829

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988 No. 1207) on applications for grant aid for new forestry planting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An environmental assessment is intended to provide information that will be helpful in deciding on the likely effects of a forestry proposal on the environment, and the need for one should not be taken as indicating a presumption against 46
  afforestation. The number of assessments called for is unlikely to be large, and the regulations are not expected to have a significant effect on the level of applications for planting grants.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the Government's main objectives contained in the report forwarded to the European Commission in terms of Council regulation (EEC) No. 3528/86.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reports are submitted annually by member states to enable the European Commission to obtain a picture of tree health throughout the Community, and to provide data on a consistent basis for the situation to be monitored from year to year.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of hectares of forest lost or damaged by(a) atomospheric pollution and (b) natural phenomena since 1980 in each of the Forestry Commission conservancy areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  (a) The Forestry Commission has conducted nationwide surveys of forests since 1984 in order to assess tree health in relation to air pollution. The surveys rely mainly on the criterion of "crown density" as a measure of tree condition because no loss of forest areas has been observed in Britain which can be ascribed specifically to air pollution. The results of the latest surveys are contained in a report which was published by the Commission on 1 December copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House.

  (b) Certain insects can damage forest trees. by far the largest cause of loss being the pine beauty moth which has killed or severely damaged 263 hectares of Lodgepole pine in North Scotland Conservancy since 1980. Wind damage is another cause of tree loss, but the only significant forest windblow since 1980 has been in East. England Conservancy where some 16,000 hectares of woodland were blown down by the October 1987 storm.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the environmental safeguards which apply to the location of forestry, as stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries, Official Report, 17 March, columns 670-1.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme places emphasis on the need for planting to be carried out in an environmentally sensitive way. Applicants are required to give proper attention to landscaping, wildlife conservation, the management of water courses and the protection of ancient monuments, as appropriate. Every planting proposal is carefuly scrutinised by the Forestry Commission with such aspects in mind, and the existing consultation arrangements also provide a safeguard, particularly for areas of special environmental importance. In addition, the Commission may call for an environmental assessment for those proposals which they consider are likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements whereby the Forestry Commission pays the domestic rates of its tied cottages; and if he will make a statement.
  47
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission follows the Civil Service pay and conditions code in the rent charged for its key houses (tied cottages). These rents include an element to cover general and water rates. Tenants of key houses pay a standard rent in respect of their tenancy and the commission pays the general and water rates.

  Schools
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish schools he expects will opt out of local authority control.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The legislation we are to introduce will enable parents generally to opt for self-governing status for their schools. Recent polls suggest that a significant number will welcome the opportunity offered by this measure.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from parents, teachers or educational organisations concerning the likely effects of primary school testing upon remedial pupils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A number of respondents to the consultation paper "Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland: a Policy for the 90s" referred to the position of pupils with special educational needs. As the consultation paper makes clear it will be for education authorities, in consultation with parents, to decide whether pupils recorded as having special educational needs would benefit from participation in the tests.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures showing the numbers of primary schools in Scotland currently undertaking their own schemes of assessment for English and mathematics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Assessment is an integral part of teaching and my right hon. and learned Friend would expect some form of assessment in these subjects to be carried out in every primary school. Current policy is designed to improve the quality of consistency of that assessment.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the curricula guidelines which he intends to introduce for Scottish primary schools in those subjects apart from English and mathematics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum to review existing guidance in each subject area and, where appropriate, to develop revised guidelines. their reports are expected to be completed by the end of 1990.

  Further Education
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has received from industry concerning funding of the proposed technology academies in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have already announced our welcome for the decision by Trusthouse Forte to contribute £1·5 million to sponsor the first technology academy in Scotland.

  In addition to this commitment, we have received a number of very positive approaches from the private sector. These are being treated in confidence at this stage.

  Mrs. Ray Mitchie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students who are studying at Scottish universities, central institutions and colleges of education and who are in receipt of an SED award take(a) three years or less to complete their degree, (b) four years to complete their degree, (c) five years to complete their degree and (d) six or more years to complete their degree; and what proportion of female students are in each category.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Roads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the road traffic accidents involving injury or death on the Al in Scotland for the past three years, giving the date, location and extent of injury for each accident.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is being collected and will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish his Department's report on A roads south of Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect to receive the technical report from the consulting engineer in January.

  Thereafter, I intend to make a statement on its findings and on our proposed way ahead. There will then be a period for comment before we reach final decisions.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chairman of Lothian health board on the future provision of acute hospital services and accident and emergency services in east Lothian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board is currently reviewing its acute service and accident and emergency needs and, following public consultation, proposals covering future requirements throughout the area of the board will be submitted to the Secretary of State. Public consultation is planned for early next year.

  Cockenzie Power Station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on the board's policy for the operation of Cockenzie power station, including the estimated coalburn for each of the next three years, the current stock of coal at Cockenzie, and the origin of that stock and of future supplies.

  Mr. Lang
  No, the operation of Cockenzie power station is a commercial matter for the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I have, however, asked the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Coal Industry (Employment)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on future trends in the level of employment in the coal industry in the Lothian region.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of jobs in the coal industry depends on several factors, including the reduction of costs to competitive levels.

ENERGY

  Berkeley Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when reactor I at Berkeley power station was last refuelled.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The last refuelling of reactor 1 was between the dates given in my reply to the hon. Member on 14 November 1988 at column 425.

  Esturial Barrages
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the feasibility studies being carried out into barrages across United Kingdom estuaries for schemes to produce electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department of Energy is supporting feasibility studies of tidal energy barrages on the Severn, Mersey and Loughor estuaries, with two other possibilities under consideration.

  Standing Charges (Pensioners)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation to provide that pensioners will be exempted from paying standing charges on their power bills in line with consumers who use solid fuel for heating purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Sellafield (Discharges)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what was the discharge of total alpha activity to the sea from Sellafield in (i) 1974 and (ii) the latest available year;

  (2) what was the discharge of total beta activity to the sea from Sellafield in (i) 1974 and (ii) the latest available year.
  50
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Discharges to sea from Sellafield in 1974 and 1987 (the latest available year) were as follows:

  TBq

  1974

  1987

  Alpha

  170

  2·2

  Beta

  7,200

  89

  Further reductions in discharge levels are expected in the early 1990s upon completion of BNFL's effluent treatment plant investment programme.

  Bristol Channel (Oil Exploration)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the findings of the oil exploration activities carried out in the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  To date the results of hydrocarbon exploration in the Bristol channel and adjacent waters have been disappointing with no discoveries of either oil or gas.

  West Burton B
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to annouce his final decision on the West Burton B power station in Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 3 November at column 713.

  Arkwright Colliery
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he will make it his policy to hold discussions with British Coal regarding the escape of methane gas at Arkwright colliery with a view to ensuring that British Coal accepts total liability for claims made by the families and others concerned;

  (2) what recent inquiries he has made of British Coal regarding payments of compensation to families and others affected by the escape of methane gas at Arkwright colliery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Coal. However it has kept me regularly informed of the situation at Arkwright, following the emission of methane. I understand that British Coal has already made a £100 ex gratia interim payment to all the families who had to be evacuated. This is an advance against the settlement of reasonable future claims, which British Coal has agreed to pay on a "good neighbour" basis. Legal liability is ultimately at matter for the courts to decide.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the contribution that the financial management initiative has made to securing value for money in public expenditure.

  Mr. Brooke
  The financial management initiative is seeking to improve the basis on which resources are managed by Departments. I regret that it is not possible to quantify the contribution that it is making to improving
  51
  value for money, nor to distinguish that contribution from the effect of other actions to increase the efficiency with which resources are used. There is however general agreement that the FMI has made a significant impact by clarifying responsibilities, securing a greater awareness of costs and by providing a framework for other reforms.

  The "Next Steps" initiative, which the Prime Minister announced on 18 February 1988 at column 1149, builds on and carries forward the principles of the FMI in relation to executive functions. The Government remain committed to maintaining the momentum of their overall programme for improving value for money.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper on measures to deal with recruitment into the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  There are no plans to issue a White Paper on Civil Service recruitment. My Department keeps Civil Service recruitment policies under continuous review, to ensure that they are responsive to changes in both the needs of Departments and in the general labour market, bearing in mind the need to ensure value for money.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on monitoring of the costs of Civil Service computer projects.

  Mr. Brooke
  Individual Departments are responsible for monitoring the costs of their computer projects to ensure financial propriety and value for money.

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had concerning the abolition of capital allowances from guest houses and small hotels.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Capital allowances have not been abolished. Annual writing down allowances remain available for construction costs of guest houses and small hotels which satisfy certain minimum criteria and for capital expenditure on machinery or plant for business use. Rates of allowance now correspond more close with rates of commercial depreciation. A number of representations have been received from the hotel industry about the withdrawal of incentive first year and initial allowances.

  Tax Office, Londonderry (Explosion)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details in the Official Report as to the extent of the disruption caused to the collection of taxes and to tax records as a result of the recent explosion in the tax offices in Londonderry; and whether any delays in the collection of taxes will result.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There was a temporary disruption to normal working in the tax and collection offices in Londonderry while alternative premises were being made ready.
  52
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of repairing the damage caused to the Inland Revenue building in Londonderry by the recent terrorist explosion there.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The building itself is beyond repair. Other arrangements to accommodate staff and work for the time being have been made.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on what proposals he has for making PEP's more attractive to the investing public.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The scheme is kept under review.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the number of pensioners liable for income tax in the current year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates are available for single people aged 65 and over and married couples in which one or both members are aged 65 and over. In 1988–89, 2·6 million of these tax units are liable to income tax, approximately one third of all aged tax units. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Secret Services (Expenditure)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the expenditure on the secret services vote for each previous year for which figures are available taking 1988–89 as 100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Outturn figures are published in the annual appropriation accounts. The figures for the secret service vote for the last five years in the form requested are:

  £million

  1983–84

  62·4

  1984–85

  66·3

  1985–86

  71·4

  1986–87

  81·1

  1987–88

  91·7

  Note: Based on 1988–89 Estimates provision of £113·2 million = 100.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which headings other than class XX vote 3 Cabinet Office: Secret Services, expenditure on the secret services is accounted for.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the interests of national security, successive Governments have declined to publish the information requested.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report the relevant allowances referred to in annex 7 of Cmnd. 9756 in each case in terms of local currency and as a percentage of average adult male earnings or the nearest available equivalent together with the marginal and

  53
  average rates of tax for single persons and one-earner married couples with such earnings; and if he will add (a) the average and marginal rates for a two-earner married couple where the wife's earnings are the average for an adult female and (b) the amount of child benefit or child allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the level of tax thresholds and on the marginal rates of tax in some of the countries mentioned in annex 7 of Cmnd. 9756 is published in the Inland Revenue's note "International Comparisons of Direct Tax on Employment Income" a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current married man's tax threshold as a percentage of adult manual workers' average earnings currently as calculated in chart 2.4 of Cmnd. 9756; and what is his latest estimate of the number of families who would now receive at least 80 per cent. of their present income if they did not work at all.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988–89, the married man's tax allowance is 37·3 per cent. of average adult manual earnings. The number of families who would receive at least 80 per cent. of their current income if they did not work is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what respect his latest proposals for separate taxation of husbands and wives differ in principle from those given in paragraph 3.4 of Cmnd. 9756; and what is the gain or loss to the Revenue from the change at current tax and allowance levels.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information about the new system of independent taxation for husband and wife and its costs is given in the Financial Statement and Budget report 1988–89, pages 39 and 46.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net gain or loss to the Revenue from(a) reducing the standard rate of income tax by 5p, (b) raising the ceiling for means-tested income support by 25 per cent. and (c) increasing the state pension by 10 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue cost in a full year, at 1989–90 income levels of a 5p reduction in the basic rate of tax is about £7·5 billion. If introduced for 1989–90 the change would reduce tax receipts by about £7 billion in that year. A 10 per cent. increase in the basic state pension would lead to an increase of about £2 billion in the amount of pensions paid in 1989–90. An estimate of the cost of increasing the level of income support could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has come to a decision on the option in paragraph 4.16 of Cmnd. 9756 of restricting the additional personal income tax allowance to those in receipt of one-parent and other appropriate benefits; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing what the effect of such a change would be in terms of the number of allowances claimed and the savings to the Revenue;
  54
  (2) if he has come to a decision on the option in paragraph 4.15 Cmnd. 9756 of converting the additional personal income tax allowance into increased social security provision; and if he will provide an estimate of (a) the amount of revenue which could be transferred to the social security budget in this way and (b) what increase in benefits would be required to ensure that nobody is worse off as a result of the change.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Section 30 of the Finance Act 1988 changed the rules for the additional personal allowance so that from April 1989 unmarried couples with children will be able to quality for only one additional personal allowance between them. No consequential changes in social security benefits were made and there are no plans for further changes in the allowance.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax reliefs are available towards the costs of company employees studying for vocational or professional qualifications in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on such allowances in France and West Germany.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 ,November 1988]: There are tax reliefs for employees' job-related training which exempt from income tax training costs met by employers and by employees themselves provided certain conditions are satisfied. Last year we were able to introduce a new relief for employees whose employers pay for the cost of retraining in new skills and for self-employment.

  Details of the tax reliefs for training available in France and Germany, together with those of a number of other major industrial countries, including the United Kingdom, are available in a report published last May by the PICKUP programme of the Department of Education and Science. I believe that my hon. Friend already has a copy.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of the mortgage taken out by the median mortgagor claiming mortgage interest relief, the increase since May in the rate of interest, the amount of interest payable in a full year, and the total amount of relief at the standard rate payable in a full year at the standard rate of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988–89 the estimated median mortgage is £22,000. The mortgage interest rate has increased since May from 9·75 per cent. to 12·75 per cent.; and increase of three percentage points. The gross amount of interest payable in a full year at 1988–89 levels by the median mortgagor is £2,550; the amount of relief at the basic rate of income tax is £640 leaving a net interest payment of £1,910 in 1988–89.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers in employees' national insurance contributions; and what would be the gain to the Revenue by removing the upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The top 5 per cent. of taxpayers, including employees and the self-employed, are provisionally estimated to pay about £1·4 billion in national
  55
  insurance contributions in 1988–89. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 31 October at columns 500-01 for the Revenue effect of abolishing the upper earnings limit.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to extend the proposed married couples' income tax allowance to single parents in the form of an additional personal income tax allowance when separate taxation of husbands and wives is introduced in 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The additional personal allowance for those with single-handed responsibility for children will continue to be available after independent taxation is introduced in April 1990. The additional personal allowance and the new married couple's allowance will be equal in value.

  Deposit Takers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) banks, (b) building societies and (c) other licensed depositors the percentage of advances to gross deposits together with the percentage held in, respectively, cash, call money and discounts, special deposits and investments; and if he will provide corresponding figures for 1958, 1968, 1976 and 1978.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is available as follows:

  a. for Banks—in various issues of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, (Table 3.1 in the latest edition).
  No figures are available for 1958.

  b. for Building Societies—in the BSA (Building Societies Association) Bulletin, Table 6, and also in Financial Statistics, Table 7.7. Figures for earlier years are available in "A Compendium of Building Society Statistics", published by the Building Societies Association.

  c. for other deposit takers—no separate information is available.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the yield from capital gains tax on the sale of shares in unquoted companies for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Receipts in 1987–88 from capital gains tax from individuals and trusts were £1,380 million. It is estimated that 40 to 50 per cent. was derived from ordinary shares quoted on the United Kingdom stock exchange, about 20 per cent. from other shares and securities, and the rest from other property. I regret that finer analyses to isolate the yield from the sale of shares in unquoted companies are not available. Analyses are not available for the yield within corporation tax from gains on the sales of such shares by companies.

  Fraud
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the detection of fraud by the Inland Revenue; and what tax has been recovered by such fraud investigations in the last financial year for which figures are available.
  56
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since 1979 more Inland Revenue resources have been deployed, not just on fraud detection but on tax investigation work generally. This, together with improved case selection and working methods, has increased the yield—tax, interest and penalties—from such compliance work from £111 million in 1979 to £877 million in 1987–88. In the year to 31 March 1988 tax of £495 million was recovered through fraud investigations.

  EEC (Overdraft Loans)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining the powers which are available to the European Economic Community to seek overdraft loans from member states; and under what powers such demands have been met by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Commission is empowered to request overdraft facilities under article 12(2) of Council regulation 2891/77. This article allows the Commission to overdraw its accounts with member states to meet a prospective cash deficit. The member states share the overdraft in proportion to the estimated budget revenue due from each of them.

  Member states are legally obliged to comply with properly constituted requests under article 12(2). The Government therefore meet such requests directly from the Consolidated Fund in accordance with article 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. Repayment of any drawing under the overdraft facility is made by deduction from future own resources payments. The article 12(2) facility does not affect the total amount which the Community is authorised to spend during the year.

  EEC (IGA Payments)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the IGA payments failed to be made in consequence of the recent European Council decision; what member states have failed to make the necessary payments; what sums are involved; and if such member states are obliged in terms of the agreement to pay interest on late payments.

  Mr. Brooke
  Member states are not obliged to make payments under the 1988 IGA until they have obtained the necessary approval from their national legislatures. This means that there is no fixed date on which the initial payments are due. Information relating to the timing of payments by individual member states is not generally available. There is no explicit provision in the IGA for interest charges. It would be for the Commission to consider whether to claim interest in the event of any default.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government agreed to make an advance payment to the EEC of their non-value added tax own resources because of the EEC's cash flow problems created by the non-payment of IGA by certain member states; what other member states were invited to make such advance payments; and under what powers the EEC has asked for such facilities from individual states.

  Mr. Brooke
  The last date on which the Government made an advance payment of non-VAT own resources was 21 November. At that time the Commission was
  57
  experiencing cash flow difficulties because most member states, including the United Kingdom, had not paid their contributions under the IGA. The Government were satisfied that the Commission's request for this advance—as for advances made earlier in the year—complied with article 10(2) of Council regulations 2891/77. All such requests are made simultaneously to all member states; none is singled out.

  EEC (Expenditure)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the expenditure authorised in the EEC budget for the EEC's current financial year; what measures have been introduced to prevent the EEC from overspending its budget by means of seeking advance payments under regulation 2891/77 or in delaying payments to member states which would normally fall to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The 1988 budget, as amended, provides for expenditure of 43,820 mecu (around £29,213 million). In its amending letter to the 1989 preliminary draft budget the Commission estimates that there will be underspending of some 1,300 mecu (around £867 million) in 1988. Advance payments made under article 10(2) of regulation 2891/77 do not increase the total amount which the Community is authorised to spend in any given year. The Brussels European Council in February agreed on measures to improve budgetary management and to strengthen the principle of annuality.

  Industrial and Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of(a) industrial investment and (b) manufacturing investment in each of the last 20 years, including the latest information for 1988, at current and at 1988 prices.

  Mr. Major
  The information requested is as follows. The latest figures produced by the DTI for investment at constant prices use 1985 as the base year.

  Fixed capital expenditure—£ million current prices

  Industrial investment2

  Manufacturing(including leased assets)1

  1968

  2,717

  1,569

  1969

  3,040

  1,774

  1970

  3,550

  2,090

  1971

  3,835

  2,102

  1972

  2,174

  1,969

  1974

  6,243

  3,062

  1973

  4,984

  2,357

  1975

  6,777

  3,646

  1976

  7,770

  4,146

  1977

  9,593

  5,083

  1978

  11,755

  6,170

  1979

  14,618

  7,154

  1980

  15,719

  7,309

  1981

  15,307

  6,235

  1982

  16,732

  6,521

  1983

  17,372

  6,822

  1984

  20,988

  8,427

  1985

  25,063

  10,265

  1986

  25,735

  9,982

  1987

  30,224

  10,945

  Unadjusted

  1988 Q1

  7,787

  2,889

  58

  Industrial investment2

  Manufacturing (including leased assets)1

  Q2

  8,018

  2,978

  4Q3

  8,360

  3

  1 Separate figures for assets leased to manufacturers were only collected from 1975.

  2 Manufacturing, construction, distribution and financial industries.

  3 Figures for assets leased to manufacturers at current prices not yet available.

  4 Provisional.

  Source:
  Monthly Digest of Statistics (CSO) and British Business:; 25 November 1988.

  Fixed capital expenditure—£ million at 1985 prices

  Industrial investment2

  Manufacturing (including leasted assets1

  1968

  15,499

  9,195

  1969

  16,599

  10,026

  1970

  17,730

  10,808

  1971

  17,352

  9,865

  1972

  16,388

  8,582

  1973

  18,019

  9,178

  1974

  18,933

  10,053

  1975

  16,849

  9,666

  1976

  16,601

  9,263

  1977

  17,778

  9,828

  1978

  19,558

  10,716

  1979

  21,546

  11,157

  1980

  19,892

  9,920

  1981

  17,692

  7,735

  1982

  18,525

  7,603

  1983

  18,751

  7,541

  1984

  22,059

  8,923

  1985

  25,057

  10,259

  1986

  24,697

  9,576

  1987

  27,603

  10,050

  Seasonally adjusted

  1988

  Q1

  7,299

  2,638

  Q2

  8,016

  2,873

  3Q3

  7,529

  2,721

  1 Separate figures for assets leased to manufacturers were only collected from 1975.

  2 Manufacturing, construction, distribution and financial industries.

  3Provisional.

  Source: DTI capital expenditure press notice.

  Inflation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual rate of inflation between March 1974 and May 1979 and for the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The average rate of retail price inflation between March 1974 and May 1979 was 15·5 per cent. per annum. Inflation between October 1983 and October 1988 has averaged 4·9 per cent. per annum.

  Tobacco Tax
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if his Department will be supporting the clauses within the European Community draft directives on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes, to subject all tobacco products to excise levy; and if he will support
  59
  amendments to exempt any specific categories of tobacco products which are currently subject to United Kingdom excise tax;

  (2) what is his policy towards the implementation of the European Community draft directives on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes which would result in a reduction of the retail price of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: We have made it clear that we do not consider the European Commission's proposals for the approximation of indirect taxes to be necessary for the completion of the internal market. As such changes require the unanimous agreement of the member states before becoming law, there is no question of these proposals being forced upon us.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on proposals by the European Commission to end value added tax zero rating on voluntary activities conducted in village halls.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 1 December 1988]: There is no value added tax zero rating for voluntary activities in village halls, as such. What I think my hon. Friend has in mind is the judgment of the European Court of Justice published on 21 June which found that certain of the United Kingdom's zero rates were not permissible under EC VAT law; this may affect goods and services bought by village halls. We have been consulting widely with interested parties, including representatives of village halls, about how best this judgment can be implemented. All the representations that we have received will be taken fully into consideration in reaching decisions. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Family Income
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures showing the net incomes, including family credit, of a married man with two children aged four and six years, where the father's weekly earnings are £100, £150, £200, £250, £300, £400, £500, £750, £1,000 and £2,000, assuming no mortgage or superannuation tax reliefs and in each of the following circumstances(a) existing system, 1988–89, (b) child benefit abolished, £500 million of the savings on child benefit put into family credit and the rest used to finance a further cut in the standard rate of income tax, (c) child benefit abolished, £1,000 million of the savings put into family credit and the rest used to finance a further cut in the standard rate of income tax, and (d) ditto, but with all the savings from child benefit used to finance a further cut in the standard rate of income tax.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 30 November 1988]: The table below shows the net income of a married man with two children aged four and six at the various levels of gross earnings specified. The first column relates to the tax and benefit system in force in 1988–89; the second column reflects the position which would have arisen in 1988–89 if child benefit had been abolished and all of the savings had been used to finance a cut in the basic rate of tax.

  I regret that it is not possible to provide comparable figures under the other two options requested since insufficient information has been provided about the way in which the family credit system would be changed.
  60

  Net weekly income1 (£per week)

  Gross earnings £ per week

  Current tax and benefit regime

  Child benefit abolished and basic rate of tax reduced

  100

  121·02

  118·20

  150

  133·19

  120·54

  200

  166·19

  154·84

  250

  199·19

  189·14

  300

  232·19

  223·44

  400

  306·74

  300·59

  500

  374·22

  369·37

  750

  524·22

  519·37

  1,000

  674·22

  669·37

  2,000

  1,274·22

  1,269·37

  1 Net weekly income equals gross earnings less income tax less national insurance contributions plus child benefit plus family credit plus housing benefits based on the assumption that the family are local authority tenants paying average rent and rates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will adjust the weighting of private sector housing benefit claims to reflect the complexity of the liaison between the local authority and the rent office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Discussions on the allocation of housing benefit administration costs subsidy for 1989–90 are currently taking place between the Department and the local authority associations. It has been agreed in those discussions that the weighting used for private sector housing benefit cases for 1989–90 should not be adjusted to take account of the new rent officer arrangements. For future years, the weighting used will be reconsidered in the light of data on the operation of the new arrangements.

  Stolen Pension Books
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill,Official Report, 28 November, concerning stolen pension books, if he will now reinstate the urgent needs allowances for pensioners left destitute after their pension is stolen.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. A pensioner whose pension has been stolen and is unable to manage until his next payment of pension is due may apply for a crisis loan from the social fund in the same way as can any other person who has had money stolen and has insufficient means to meet their immediate needs.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the projected costs of the computer operational strategy; whether the costs conform to budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his Department's(a) original and (b) latest estimate of the cost of the operational strategy computerisation project;

  (2) what are his Department's (a) latest and (b) original estimates of the annual savings from implementing the operational strategy computerisation project.
  61
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1982 publication "Social Security Operational Strategy: A Framework for the Future", a copy of which is in the Library, provided broad estimates that, at November 1981 prices, the operational strategy would cost £720 million and produce net savings of £1,160 million over the 20 years to 2001–20.

  Our latest estimate, at 1987–88 prices, is that the Department's total investment will be in the order of £1,200 million. These costs have been, and are expected to be, contained within the moneys allocated to the Department annually and as shown in the Public Expenditure White Paper. The strategy is already producing small savings in administration costs and these are expected to rise to around £150 million per annum by 1995.

  These estimates are not directly comparable because the original figures were calculated for a group of projects significantly different in scope and content from those now under development or in operation.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contact has been made with those concerned with the supply to local Department of Social Security offices of computer equipment and software since the social fund was introduced; and what penalty payments manufacturers or suppliers have been required to make because of dissatisfaction with equipment and software.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department maintains regular contact with its suppliers by means of monthly contract meetings. The principal contractor has assigned staff to support the Department and they frequently attend at the development centre. Initial bedding-in problems are not uncommon with new systems and those experienced by the social fund computer systems are now being satisfactorily resolved. No circumstance has arisen in which it has been necessary to consider the imposition of penalty payments.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what complaints he has received from local Department of Social Security offices about the breakdown rate of computers; and how many complaints from Department of Social Security offices in Bradford have been received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A number of complaints have been received from local offices about the social fund microcomputer system. These include instances of system non-availability due to software problems and malfunctions due to hardware faults which do not result in total system failure because of the availability of back-up computers. The release of new software in July 1988 has led to significant reductions in software difficulties.

  Offices in Bradford have reported faults on the computer since April 1988 but none of these has resulted in a complete breakdown in the system.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what complaints he has received about difficulties experienced by local Department of Social Security offices about problems in inputting data about crisis loans into computer systems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A number of complaints were received from local offices in the early stages of the new social fund microcomputer system. These related mainly to the unreliability of the early versions of software. There have been no specific complaints about inputting crisis loans data to the computer system.
  62
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by type and system. microcomputer equipment issued to local Department of Social Security offices; what is the total cost, to date, of supplying such equipment; and in how many cases such equipment has been supplemented or replaced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department uses British Telecom Merlin M4000 microcomputers in its local offices to help with the administration of the social fund and income support. Local offices also use a small number of microcomputers to provide general administrative support. The equipment was supplemented earlier this year to enable the systems to handle the newly introduced income support in place of supplementary benefit, its predecessor benefit. In addition, the part of the system which helps local office staff locate beneficiaries' casepapers is currently being upgraded to provide additional memory and other enhancements. The total costs of these systems to date is £27 million.

  This investment has brought significant improvements in efficiency and has provided local offices with useful computer assistance whilst our mainframe computerisation programme has been under development.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total expenditure on computer consultants in connection with the operational strategy computerisation project.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total expenditure on computer consultants' fees, from April 1982 until March 1988, was £45·455 million.

  Credit Transfer
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the proportion of each of the main benefits paid to recipients by credit transfer over the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information required is shown in the following table:

  Proportion of retirement pensioners and child benefit recipients paid by credit transfer

  Retirement pension per cent.

  Child Benefit per cent.

  December 1984

  8·63

  2·57

  December 1985

  10·75

  4·45

  December 1986

  12·95

  6·30

  December 1987

  14·65

  8·00

  December 1988

  17·30

  11·11

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to promote credit transfer as opposed to post office counter transactions; what budget is allocated to the promotion of credit transfer; what recent representations he has received from the Post Office about the potential effect on the financial viability of rural sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All existing retirement pensioners have been invited by letter to opt for payment by credit transfer. By February 1989 similar invitations will have been sent to all recipients of child benefit. New claimants to retirement pension and child benefit are offered a choice of payment by credit transfer or order book. No specific
  63
  budget is allocated to the promotion of credit transfer. Any such costs are met from the social security publicity budget of £12·77 million for 1988–89. No representations have been received recently from the Post Office about the potential effect of credit transfer on the viability of rural sub post offices.

  Disabled Persons (Lodgings)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will be responsible for meeting the care costs of disabled people in supported lodgings after April 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  From next April people in lodgings, including supported lodgers, will receive normal income support and housing benefit in place of the present special payments of income support which include help with accommodation costs. These changes will mean that many disabled people in supported lodgings will be better-off, after meeting charges for accommodation and the provision of care, than under existing benefit arrangements. Existing claimants who might otherwise lose benefit overall will be given cash protection whilst they remain in a supportive environment. The overall effect will be to provide an estimated £1 million extra for supported lodgers as a whole. There will thus be no overall reduction in the level of help to this group.

  Family Credit
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the reasons why the family credit unit requires audited accounts from self-employed applicants;

  (2) if he has any plans to allow self-employed applicants for family credit to provide documentary evidence other than audited accounts as proof of income.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 19 October at columns 895-96. The Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 4 Regulations 1988 which were laid before Parliament on 14 November to come into force on 5 December remove the requirement that only audited accounts are acceptable. In respect of claims for family credit made on or after 5 December a profit and loss account which has not been audited will be acceptable provided that it covers a period of not less than six months and not more than 15 months and is for a period ending not more than 12 months prior to the date of claim.

  Community Care
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the guidelines set down by his Department for consultation between Social Fund officers or his Department and local authority social services officers for the allocation of community care grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidelines on consultation between the Department and local authority social services and social work departments are contained in paragraphs 1046-1050 of the social fund manual. A copy of the manual is in the Library.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the procedure for social fund officers or his Department to make more community care grant 64
  provisions for people being transferred from health authority accommodation to local authority accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance and directions for the award of community care grants appear in the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The guidance makes it clear that community care grants may be awarded to people being resettled in the community but not to those moving from one form of residential care to another. It also emphasises the importance of liaison between the Department and local authorities.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what manual checks are being made by local Department of Social Security offices on social fund expenditure; when such checks were introduced; and in how many local offices such checks are being made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no prescribed manual checks of social fund expenditure.

  Some local offices may maintain clerical records as an aid to local management but no information is available as to the extent of such unofficial record keeping.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the reliability of social fund data; and what action he has taken to resolve doubts about the reliability of social fund data.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a small number of representations from hon. Members about the reliability of the social fund data. Major budgetary errors were corrected in version five of the social fund software which was issued in July. After release of version six of the software later this month we expect that in general statistical reports will accurately record the present month's figures. However, some cumulative year-to-date figures will continue to be unreliable because of problems in earlier months.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to announce next year's budgets for the social fund for each of his Department's local offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to make an announcement early in the new year.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Audit Commission has expressed any concern or made representations about the reliability of social fund data.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information he has as to the reasons why amounts of community grants paid by local Department of Social Security offices in Bradford vary substantially;

  (2) what examination he has undertaken into the apparent inconsistencies between local Department of Social Security offices in spending budgets allocated under the social fund, including between Department of Social Security offices serving the same district.
  65
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are a number of possible reasons for differences between the amounts of community care grants paid by the three Bradford offices. The total amounts paid will depend on the number of eligible applications, the purpose of the application, the amount applied for, the relative priorities of different applications and the discretion of social fund officers in deciding whether or not to award a payment.

  We are monitoring expenditure by local offices on the social fund, and regional teams have been set up to monitor the quality of decision-making by social fund officers. Social fund officers are expected to exercise their discretion flexibly within the framework of the law and the Secretary of State's directions and having regard to the guidance in the social fund manual. As the social fund is a locally managed discretionary scheme, absolute consistency in spending between different local offices is therefore not feasible.

  Pensioners
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Scottish pensioners who are in receipt of income support are in receipt of transitional addition; and what is the average level of transitional addition paid.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the reply to Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, the former hon. Member for Kensington,Official Report, 14 July 1987, column 451, in respect of pensioners' gross weekly incomes other than the state basic pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 November 1988]: The table shows the number of pensioners with income other than retirement pension of any category at the levels specified.

  Gross income excluding pension (£ per week at 1986 prices)

  Single Pensioners (thousands)

  Married couples (thousands)

  less than £5

  480

  120

  5-10

  370

  120

  10-15

  490

  200

  15-20

  550

  200

  20-30

  1,000

  300

  30-40

  340

  250

  40-50

  310

  180

  50-60

  160

  130

  60-70

  110

  100

  70-80

  60

  60

  80-90

  60

  80

  90-100

  60

  60

  100-150

  110

  270

  150-200

  80

  100

  200-250

  30

  70

  250-300

  20

  20

  300-350

  10

  40

  350-400

  1

  10

  400-450

  1

  1

  450-500

  1

  1

  over 500

  1

  20

  Total

  4,160

  2,330

  The updated table shows a slight increase in the number of pensioner units in receipt of additional income.
  66
  Note: Pensioners are defined as individuals in a tax unit which receives some form of retirement pension. Figures are for single pensioners or for married couples where the husband is aged 65 or over.
  1 Indicates less than 10,000 cases.
  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

DEFENCE

  Challenger
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the value of work undertaken by each company supplying any components or undertaking assembly work for the Challenger I tank in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This is a matter for the manufacturer and is commercial in confidence, but a significant proportion of the tank by value is understood to be "bought out".

  Helicopter Crash (Falklands)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and format of official contact between the Royal Air Force or his Department and the dependants or next of kin of the seven airmen killed in the Chinook helicopter crash in the Falklands on 27 February 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not practicable to list here each individual official contact with each of the dependants and next of kin of the seven RAF personnel killed in the Chinook accident in the Falkland Islands in February 1987. It is the aim of the service, following the death of a member of the Royal Air Force, to provide to the next of kin as much moral and practical support as may be needed or requested. This aim has been met according to the circumstances, needs and wishes of each of the next of kin.

  Initial contacts took the form of visits by senior officers, letters of condolence from both the Royal Air Force and the Air Force Department and consultation over the funeral arrangements.

  As is customary, a serving RAF officer was appointed as visiting officer to each of the widows, to help in her care and support and to ensure that everything possible was done to help her to adjust to life without her husband. The fiancee of one of the casualties was afforded similar support. Assistance is still available if required.

  From a practical financial standpoint, there has been considerable direct contact with the next of kin by the Department over pensions, gratuities, estates, probate and tax.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department has made for the continued education of the dependants of the seven airmen killed in the Chinook helicopter crash in the Falklands on 27 February 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  No specific provision has been made, but a child's forces family pension is payable in respect of each eligible dependent child of the deceased until the child reaches the age of 17 or ceases full time education if later. It is not, however, a condition of payment that the pension should be used in respect of the child's education.
  67
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what review his Department has conducted of the air-safety of Chinook helicopters following the fatal air crash in the Falklands on 27 February 1987;

  (2) what was the cause of the fatal Chinook helicopter crash in the Falklands on 27 February 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  As the hon. Member is aware, the county coroner of Oxford is conducting an inquiry into this tragic accident. The Royal Air Force has in the usual way conducted its own inquiry, the results of which have been made known to the coroner. Measures identified by the board of inquiry to improve the safety of Chinook helicopters in service with the Royal Air Force have been taken. In accordance with the usual practice, I shall place a copy of the military aircraft accident summary in the Library of the House as soon as the inquest is completed.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a compensation settlement to be granted to the widows and dependants of the airmen killed in the Chinook helicopter crash in the Falklands on 27 February 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  Claims on behalf of the dependants of five of the Royal Air Force personnel who lost their lives on 27 February 1987 were commenced by solicitors acting on their behalf in August 1987. Since then, correspondence has continued between the solicitors and the Ministry of Defence's claims branch, who are awaiting the completion of all necessary inquiries into the incident, including an inquest by HM coroner. Once these have been concluded, it should be possible to come to a decision very quickly on any ex-gratia compensation which might be payable.

  Service Personnel (Dependants)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision for financial support his Department has made for Royal Air Force personnel, killed whilst on duty, separate to that provided by the various service charities including the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Royal Air Force personnel killed whilst on duty are entitled to benefits under the armed forces pension scheme. The scheme makes provision for short term families' pensions, equal to the deceased service man's basic pay, to be awarded to widows and dependent children for periods ranging from three to nine months depending upon family circumstances. Subsequently, long term widows' and children's pensions are awarded to those eligible. These are index-linked and remain in payment in the case of the widow for life provided that she remains unmarried, and in that of the children until the age of 17 or completion of full-time education if later. In the case of those who are unmarried a lump sum gratuity is paid into the deceased service man's estate.

  In addition to these provisions, widows may be entitled to benefits under the war widows scheme administered by the Department of Social Security.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number and value of any compensation ex-gratia payments made by him to dependants of service personnel who fail to qualify under the provisions of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  One claim from the dependant of a decease service man has been settled, at a cost of 68
  approximately £130,000 on an ex-gratia basis as a result of an incident during the period between 8 December 1986, when the Government announced their intention to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and 15 May 1987, when the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 became law. A number of such claims are still awaiting settlement, and are the subject of discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the claimants or their legal advisers.

  Royal Navy (Tobacco)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the facility whereby male Royal Navy personnel are eligible to purchase specially produced low priced cigarettes and tobacco while serving in United Kingdom shore establishments.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Admiralty board has recently reviewed this concession—known as the "Blue Liner" concession. Mindful of its responsibility to promote the health and physical fitness of personnel in the Royal Navy, the board has concluded that in the light of medical evidence about the consequences of smoking, it would be inappropriate for the concession to continue. They have decided accordingly that the price of these "Blue Liners" should be increased progressively in order to discourage use of the concession which will be finally withdrawn at the end of 1991. The price will be increased first in April 1989, followed by two further increases in January 1990 and January 1991 to bring prices much closer to those charged for proprietary brands. The extra revenue realised by these price increases will be paid into the fleet amenities fund and will be used specifically to provide benefits for naval personnel.

  Queen's Own Highlanders (HIV Tests)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the most recent tests for antibodies against the human immunodeficiency virus were performed on the men of the Queen's Own Highlanders, who returned to Scotland from Kenya in December 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not my Department's policy to disclose specific details of medical cases, which are confidential. I can confirm that tests have been carried out in 1987 and 1988.

  Research
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sources of funding are available for research in veterinary schools.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD has funds available for research in support of the Defence research programme, including extramural research work at higher education institutions. At present there are no agreements placed with veterinary schools.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if classified research is carried out for his Department in British universities;

  (2) what approximate proportion of the published results of research funded by his Department is classified;

  (3) if the results of the research into aerobiology being undertaken by his Department at Bristol university will be shared with other nations;
  69
  (4) what are the research objectives of his Department in the field of aerobiology.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department's sole objective in carrying out research into aerobiology is to provide information which should assist in the provision of effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons might be used against the United Kingdom armed forces. Work carried out at universities is generally not classified and publication is a matter for the universities concerned.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the figures for funding of research by his Department in British universities over each of the past five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Expenditure over each of the last five years on research with British universities and further education establishments is as follows:

  £ million

  11984–85

  10

  11985–86

  13

  11986–87

  15

  21987–88

  15

  21988–89

  16

  1 Actual.

  2 Estimated.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total budget of his Department for research.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1988–89 we expect to spend a net total of £403 million on research.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total current annual funding for research by his Department in British universities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1988–89, we expect to spend £16 million on research with British universities and further education establishments.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects in British universities his Department currently is funding in the field of aerobiology; and what further projects he expects to fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Chemical Defence Establishment has no projects currently placed with universities or other higher education institutions in the field of aerobiology. There is one proposal being considered.

  Chieftain Tank (Replacement)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in discussing bids tendered for the contract to replace the Chieftain tanks, he has considered the introduction of penalty clauses in relation to delivery dates and conformity with specification.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All relevant factors are being considered.

  Military Bases and Establishments (Scotland)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the Army bases and establishments in Scotland which are currently in use.
  70
  Mr. Freeman
  The Army bases and establishments in Scotland which are currently in use are as follows:

  REGULAR ARMY BASES/ESTABLISHMENTS

  Location

  Craigiehall Edinburgh

  The Castle Edinburgh

  Highland House Perth

  Benbecula Hebrides

  Kentigern House Glasgow

  Livingston West Lothian

  NATO FSS Salado Bridge, Kinross

  Buchan Grampian

  Collarfirth Hill Shetland

  Mormond Hill Shetland

  Mossy Hill Shetland

  Saxa Vord Shetland

  Fort George Inverness

  Redford Edinburgh

  Sauchiehall Street Glasgow

  Balhousie Castle Perth

  St. Lukes Aberdeen

  Stirling Castle

  Rhu Dunbartonshire

  Strathearn Road Edinburgh

  Forthside Stirling

  AGIOS Union Street Aberdeen

  Bank Street Dundee

  Rutland Square Edinburgh

  Queen Street Glasgow

  Bridge Street Inverness

  Garelochhead Dunbartonshire

  Barry Buddon Angus

  Cameron Barracks Inverness

  Cultybraggan Perthshire

  Drip Bridge Stirling

  Inchterf Glasgow

  Kirkcudbright

  JSMTC Bases Ballachulish

  Kingussie

  Tulloch

  Dundonnel

  QVS Dunblane

  TA BASES/ESTABLISHMENTS

  Principal Locations

  Don Street Aberdeen

  Prince Charles Barracks Aberdeen

  Gordon Barracks Aberdeen

  Montrose Road Arbroath

  Commerce Street Brechin

  Main Street Brora

  Glencryan Road Cumbernauld

  Yeomanry House Cupar

  Ferry Road Dingwall

  Latta Street Dumbarton

  Duckburn Park Dunblane

  Perth Road Dundee

  Oliver Barracks Dundee

  Mid Craigie Road Dundee

  Park Wynd Dundee

  Elgin Street Dunfermline

  Queen Street Dunoon

  Cooper Park Elgin

  Brechin Road Forfar

  Belford Road Fort William

  Baltimore Road Glenrothes

  Central Avenue Grangemouth

  Lassen House Invergowrie

  Gordonville Road Inverness

  Union Street Keith

  RAF Kinloss Kinloss

  Hunter Street Kirkcaldy

  Weyland Park Kirkwall

  High Street Laurencekirk

  Fort Charlotte Lerwick

  RAF Leuchars Leuchars

  North Street Leven

  RAF Lossiemouth Lossiemouth

  Broomfield Road Montrose

  Queens Barracks Perth

  71

  Catto Drive Peterhead

  City Road St. Andrews

  Forthside Stirling

  Meadowforth Stirling

  Church Street Stornaway

  Princes Street Thurso

  Dempster Street Wick

  Yeomanry House Ayr

  Torpichan Street Bathgate

  Quarry Street Coatbridge

  Nunfield House Dumfries

  Whitemoss East Kilbride

  Dalmeny Street Edinburgh

  Forrest Hill Edinburgh

  Redhall View Edinburgh

  Chesser Crescent Edinburgh

  East Claremont Street Edinburgh

  Colinton Road Edinburgh

  Alnwickhill Edinburgh

  Gilmore Place Edinburgh

  McDonald Road Edinburgh

  Great King Street Edinburgh

  Paton Street Galashiels

  Crow Road Glasgow

  Houldsworth Street Glasgow

  Yorkhill Parade Glasgow

  Jardine Street Glasgow

  Walcheren Barracks Glasgow

  Pearson Hall Glasgow

  Eastvale Place Glasgow

  Carmunock Road Glasgow

  Cameronian House Hamilton

  Union Street Hawick

  Dreghorn Irvine

  Grange Road Livingstone

  Muir Street Motherwell

  Hight Street Paisley

  Eastfield Penicuik

  Highholm Street Port Glasgow

  Glasgow Road Rutherglen

  Belleview Road Stranraer

  Portland Street Troon

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the Royal Air Force bases and establishments in Scotland which are currently in use.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Royal Air Force bases and establishments in Scotland which are currently in use are as follows:

  Operational Airfields

  RAF Leuchars

  RAF Lossiemouth

  RAF Kinloss

  Other RAF Establishments

  RAF Benbecula

  RAF Buchan

  RAF Machrihanish1

  RAF Pitreavie Castle

  RAF Prestwick

  RAF Rosehearty

  RAF Saxa Vord

  RAF Stornoway

  RAF Tain

  RAF Turnhouse

  United States Contingency Wartime Hospitals2

  RAF Arbroath

  RAF Kirknewton

  RAF Lanark

  United States Communications Facilities2

  Aberdeen

  RAF Edzell

  RAF Inverbervie

  RAF Kinnabeer

  Latheron

  Fort Murkle

  RAF Thurso

  72
  1 The Royal Air Force is the major user, with United States Forces facilities on the Station.

  2 Facilities made available to the United States Forces, and under the command of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the Royal Navy shore-based establishments in Scotland which are currently in use.

  Mr. Freeman
  Royal Navy and Royal Marine establishments in Scotland are as follows:

  Establishment

  Aberdeen

  University Royal Navy Unit

  Aberdeen

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines Careers Office

  Aberdeen

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Service HQ

  Arbroath

  Royal Marines Base Condor

  Ayr

  RN Air Station (HMS Gannet)

  Campbelttown

  NATO POL Depot

  Cape Wrath

  Naval Bombardment Range

  Coulport

  Royal Navy Armament Depot

  Crimond

  Wireless Telegraphy Station (Peterhead)

  Crombie

  Royal Navy Armament Depot

  Dundee

  Royal Navy Reserve HQ

  Edinburgh

  Royal Navy Stores Depot

  Edinburgh

  Joint Maritime Operations Training School

  Edinburgh

  Royal Navy Reserve Centre

  Edinburgh

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines Careers Office

  Elgin

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Service HQ

  Fairlie

  NATO Salvage Depot

  Faslane

  Clyde Submarine Base

  Garelochhead

  Royal Navy Oil Fuel Depot

  Glasgow

  Royal Navy Reserve Centre

  Glasgow

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines Careers Office

  Glasgow

  Royal Marine Reserve

  Glen Douglas

  Nato Armament Depot

  Greenock

  Royal Navy Reserve Centre

  Greenock

  Clyde Marine Services Base

  Invergordon

  Her Majesty's Oil Fuel Depot

  Inverness

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines Careers Office

  Inverness

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Service HQ

  Kyle of Lochalsh

  Regional Naval Officer

  Loch Ewe

  Royal Navy Depot

  Loch Ewe

  NATO POL Depot

  Loch Striven

  NATO POL Depot

  Lathalmond

  Royal Navy Stores Depot (Fife)

  Orkney

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Service HQ

  Perth

  Royal Navy Aircraft Workshop

  Rosneath

  Royal Navy Degaussing Range

  Rosyth

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines Regional Careers Office

  Rosyth

  Naval Maritime HQ

  Rosyth

  Her Majesty's Naval Base

  Shetland

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Service HQ

  Stranraer

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Service HQ

  Strathcyde

  University Royal Navy Unit

  Thurso

  Royal Navy Auxailiary Service HQ

  Thurso

  Nuclear Reactor Training Establishment (HMS Vulcan)

  Procurement
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of expenditure incurred by the procurement division of his Department is spent within Scotland.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 18 April at column 334. However it should be noted that this information is based on the billing addition of the main contractors and some or all of the work might be carried out by the companies subsidiaries and subcontractors in another region.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of defence expenditure is currently being incurred within Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Defence expenditure is not accounted for on a regional basis.

  Lance Missile (Warhead)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any decision has been taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to deploy a new warhead for the Lance missile.

  Mr. Freeman
  The possible deployment of a follow-on to Lance is one of the matters under consideration by NATO as part of its current review of theatre nuclear forces; no decisions have been taken.

HEALTH

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all contracts for domestic services let by competitive tendering to outside operators within each of the regional health authorities in England and Wales, together with their annual costs, for the period 1 October 1985 to 30 September 1988, and the cost of provision for the same services in each case in the last year before competitive tendering was introduced.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold information centrally in the form requested. From 1 October 1985 to 30 September 1988 some 100 contracts for domestic services were awarded to outside contractors. Estimated annual net savings against previous costs, total around £12 million.

  Information about Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Rights of the Child Convention
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to implement recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations convention on the rights of the child in so far as they relate to his responsibilities.

  Mr. Mellor
  A working group, on which the United Kingdom is represented, began the second reading of the draft convention in Geneva on 28 November.

  The draft covers a range of issues of interest to several Government Departments. The United Kingdom has played a leading part in discussions on the drafting of the convention and we hope to be in a position to ratify its recommendations on completion.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint DHSS/MOD planning group guidance to regional health authorities on the reception and allocation arrangements for armed forces' casualties to the National Health Service in war.
  74
  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 19 April at column 375. The answer is still no.

  Retford Hospital
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct Trent regional health authority not to sanction the sale of land adjoining Retford hospital in the light of the terms of the conveyance dated 26 November 1928 which required the purchasers and their successors in title to hold, use and enjoy the same so long as may be desirable for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Retford and District hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. It would be inappropriate to issue such a direction. The district health authority's legal advisers have examined the deeds of conveyance. Their advice is that the deeds do not contain any restriction preventing the sale of the land but they are complex and a search is being made by the Land Registry in order to resolve any doubt.

  The proceeds from the sale of this surplus land will be used to maintain and improve the delivery of health care in Bassetlaw and the sale proceeds will bring significant benefit to the Retford community.

  Residential Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has had from regional and district health authorities to circular HC(88)43; and if he will make a statement about his efforts to promote co-operation between authorities and organisations representing those in residential care.

  Mrs. Currie
  HC(88)43 entitled "Health Services Development—Resource assumptions and planning guidelines" provides health authorities with guidelines for their plans for 1989–90. Regional health authorities' proposals for that year are not due to arrive at the Department until February 1989. We have therefore had no substantive response from health authorities yet. The circular asks health authorities, in planning the care of people with mental handicaps, mental illness, physical or sensory disabilities, and the care of elderly people, to take the views of consumers and the voluntary organisations which represent them into account. Following Lady Wagner's report (Residential Care—A Positive Choice) we are considering ways of making residential care more responsive to consumer choice.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list National Health Service capital expenditure projects costing more than £1 million which have been completed in the Oldham district health authority during the last 14 years and those projected in the next five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not hold this information on small-scale developments centrally. The hon. Member may wish to pursue his inquiries with Mr. R. B. Martin QC, chairman of North Western regional health authority.

  Ophthalmology
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any information concerning the
  75
  average waiting list times and numbers of patients currently on the waiting lists for ophthalmological procedures in (a) the Oldham health authority, (b) the health authorities covering the Greater Manchester area and (c) on average in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is given in the table. Questions about Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ophthalmology Departments, NHS hospitals, England

  Number of Patients1 on in-patient waiting list at 31 March 1988

  Median waiting time of patients treated2 during quarter ending 31 March 1988

  Oldham DHA

  712

  20 weeks

  Greater Manchester area3

  5,772

  Not available

  Average for the 152 DHAs in England Which Provide

  420

  in-patient treatment

  approx.

  11 weeks

  1On a comparable basis with previous statistics.

  2In-patients and day cases.

  3Aggregate of 12 DHAs.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an independent committee to investigate the way in which the General Medical Council deals with complaints against doctors and to make recommendations for the future; and if he will include on the committee representatives from his own Department, the Ombudsman's office, the Lord Chancellor's office, the Association of Community Health Councils, the Patients Association and the Consumers' Association.

  Mr. Mellor
  The GMC is an independent statutory body. In 1987 it established a working party to review the procedures of the council in relation to disciplinary cases in which it is alleged that a doctor has seriously neglected or disregarded his professional responsibilities to patients. The GMC sought evidence from organisations representing patients and the health professions.

  We have no plan to set up a separate independent committee.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current membership of the General Medical Council; how many members are(a) elected doctors and (b) lay people; and if he will take steps to increase the number of lay people on the General Medical Council so that there is no majority of elected doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  The GMC has 50 medically qualified elected members and 13 nominated members of which 11 are lay members. In addition there are 34 appointed members who are medically qualified.

  The Medical Act 1983 provided that there should be a majority of elected members over other members. We have no plans to change the legislation.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to require the General Medical Council to deal with all complaints referred to it rather than rely on its present policy of first requiring a National Health Service investigation that establishes that there is a serious case.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. Under the provisions of the Medical Act 1983 the GMC is empowered to consider and 76
  determine cases of serious professional misconduct in whatever way it considers appropriate. I understand that the GMC has no general policy of referring complaints to the relevant NHS authority but that each case is looked at on its merits. However, where appropriate the council will advise complainants if a matter appears suitable for investigation by the NHS.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information about medical complaints made to the General Medical Council regarding doctors working in(a) private medicine, (b) the National Health Service, (c) the prison medical service, (d) the forces medical service, is routinely passed on to his Department; in the last year for which figures are available, how many such complaints were received by the General Medical Council; and how many were rejected by (i) General Medical Council staff, (ii) the preliminary screener, (iii) the preliminary proceedings committee, (iv) the professional conduct or health committees.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information at this level of detail is not routinely passed to the Department. The council publishes a summary of information in its annual report, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require the General Medical Council to adopt identical procedures for handling all the medical complaints it receives, regardless of whether they concern doctors operating in the National Health Service, in private medicine or in the prison or forces medical services.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the General Medical Council adopts identical procedures in respect of all registered doctors.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that the General Medical Council involves lay people in every stage of its disciplinary procedures.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for the General Medical Council to determine its procedures, but there are lay members on each General Medical Council committee which considers cases in which a question of serious professional misconduct arises.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that all complainants to the General Medical Council are kept fully informed of any action that is taken.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the General Medical Council routinely informs complainants of the action taken to deal with their complaint.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that transcripts are made of all hearings before the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council, and that these are made available to all interested parties at reasonable cost.

  Mr. Mellor
  The GMC is required to arrange that a shorthand writer is appointed to take notes of hearings before the professional conduct committee. The solicitor to the council is required to provide on request a transcript of those parts of the proceedings at which the parties are entitled to be present. The charges levied for such transcripts are a matter for the GMC.
  77
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that the General Medical Council treats the falsification of a patient's notes as a matter of serious misconduct.

  Mr. Mellor
  The 1987 annual report of the GMC refers to a statement approved by the council on this matter. The council considers deliberate falsification of case notes to be unethical and a doctor so doing is liable to disciplinary proceedings if reported to the council.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors with qualifications obtained only from other European Economic Community countries have been registered by the General Medical Council; what proportion this is of all registered doctors; and, in the past five years, what has been the rate of change of applications for registration from European Economic Community trained doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have figures only for the period June 1976 to December 1987 in which the GMC registered 3,301 doctors who obtained their qualifications in other EC states. We do not have information on how many have taken up practice or remained on the register and this figure cannot be directly compared with the total of 136,959 doctors registered.

  The figures for EC doctors registered in the past five years and the rates of change are given in the table.

  Registrations

  1per cent.

  1983

  325

  + 40

  1984

  300

  - 8

  1985

  332

  + 11

  1986

  443

  + 33

  1987

  995

  + 125

  1 Increase/decrease on previous year.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors with qualifications obtained only from countries outside the European Economic Community have been registered by the General Medical Council; what proportion this is of all registered doctors; and, in the past five years, what has been the rate of change of applications for registration from non-European Economic Community trained doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that we do not have information on the total number of doctors on the medical register who qualified outside the European Community. Since 1980 a total of 21,596 such doctors have been registered. We do not have information on how many took up practice or remained on the register and this figure cannot be directly compared with the total of 136,959 doctors registered at the end of 1987.

  The number of overseas doctors registered in the last five years and the rates of change are given in the table.

  Year

  Registrations

  Percentage1

  1983

  1,996

  -11

  1984

  2,052

  +3

  1985

  1,991

  -3

  1986

  1,955

  -2

  1987

  2,151

  +10

  1 Increase/decrease on previous year.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is for the General Medical Council or 78
  any other body to ensure that all doctors trained in other parts of the European Economic Community or in non-European Economic Community countries meet standards of professional training equivalent to those laid down by the royal colleges.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the terms of the Medical Act 1983 the General Medical Council accepts for registration the primary qualifications laid down in EC directives for recognition within member states. The Act also specifies that doctors from non-EC countries must have qualifications which the council can accept as equivalent to those required for United Kingdom registration. The General Medical Council also has a general function to assess which postgraduate EC qualifications are equivalent to United Kingdom counterparts. There are no equivalent formal provisions for doctors who have obtained postgraduate qualifications in non EC-countries, but the medical royal colleges are considering ways of assessing the post graduate qualifications of non-EC doctors applying under their sponsorship schemes.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the past five years, whether the General Medical Council has provided him with information regarding the cases that have come before their professional conduct committees; and whether any of these originated from an individual's complaint.

  Mr. Mellor
  The GMC routinely notifies the Department of those cases heard by the professional conduct committee which result in a sanction affecting the doctors registration.

  The minutes of the professional conduct committee are published by the GMC and indicate whether a case originates from an individual complaint.

  Doctors
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures there are to ensure that practising doctors keep abreast with advances in medical knowledge; and to what extent these are controlled by his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  Every registered medical practitioner is responsible for keeping up to date with medical knowledge appropriate to his or her chosen specialty. We allocate funds for the provision of courses and other educational activities and for the expenses of attending such activities. The content of educational activities is largely determined by the profession itself.

  As the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" states (paragraph 3.48), we propose to introduce a new postgraduate education allowance payable to family doctors who maintain regular programmes of education and training throughout their careers.

  Tonometry and Perimetry
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to discuss tonometry and perimetry with the professional organisations.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are seeking the views of the professional bodies on the duties to be placed on sight testers as part of our consultations on implementing the optical provisions of the Health and Medicines Act. We shall consider any proposals they may make for conducting an examination of the eye to detect injury, disease or abnormality.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in addition to the arrangements he is making for blood relatives of those who have glaucoma to be identified and advised to have an eye test, he will provide for these tests to be free.

  Mrs. Currie
  Yes, the proposals on these arrangements which have been issued for consultation envisage that identified close relatives of those with glaucoma would be given a free eyesight test.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he anticipates any increase or decrease in the numbers of people suffering from glaucoma in the next five years; and which age groups will be most affected.

  Mrs. Currie
  The prevalence of glaucoma increases with age. Due to an increasingly aging population it is likely that the numbers of people suffering from glaucoma will increase in the next five years. The age group most affected will be those over 60.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of people who go blind from glaucoma as a result of failure to have the disease detected at an early stage.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures giving the number of registrations due to blindness caused by glaucoma are collated only every 10 years.

  In the year ending 31 March 1981, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,149 new blind registrations as a result of glaucoma. We do not have information on how many of these resulted from failure to detect the disease at an early stage. However, people with a close relative who has glaucoma who are themselves over the age of 40 should ensure that they have a regular eye check.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of new cases of glaucoma are detected by optometrists or ophthalmic medical practitioners.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many new cases of glaucoma are detected each year on average;

  (2) how many people suffer from glaucoma; and how many of them are being medically treated.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that we do not hold information centrally on the number of people suffering from glaucoma, or on the numbers detected each year on average.

  The estimated total number of in-patient admissions treated in National Health Service hospitals in England for glaucoma in 1985, the latest year for which data are held centrally, was 13,510.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the effect of charges for sight tests on the numbers of people seeking these tests.

  Mr. Mellor
  The free NHS sight test will continue to be available to nearly 40 per cent. of the population,80
  including those less well off and competition in the optical market should keep any private fees at modest levels. Opticians will determine the level of any fees for those not entitled to an NHS sight test. We believe that people will continue to have periodic sight tests as at present.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eye sight tests are carried out each year under the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 14 November 1988 at column 476 which lists the number of sight tests in the years 1978 to 1987.

  Blindness
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most common cause of blindness in Britain.

  Mr. Mellor
  The most common cause of registered blindness in England at all ages is degeneration of the macula and posterior pole. For children up to 15 years of age the most common cause is congenital abnormalities of the eye, and for the 16 to 64 group it is diabetic retinopathy.

  Negligence Claims
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review the system for dealing with negligence claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no current plans to review the system for dealing with negligence claims. Negligence is determined in the courts. The civil justice review has examined court procedures. Its recommendations to speed up and to reduce the costs of litigation are under consideration.

  Nurses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list showing how nurses and midwives were regraded in each district health authority in the Merseyside region and the guidelines used in this regrading exercise; and if he will specify (a) the amount of finance allocated to Southport and Formby health authority and the national average sum allocated to health authorities and (b) the grades awarded to Southport and Formby health authority and those awarded nationally.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on 28 November 1988 and to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 2 December 1988.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of nurses employed within each regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The overall numbers of nursing and midwifery staff (including agency staff) in each regional health authority at 30 September 1987 are given in the table.
  81

  Nursing and midwifery staff (including agency staff1) England 30 September 1987

  Regional health authority

  Wholetime equivalent2

  England

  404,040

  Northern

  27,540

  Yorkshire

  30,390

  Trent

  37,970

  East Anglian

  15,980

  North West Thames

  27,790

  North East Thames

  34,320

  South East Thames

  30,780

  South West Thames

  23,930

  Wessex

  23,160

  Oxford

  17,180

  South Western

  27,430

  West Midlands

  43,180

  Mersey

  22,020

  North Western

  37,250

  London Post Graduate Special Health Authorities

  5,140

  Source: Department of Health Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1Includes all qualified registered and enrolled nurses, midwives, learners and unqualified nursing staff.

  2Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) wholetime equivalents.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions have been issued by him to members of employing authorities who formally hear the appeals from nurses arising from the regrading exercise.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None, except that appeals should not be heard from staff who are not working normally so long as they continue their industrial action.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will specify for each region how many nurses have registered a formal appeal within the regional health authority since June:

  (2) if he will specify for each of the last three years how many nurses lodged formal appeals within each region.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department is monitoring the regrading exercise for nurses, on the basis of racial or ethnic origins; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints of racism on the reallocation of the grades for nurses his Department has received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to meet staff side representatives to discuss the negotiations over nurses and midwives and to accept their requests for binding arbitration.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am meeting representatives of the Royal College of Nursing today and representatives of the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December. I am not prepared to meet representatives of those trades unions whose members are taking part in industrial action over the current regrading exercise while that industrial action continues.
  82
  I should also make it clear that negotiations over the terms and conditions of nurses' and midwives' employment are a matter for the relevant Whitley council. I cannot take over the role of the Whitley council management side and direct meetings between me and trade union leaders should not be seen as a substitute for Whitley council discussions. In any event, I see no scope for arbitration over the details of a regrading exercise which has now been satisfactorily completed after years of negotiation with trades unions which wanted a new grading structure.

  HIV-2
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it is expected that a permanent scheme for testing for the presence of HIV-2 antibodies in blood samples will be introduced.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 2 December.

  Cook-chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what charge the public health laboratory service laboratory at Seacroft, Leeds, is proposing to make to the Wakefield health authority for monitoring its cook-chill catering;

  (2) if he will list those members of staff of the Leeds public health laboratory service who advised the Yorkshire regional health authority on the safety of cook-chill catering.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not hold the information requested.. I suggest that the hon. Member writes to the chairman of the public health laboratory service board.

  Listeria Monocytogenes (Conference)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any representative of Her Majesty's Government or the public health laboratory service attended the major conference on listeria monocytogenes at Rohnert Park, California, between 2 and 5 October.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. However, representatives have attended other relevant international conferences.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the reports of suspected adverse reactions received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines during 1986 and 1987 were submitted by pharmaceutical companies.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1986 around 1,700 and in 1987, 1,778.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the £460,000 spent by the Committee on Safety of Medicines during 1987–88.

  Mr. Mellor
  The expenditure was as follows:

  £

  Members' fees and expenses

  95,000

  Communications with doctors: "Current Problems"

  85,000

  83

  £

  Viewdata

  34,000

  Follow-up of yellow cards

  15,000

  Other means

  9,000

  Other administrative expenses

  25,000

  Contingency Reserve—not spent

  197,000

  460,000

  Note: £29,000 of the reserve originally earmarked for the production costs of a video, "Help Make Medicines Safer"—to encourage doctors to report adverse reactions—was met from another DHSS budget. Reserves were also held in case an urgent safety warning to doctors had been needed.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which dates during 1986 and 1987 the Committee on Safety of Medicines met; and how many members were present on each occasion.

  Mr. Mellor
  The committee met on the following dates in 1986 and 1987.

  Date

  1Members present

  1986

  30 January

  20 (3)

  27 February

  15 (1)

  26 March

  17 (2)

  30 April

  16

  29-30 May

  20 (2)

  26 June

  16

  24 July

  19 (4)

  25-26 September

  18 (3)

  23 October

  15

  20 November

  16

  18 December

  17 (1)

  1987

  29 January

  18

  26-27 February

  23 (4)

  26 March

  20

  30 April

  17

  27-28 May

  23 (3)

  25 June

  18

  23 July

  17

  24 September

  17 (2)

  29-30 October

  19 (2)

  26 November

  20

  17 December

  20

  1 For all or part of proceedings.

  Note: The number in brackets is the number of those present who were appointed as temporary members for the meeting in question.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is the present chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; who is responsible for the appointment; what is the term of office of the chairman; and if it is renewable.

  Mr. Mellor
  Professor William Asscher BSc, MD, FRCP, dean of St. George's hospital medical school, London. The appointment was made by Health Ministers for a renewable period of three years which expires on 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the current members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are women; whether he has any plans to increase the number of women members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  One. Officials have invited a number of medical, pharmaceutical and other bodies including the Medical Women's Federation, the Women into Public Life 84
  Campaign and the Women's National Commission, to make suggestions for membership appointments to the committee, as well as to the Medicines Commission, Committee on Review of Medicines and Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials, to serve from January 1990. We will appoint the members we consider best qualified to carry out the committee's statutory functions. The letter inviting names for nomination includes the following:
  "Ministers would be pleased to increase the proportion of women members on these bodies, so women with appropriate expertise and experience would be particularly welcome."
  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an attendance record for each of the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines during 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  The names of the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1986 and 1987 (a new term of appointment began on 1 January 1987) and their attendance record are given in the table.

  Name of Member

  Meetings Attended

  Possible Attendance

  Professor A. W. Asscher

  21

  22

  Professor T. G. Booth

  8

  211

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge

  21

  22

  Professor C. M. Castleden

  7

  111

  Professor J. G. Collee

  11

  211

  Mr. W. M. Darling

  9

  111

  Professor J. W. Dundee

  9

  111

  Professor P. H. Elworthy

  22

  22

  Professor A. T. Florence

  16

  22

  Professor Sir Abraham Goldberg

  11

  111

  Professor D. G. Grahame-Smith

  10

  111

  Professor M. W. Greaves

  16

  22

  Dr. J. M. Holt

  10

  111

  Professor David Hull

  7

  111

  Professor H. S. Jacobs

  16

  22

  Dr. W. A. Jerrett

  11

  211

  Professor M. J. S. Langman

  9

  312

  Professor D. H. Lawson

  9

  211

  Mr. F. E. Loeffler

  11

  211

  Dr. E. Mayne

  10

  211

  Professor J. O'D McGee

  10

  211

  Professor A. E. M. McLean

  11

  312

  Professor S. R. Meadow

  10

  211

  Dr. S. A. Montgomery

  11

  211

  Professor G. Nuki

  10

  211

  Dr. B. L. Pentecost

  18

  22

  Professor M. D. Rawlins

  19

  22

  Dr. J. W. G. Smith

  6

  111

  Professor M. P. Vessey

  19

  22

  Dr. D. M. B. Ward

  8

  111

  Professor H. K. Weinbren

  10

  111

  1 1986 only.

  2 1987 only.

  3 Member in 1987; appointed for only one meeting in 1986.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase the budget of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  Budget allocations for 1988–89 are still under consideration.

  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to enable him to fund local groups formed to combat tranquilliser addiction.
  85
  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has powers under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to make grants to voluntary organisations. These grants are usually made to national organisations for their headquarters costs rather than to local bodies.

  Health authorities also have powers to make grants to voluntary organisations. They are responsible for the development of services locally, which may include funding voluntary organisations. We have allocated £9·5 million in the current financial year to regional health authorities specifically for the development of services for those experiencing problems with drugs, including prescribed drugs such as tranquillisers.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the estimated numbers of people dying from hypothermia and the number of other cold-related deaths for each year since 1980; and if he will outline the steps being taken by his Department to reduce the numbers of such deaths.

  Mrs. Currie
  The numbers of deaths where hypothermia is recorded on the death certificate, either as primary or secondary cause of death, for England and Wales, are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Deaths

  1980

  596

  1981

  685

  1982

  664

  1983

  538

  1984

  555

  align="right"1985

  827

  1986

  837

  1987

  1559

  1988

  2363

  1 Provisional.

  2 Provisional figure, to end of November.

  Many causes of death are cold-related, in that the number of deaths from them increases in winter. However, hypothermia is the only cause that can be directly identified as a cold-related disease from mortality statistics.

  We have again this winter launched the "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, in co-operation with Age Concern, Help the Aged and Neighbourhood Energy Action to offer advice on sensible self-help and the help available from statutory and voluntary services. I have sent a copy of the campaign booklet to the hon. Member and placed copies in the Library. Further copies can be obtained by telephoning the winter warmth helpline on 0800 289404.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet representatives of midwives working in the Merseyside regional health authority's area to discuss their grievances concerning regrading.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall be meeting national representatives of the Royal College of Midwives, including the president and the general secretary, on Wednesday 7 December. I cannot intervene directly in individual grievances which can be resolved by employing 86
  authorities following the agreed appeal process. I suspect that much of the sense of grievance felt by some midwives in Merseyside is caused by misunderstanding of the basis of the grading exercise which the Royal College of Midwives and other trades unions agreed to.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any account was taken of length of service or clinical experience when regrading midwives by the Mersey regional health authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Health Service trades unions and management agreed that the grading of midwifery posts should be determined on the basis of the duties and responsibilities of postholders at 1 April 1988. The grading definitions reflect the different levels of clinical experience and responsibility called for in different posts and the grades allocated to midwives therefore take account of their clinical skills. Because the agreement entered into by the Royal College of Midwives and the other parties specified that posts and not individuals were being graded, length of service was not taken into account in determining grading.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deliveries were carried out by midwives in each of the last five years; and what percentage this is of the total number of deliveries.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account is taken when regrading midwives of the training and completion of a certificate in midwifery by practitioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  All holders of midwifery posts are required to possess the qualification of registered midwife (RM) and this is the only registrable qualification which is needed to practise as a midwife. Possession of this qualification entitles the holder of a midwifery post to be placed at least as grade D in the new grading structure —agreed by Health Service trade unions and management.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many years' experience a midwife needs before she achieves grade G.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health Service trades unions and management have agreed that grading should be determined by the duties and responsibilities of the post held by the individual not by the number of years he or she may have spent in midwifery practice. Therefore the grading definitions do not prescribe periods of experience.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for organ transplants in the United Kingdom, organ by organ; and what has been the variation in availability of organs over the past five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest figures provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Service of organ transplants in the United Kingdom from 1 January 1988 to 25 November 1988 are as follows:

  Organs

  Kidneys

  1,500

  Hearts

  255

  Heart/Lung

  93

  87

  Organs

  Lungs

  16

  Livers

  219

  Corneas

  11,336

  1 Estimated figure.

  It is not possible to give precise figures for the variation in availability of organs. However, the number of kidney transplants roughly reflect the variation in donor organ availability. The full-year figures for kidney transplants for the last five years were:

  Year

  Kidneys

  1983

  1,144

  1984

  1,443

  1985

  1,336

  1986

  1,493

  1987

  1,485

  From January 1989, health authorities will be asked to audit all deaths in intensive care in order to assess the number of potential organ donors.

  Foreign Patients (Treatment)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tottenham,Official Report, 30 November, which countries have arrangements which enable them to refer patients for free treatment in the United Kingdom under the National Health Service; what these arrangements are; and why these arrangements do not apply to British dependencies in the Caribbean.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are bilateral health agreements between the United Kingdom and 25 other signatories. Generally these provide only for immediately necessary treatment for conditions arising during the course of a visit. However, seven of these agreements allow for patients to be referred to the United Kingdom specifically for treatment free of charge. The grounds for allowing this vary:for the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Malta and Gibraltar, the referral provision aims to achieve a balance of costs of providing health care to visitors on each side; similar considerations apply in the agreement with Yugoslavia;
  88
  for the USSR, the provision is to enable patients from both countries to benefit from certain highly specialised care;
  for the Falkland Islands, the provision was made to take account of the particular difficulties faced by the islanders in obtaining specialist care following the conflict with Argentina.

  We are not aware of similar considerations applying in the case of residents of the British territories in the Caribbean.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health regions the mental hospitals which are scheduled to(a) open and (b) close in (i) the current and (ii) the next year.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 28 November]: The table lists the mental illness hospitals which are, so far as we are currently aware, scheduled to open or close in (i) 1988–89 and (ii) 1989–90.

  Regional Health Authority

  Open

  Close

  Yorkshire

  —

  Broadgate (ii)

  Trent

  —

  St. John's Lincoln (ii)

  North-East Thames

  East Ham Memorial (ii)

  —

  South Western

  Glenside (i)

  Horton Road (i)

  West Midlands

  —

  Powick (i)

  Oxford

  Campbell (ii)

  —

  (i) 1988–89.

  (ii) 1989–90.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agency System
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he can announce any further progress on the setting-up of the agency system.

  Mr. Luce
  Two agencies have been set up, about 30 more have been announced and more are in the pipeline. I shall be making a progress report to the House before too long.