Sitting of 6 December 1988

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]
PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Training
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training scheme places have been taken up on Merseyside since the inception of the scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): At 25 November there were more than 3,250 people on employment training on Merseyside.
    Mr. Alton: Although it is good news that 3,500 people are now taking up training, 31,500 people under the age of 25 are unemployed in the Merseyside area yet paradoxically, the Merseyside chamber of commerce points to a skills shortage. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is worth looking again at issues such as the remuneration of people on the schemes, and does he agree that it is futile for people to indulge in litigation that is costly to the ratepayers when what is needed is co-operation between local authorities and the Government to put many of these unemployed young people into work?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, I agree that the aim must be to try to provide training for as many unemployed people as we can. About 15,000 employment training places are now available on Merseyside, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring that to the attention of his constituents.
    Historically speaking, Liverpool city council's action to punish local voluntary organisations and employers who co-operated with employment training was clearly against the interests of the unemployed. That is why we sought judicial review and won in the High Court. I hope that that is now behind us and that we can all get down to making employment training work on Merseyside.
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his proposed alterations of training arrangements.
    Mr. Fowler: The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", which I published yesterday, sets out new ways in which training and enterprise activities are organised and delivered both nationally and locally.
    I held a number of meetings prior to the White Paper and will now hold discussions in a number of areas concerned with training.
    Mr. Favell: The Government are to be congratulated on recognising that training requirements differ not only from region to region but from town to town. Centralised planning is not the answer; local involvement is the answer to getting things moving. That is how our great towns and cities were built in the first place. The training and enterprise councils are a marvellous idea. When can Stockport have one? If we can be the first in the north-west to get one, we shall leave the rest standing.
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are not yet quite in a position to set out the prospectus for training and enterprise councils; it will be set out in the next few weeks. I shall bear Stockport's interest in this very much in mind.
    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point. This is training for the local labour market. It is training for industry and it is relevant to jobs. That is what the new organisation is all about.
    Mr. Wallace: As well as providing training for the unemployed, I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that it is important that companies invest in training the employees who already work for them. To that end, has he considered giving credit or assistance to companies that invest more than most in training, and giving it at the expense of the companies that are not pulling their weight in providing training for their employees?
    Mr. Fowler: There are no proposals on that in the White Paper, but what the hon. Gentleman said about companies training their own staff is crucial. As we go into the 1990s, the difference between one company and another will be largely the difference between the people, and the skills and training of the people, in those companies. The responsibility for training people in employment must obviously rest with the employers.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the diminishing pool of young labour and the intense competition for it, it becomes ever more important to attract older workers back into employment? Will he launch an initiative into recruitment and retraining of that group of potential workers?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, a whole range of lessons about the new labour market of the 1990s will have to be learnt. One of the chief lessons is that we must train people who are already in employment to be as adaptable as possible to new skills. Another clear lesson is that we must examine alternative forms of recruitment. We need recruitment of unemployed people, women, older workers and ethnic minorities. Those are all opportunities and I hope that employers will take them.
    Mr. Meacher: Why should employers who already show less interest and devote less money to training than employers anywhere else in Europe show any more interest or spend any more money as a result of the Minister's latest proposals? Why should they who have so manifestly neglected their own employees improve on the dismal

    153
    record of ET? Will the Minister confirm that ET has failed to attract anything like enough long-term unemployed to fill the 187,000 designated places? More than half way through the first six months, fewer than one third of the places have been filled.
    Mr. Fowler: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is simply out of date on the attitude of employers to training in employment. More employers than before are now training in employment and a whole range of schemes such as the compacts initiative—the most recent—are proving employer's interest in training. In spite of all the opposition and the attempts at sabotage by the hon. Gentleman, the employment training programme has got off to a very good start. That is no thanks to the hon. Gentleman or to the Labour party. They have played a discreditable part in the whole employment training issue and they have no credibility whatever.

    Small Firms
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's initiative to encourage the Government to purchase goods and services from small firms.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): The Government are committed to improving value for money in purchasing and small firms have an important part to play in achieving this. I therefore discussed with ministerial colleagues ways to increase their Department's purchasing from small firms. Departments that are large purchasers now publish booklets designed to help small firms become suppliers to the Government and, in collaboration with the central unit on purchasing, we shall shortly be publishing further guidance for officials on small firm purchasing.
    Mr. Lord: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House precisely which Departments have taken part in this initiative and what part they have played? Is he satisfied that both the Government and small businesses are benefiting from what is happening?
    Mr. Cope: I am satisfied that both Government and small firms benefit from the initiative. It is all about value for money. All Government Departments are playing a part to some extent, but the purchasers which play a particularly big part include the Ministry of Defence, the National Health Service, the Crown Suppliers, HMSO and the PSA as well as others and ourselves.
    Mr. Cryer: While wishing purchases to be made from small firms, may I ask the Minister to tell us whether a small firm is defined as one with under 200 employees, as a result of the Bolton committee report, or whether it depends on the EEC definition, which is that a small firm contains under 500 employees? Has this initiative been cleared with the Commission because, with the advent of 1992, will not preferential treatment to United Kingdom small firms be in breach of the treaty of Rome competition rules? Are we at last to take an initiative that is independent of the EEC?
    Mr. Cope: No, we do not give small firms favoured treatment in the sense of giving them contracts that we would otherwise give to large firms, except where they give us value for money. In that respect, the EEC has nothing
    154
    to do with it and we can act entirely independently. For statistical purposes we use the Bolton committee definition. Given his experience in these matters, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is 200 employees in manufacturing firms and that various criteria are used for other types of firms.

    Tourist Information Centres
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has concerning the number of tourist information centres which stay open for the winter period; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Currently, out of a total of 562 tourist information centres in England, 394, or 70 per cent., are open during the winter months.
    Mr. Gregory: We must be losing an enormous opportunity by not having more tourist information centres open in the winter months. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a national scandal that such attractive venues as the Tower of London, which last year attracted about 2·3 million visitors, closes its information centre from autumn to Easter? Will he hold discussions with local authorities so that more tourist information centres are open to disperse visitors throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. We should like more tourist information centres to stay open for longer periods. The majority of those that are open only during the summer are in fairly remote areas. I gather that the Tower of London TIC is located in a temporary hut that is unsuitable for winter use, but discussions on that are taking place between the London tourist board and the London Docklands development corporation.
    It is a shade depressing to note that the tourist information centre in York is closed on Sunday mornings.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that the success of TICs is due entirely to the tourist boards? Does he further agree that his current review of tourism should not damage in any way the network that those boards have set up?
    Mr. Lee: I certainly would not say that the success is due solely to tourist boards, although they have had a considerable influence. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money for the tourist information centre in Southport, which I opened about a fortnight ago, came from the local authority, English Heritage and the tourist board. It is a partnership.

    Invisible Exports
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of Britain's invisible exports in 1987; and what percentage of this sum is attributable to the tourism and leisure industry.
    Mr. Lee: In 1987 United Kingdom invisible exports amounted to £80 billion. The tourism account amounted to 8 per cent. of this, or £6·2 billion.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that that creditable figure reflects favourably on the investment by the industry and on the activities of the British Tourist

    155
    Authority and the English tourist board? What does the figure represent in terms of tourist numbers, and what effect has it had on employment?
    Mr. Lee: Last year was a record year for visitors to this country, with 15·4 million coming here. For the nine months to September the figure is about 2 per cent. up on the same period last year, at 12·5 million. Jobs in tourism and hospitality are increasing at an average rate of 1,000 a week.
    Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that the tourism and leisure industry is one of the worst payers in Britain, yet it is a profitable sector? Is he further aware that 40 per cent. of the work force are paid less than £132 a week, yet he tells us that the minimum protection provided by wages councils will be reduced? How can he justify that? Jobs are no good unless they give people decent incomes and dignity at work. The Minister is encouraging low-paid work, no training and a slum economy. That is the future for Britain.
    Mr. Lee: May I say in personal terms that we are sorry that the hon. Lady is not in her customary place. Salaries and overall conditions of employment in tourism and hospitality are improving. Many of the better companies in the industry put huge amounts of money into training. I agree that more emphasis must be placed on training and the overall remuneration package, because staff turnover in the industry is unacceptable. But the position is getting substantially better.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: How much did those 15·4 million visitors bring in foreign exchange? Is there a limit to the number of foreign visitors who can be accommodated comfortably in tourist inns?
    Mr. Lee: I am sure that we can accommodate substantially more than we do now, and we want the number of tourists to increase. Of the £18 billion a year in total tourist revenue, £8 billion comes from visitors from abroad.
    Mr. Strang: What effect will the appreciation of sterling have on invisible exports in general and on tourism in particular?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Treasury about invisible exports in general. The balance of payments deficit on the tourism account increased from about £1 billion in September last year to about £1·8 billion in September this year.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the north-west of England.
    Mr. Lee: In October 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the north-west region was 307,900, a fall of 61,500 over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Jack: I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent answer, but will he confirm that unemployment in Fylde has fallen by 28 per cent. in the past 12 months and that Lancashire as a whole has benefited from falls in unemployment as a result of the Government's policies, which have attracted about £85 million worth of inward investment into the north-west?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. He is well aware that the unemployment level in his constituency has fallen by 28 per cent. The unemployment level in Lancashire as a whole has fallen from just-over 62,000 in October 1987 to 48,000 in October 1988—a total fall of more than 14,000. Other programmes are designed to bring about an even greater fall, and there are nearly 13,000 participants with training managers under our employment training scheme. The new training and enterprise councils, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment yesterday when he introduced his White Paper, will also have a beneficial effect in the fullness of time.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that people in the north-west will be concerned about pay levels and the future of wages councils after the Secretary of State's statement yesterday? We fear that in the north-west that that will mean lower wages. Low pay in the north-west has not solved the unemployment problem so far. Does the Minister accept that jobs in manufacturing are 38 per cent. below the 1979 figure? When are the Government going to do something about that and get us to export more goods than we import?
    Mr. Lee: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so churlish as not to draw attention to what has happened to the level of unemployment in his constituency over the past 12 months. The level has fallen by over 1,000, or by no less than 24·49 per cent. He knows how well north-east Lancashire is doing at the moment, because his constituency adjoins mine. His comments are completely incorrect.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Although the news that my hon. Friend has announced today is good, does he accept that there is a lot more yet to come? Does he also accept that when the unified business rate is introduced, and the existing business rate is abolished, that will be the greatest possible assistance to manufacturing industry in the north-west and should lead to significant reductions in business costs, and therefore to more jobs?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. In the north-west the unified business rate will have a beneficial effect on manufacturing industry, and therefore on employment.

    Training
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people who have been on Government training schemes were removed for the duration of their training from the unemployed register since 1979 for each year, respectively, to 1988 and in total.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): No such estimates are available.
    Mr. Flannery: That is a disgraceful and dodging answer. The Minister should get hold of those figures, because they completely condemn the Government. Is it not true that the Government have used 24 different mathematical methods to get the unemployment figures down? The Government's unemployment figures bear no relationship to reality. However, the figures that I have

    157
    asked for would show how many people were being trained—badly—only to keep them off the unemployment list.
    Mr. Nicholls: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in all three propositions. Clearly figures cannot be available, and are not available, in the form that he requests. If they were, the records would have to show the origins of people on various training schemes and their destinations afterwards.
    With regard to the way in which the figures are compiled, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that there have been only seven changes which have affected the unemployment count since 1979. Two of those changes were statistical and five were administrative. Only two led to any difference in compilation. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will not take my word for that. If he cares to check the record, he will find that the previous shadow spokesman for employment made the point on television, when the same accusation was made some little while ago, that if he were in government he would have no intention of changing the base on which the figures were compiled. Obviously he changed his mind by the time that he came to the House, but after all that is politics in the Labour party.
    Mr. Paice: Is not training substantially different from unemployment? Unemployment is a total waste of human resources, whereas training seeks to build on human resources and to provide benefits for the future. Apprentices were never included in unemployment statistics, so why should anyone on a training scheme be included?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has made his point. The dismal and consistent way in which the Opposition regard these matters is that they believe that employment training is offered simply to massage the unemployment figures. Unemployment figures have decreased anyway because of the strength of the economy. Employment training gives a real opportunity to the unemployed to get back on the right side of the economic fence, but the Opposition have not yet grasped that.
    Sir Cyril Smith: Is the Minister satisfied with the attitude of school leavers to training? Is he aware that in parts of the north and midlands—where I have an intimate knowledge of a certain engineering industry; I stress that it is knowledge of a certain engineering industry, not just of a certain engineering company—there is a terrible shortage of suitable applicants for apprenticeships? Would it not be better for the Government to meet their to talk about the possibility of their being encouraged to carry out their own training schemes? Can the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there is more to life than computers? My information is that school leavers are interested only in entering the computer industry and are not interested in engineering or manufacturing skills.
    Mr. Nicholls: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says with which I can agree, although I prefer not to follow him in generalising about the attitudes of school leavers. One of the problems for employers now is that there are increasingly fewer school leavers, because of demographic changes. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the need for employers to be involved in the training of young people. The proposals announced
    158
    yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he spoke about the White Paper on training, will ensure that employers are able to play a proper part in training.

    16 to 18-year-old Workers
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to remove barriers to employment facing 16 to 18-year-old workers.
    Mr. Fowler: The Employment Bill published on 1 December will remove a mass of outdated restrictions, particularly on the hours that under-18s can work in industry and shops. That will make it easier for employers to take on young people and increase the opportunities open to them.
    Mr. Franks: I welcome the greater job opportunities that will arise from greater flexibility, but will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm that the greater opportunities will not diminish the necessary restrictions which protect the health and safety of young people?
    Mr. Fowler: I certainly confirm that the aim is to increase employment opportunities and flexibility, but we shall retain all the protections that the Health and Safety Commission has advised are still necessary for health and safety reasons, such as restrictions on working with dangerous machinery, lead and hazardous processes. All those protections will be retained. It is the legislation on working hours that will be tackled.
    Mr. Eastham: Surely the relaxation of working conditions for young workers will bring about a deterioration in working conditions, the like of which we have not seen since the last war, since when young workers have not had to work night shifts and extended hours. Is the Secretary of State implying that anything goes under the new legislation, other than health and safety protection?
    Mr. Fowler: What I am saying is that the law, self-evidently, needs to be modernised. We issued a consultation document which set that out in detail. We seek, for example, to tackle the present position, whereby if a group of 16 to 18-year-olds work in the same factory, they have to start work at the same time, have their tea break at the same time, eat their lunch at the same time and finish work at the same time.
    Mr. Nellist: And they should be given the same wages as other workers.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must calm down. That is an absurd proposition and is recognised as such by young people.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one existing barrier to the employment of 16 to 18-year-olds, and other workers, is the continued existence of the pre-entry closed shop? Is he aware, for example, that my local council, Kirklees, continues to hoodwink new employees into joining a trade union by putting compulsory trade union membership into their contracts of employment, despite the fact that that closed shop

    159
    would not stand up in a court of law? Does he agree that that sort of abuse makes it inevitable that he will have to outlaw the pre-entry closed shop?
    Mr. Fowler: It is exactly for reasons of that kind that, in the White Paper published yesterday, I made it clear that the Government are to review the operation of the pre-entry closed shop. Clearly, by definition, the pre-entry closed shop acts as a barrier to employment. We shall review it and act on that review.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State explain why this country, unlike any other Western European country, including our major competitors, France and West Germany, wants to abolish protection for young workers? Is it not the case that this Government's ideology and dogma demand that we have a part-time, low-paid, low-trained young work force? Is that the Government's ambition, and is that why they are introducing such measures?
    Mr. Fowler: The aim is to try to get young people the job opportunities which I think they want. We are not in any sense abolishing protection for young people. What we are relaxing are the hours of work. I have made it clear that we are retaining all the protection of the Health and Safety Commission and the restrictions, for example, on 16 to 18-year-olds working in gambling, gaming, pubs and such places. Those restrictions have been retained. What we are doing is modernising the law.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major barrier to the employment of young people is the lack of skills among them? What words does he have for Warrington borough council, which is refusing to participate in employment training because of Left-wing ideology?
    Mr. Fowler: That is utterly deplorable. The fact is that at the moment we have about 700,000 vacancies in the economy. Councils which refuse to co-operate with employment training should urgently reconsider their position, because those whom they are affecting are unemployed. I think that the action they are taking is immoral.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many parliamentary constituencies unemployment fell by 40 per cent. or more between August 1984 and August 1988.
    Mr. Nicholls: Between August 1984 and August 1988 unemployment fell by 40 per cent. or more in 136 parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain.
    I shall arrange for details of these constituencies to be placed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Rooker: The Minister can save himself the time and trouble, because those figures are already there. They show that, of those 136 constituencies, 130 are constituencies of hon. Members who represent the Conservative party, and six—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rooker: —and six are the constituencies of hon. Members representing the Labour party. When will the constituents of my hon. Friends benefit from what has
    160
    been the obvious targeting of Government grants, Government decisions, investment and planning appeals and applications, which have clearly brought about such a disproportionate, unfair fall in unemployment between the constituencies of the two major parties in this House? Clearly that has not happened by accident. We want a fair share.
    Mr. Nicholls: Unlike so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of credit on this side of the House for the usual quality of his contributions. I am afraid that on this occasion he has let himself down sadly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the only targeting that has been done on this matter—I acknowledge it at once—is the extremely skilful way in which the hon. Gentleman has targeted his question. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the reduction in the unemployed, expressed as a percentage of itself. Obviously, if unemployment is low, any reduction in the number of unemployed people would have a correspondingly greater effect in percentage terms. If he considers the fall in unemployment over the past five years and looks at the figures that have been produced in The Independent, he will find that, on average, for each Labour constituency the reduction was 1,516, compared with 1,304 on average for each Conservative constituency.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in my constituency of Castle Point the reduction of unemployment in the period mentioned in the question was 52·5 per cent. and that that is clearly a reflection of growing confidence under this Government among employers and of good practices by local authorities?
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend makes the point exactly. Many ingredients underpin these figures, but if an area has an extrmely supportive Member of Parliament, a local ethic that praises employment and a local authority that supports employment training measures, it is more likely to do better than those that do not. Even on the basis that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) chooses to present his question, there are many Labour constituencies that also have figures of which he would approve.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that many of the firms that have been set up in constituencies in the north-west, certainly in the Workington constituency, are labour-intensive only because of cuts in regional support? Is it not further true that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer finally decides to go into reverse gear and pursue a policy of credit-restriction-induced deflation of the economy, we shall then really be able to measure how successful the Government have been in relation to small firms in areas such as my own?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has a fine line in economic illiteracy, but it will not do. Even on the basis on which his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) chooses to compile the figures, we find that in Workington the rate of unemployment has been reduced by 40·1 per cent.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Rochester-on-Medway city council has held the rate steady for 12 years, except for two years, when it

    161
    reduced it, that unemployment has fallen dramatically and that that is a direct consequence of good housekeeping by a Conservative Administration?
    Mr. Nicholls: Again, my hon. Friend has made the point exactly. In his area, employers who are obviously trying to improve their businesses, or employers who are thinking of moving into the area, will find that there is a benign climate. It is a great pity that such a climate is not found more commonly in constituencies that are represented by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister not aware that the unemployment that the Tories created in the early 1980s led to the loss of 2 million full-time jobs, whereas the reduction in unemployment since 1986 has involved almost exclusively part-time jobs? Will he confirm the Government's figures, that in the last two and a half years the number of full-time jobs has risen by only 56,000? Does

    Parliamentary constituencies with a fall in unemployment of more than 40 per cent. between August 1984 and August 1988

    Unemployed claimants

    Parliamentary constituencies

    August 1984

    August 1988

    Change

    Percentage change

    Wantage

    2,391

    949

    -1,442

    -60·3

    Horsham

    2,180

    881

    -1,299

    -59·6

    Henley

    2,020

    819

    -1,201

    -59·5

    Corby

    5,914

    2,444

    -3,470

    -58·7

    Basingstoke

    3,250

    1,369

    -1,881

    -57·9

    Tunbridge Wells

    2,519

    1,069

    -1,450

    -57·6

    Witney

    2,646

    1,126

    -1,520

    -57·5

    North West Hampshire

    2,361

    1,046

    -1,315

    -55·7

    Reading West

    3,334

    1,496

    -1,838

    -55·1

    North West Surrey

    2,356

    1,058

    -1,298

    -55·1

    Aylesbury

    2,741

    1,248

    -1,493

    -54·5

    Reigate

    2,023

    927

    -1,096

    -54·2

    Chertsey and Walton

    2,099

    963

    -1,136

    -54·1

    Mole Valley

    1,726

    796

    -930

    -53·9

    West Hertfordshire

    3,594

    1,670

    -1,924

    -53·5

    Stevenage

    4,059

    1,896

    -2,163

    -53·3

    Saffron Walden

    2,382

    1,116

    -1,266

    -53·2

    Gillingham

    5,479

    2,568

    -2,911

    -53·1

    Mid Sussex

    1,991

    941

    -1,050

    -52·7

    Newbury

    2,650

    1,257

    -1,393

    -52·6

    Castle Point

    3,430

    1,630

    -1,800

    -52·5

    Wealden

    1,907

    908

    -999

    -52·4

    South West Bedfordshire

    3,766

    1,795

    -1,971

    -52·3

    Medway

    5,264

    2,517

    -2,747

    -52·2

    Guildford

    2,097

    1,008

    -1,089

    -51·9

    Spelthorne

    2,328

    1,121

    -1,207

    -51·9

    Brentwood and Ongar

    2,438

    1,175

    -1,263

    -51·8

    Braintree

    3,283

    1,583

    -1,700

    -51·8

    South West Surrey

    1,661

    804

    -857

    -51·6

    Crawley

    2,485

    1,207

    -1,278

    -51·4

    Chichester

    2,278

    1,107

    -1,171

    -51·4

    Reading East

    3,923

    1,908

    -2,015

    -51·4

    East Surrey

    1,625

    791

    -834

    -51·3

    Maidstone

    3,525

    1,731

    -1,794

    -50·9

    Tonbridge and Malling

    2,678

    1,318

    -1,360

    -50·8

    Mid Kent

    4,837

    2,391

    -2,446

    -50·6

    Esher

    1,563

    774

    -789

    -50·5

    Chesham and Amersham

    1,742

    868

    -874

    -50·2

    Rochford

    2,828

    1,413

    -1,415

    -50·0

    Billericay

    3,882

    1,941

    -1,941

    -50·0

    Oxford West and Abingdon

    3,152

    1,580

    -1,572

    -49·9

    North Hertfordshire

    3,573

    1,792

    -1,781

    -49·9

    Milton Keynes

    6,750

    3,423

    -3,327

    -49·3

    Southend West

    3,590

    1,823

    -1,767

    -49·2

    South West Hertfordshire

    2,530

    1,285

    -1,245

    49·2

    Woking

    2,387

    1,213

    -1,174

    -49·2

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    2,612

    1,330

    -1,282

    -49·1

    Welwyn Hatfield

    3,123

    1,595

    -1,528

    -48·9

    Banbury

    3,263

    1,668

    -1,595

    -48·9

    Sevenoaks

    2,416

    1,241

    -1,175

    -48·6

    Basildon

    6,712

    3,453

    -3,259

    -48·6

    Wokingham

    1,970

    1,025

    -945

    48·0

    162
    that not show that the Government's much-trumpeted reduction in unemployment is as unbalanced as it is deceitful?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, it does not. It shows that the hon. Gentleman is fixed on the proposition that if he repeats nonsense often enough it becomes the truth. The fall in unemployment during the last 12 months has amounted to 504,000. It is now running at 7·7 per cent. and it has been down for 27 months running. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at international comparisons he will find— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not have asked for it, but he is going to get it. In terms of international comparisons, this country is doing extremely well. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is so locked into the past that he thinks the only reputable job is one that is absolutely full time. Patterns of employment in this day and age are far more varied than that.
    Following are the details:

    Unemployed claimants

    Parliamentary constituencies

    August 1984

    August 1988

    Change

    Percentage change

    Harlow

    4,426

    2,304

    -2,122

    -47·9

    East Berkshire

    3,196

    1,666

    -1,530

    -47·9

    South Colchester and Maldon

    4,240

    2,214

    -2,026

    -47·8

    Hornchurch

    3,047

    1,592

    -1,455

    -47·8

    Aldershot

    2,971

    1,571

    -1,400

    -47·1

    Hertford and Stortford

    2,093

    1,111

    -982

    -46·9

    Christchurch

    2,254

    1,197

    -1,057

    -46·9

    Kettering

    3,308

    1,759

    -1,549

    -46·8

    Arundel

    2,786

    1,488

    -1,298

    -46·6

    Dagenham

    4,311

    2,305

    -2,006

    -46·5

    Buckingham

    2,561

    1,375

    -1,186

    -46·3

    Surbiton

    1,554

    840

    -714

    -46·0

    Wycombe

    2,932

    1,586

    -1,346

    -45·9

    Mid Norfolk

    2,989

    1,622

    -1,367

    -45·7

    Ruislip-Norwood

    1,779

    966

    -813

    -45·7

    Poole

    3,702

    2,011

    -1,691

    -45·7

    Northampton North

    4,789

    2,609

    -2,180

    -45·5

    South East Cambridgeshire

    1,892

    1,032

    -860

    -45·5

    Harborough

    2,566

    1,404

    -1,162

    -45·3

    West Gloucestershire

    4,609

    2,531

    -2,078

    -45·1

    Slough

    4,629

    2,544

    -2,085

    -45·0

    North Dorset

    2,181

    1,199

    -982

    -45·0

    North Bedfordshire

    4,573

    2,515

    -2,058

    -45·0

    Huntingdon

    3,511

    1,938

    -1,573

    -44·8

    Southend East

    4,675

    2,586

    -2,089

    -44·7

    Upminster

    3,029

    1,678

    -1,351

    -44·6

    Hastings and Rye

    4,259

    2,361

    -1,898

    -44·6

    St. Albans

    2,462

    1,368

    -1,094

    -44·4

    Stratford-on-Avon

    3,314

    1,844

    -1,470

    -44·4

    Mid Bedfordshire

    2,756

    1,536

    -1,220

    -44·3

    Ludlow

    3,722

    2,076

    -1,646

    -44·2

    Bosworth

    3,557

    1,987

    -1,570

    -44·1

    South West Cambridgeshire

    2,500

    1,397

    -1,103

    -44·1

    Beaconsfield

    1,700

    951

    -749

    -44·1

    Cirencester and Tewkesbury

    2,976

    1,666

    -1,310

    -44·0

    Wimbledon

    2,894

    1,622

    -1,272

    -44·0

    Bournemouth East

    4,951

    2,784

    -2,167

    -43·8

    Epsom and Ewell

    1,901

    1,071

    -830

    -43·7

    South Suffolk

    3,281

    1,850

    -1,431

    -43·6

    Bournemouth West

    3,896

    2,197

    -1,699

    -43·6

    Stamford and Spalding

    3,325

    1,878

    -1,447

    -43·5

    Oxford East

    4,025

    2,282

    -1,743

    -43·3

    Blaby

    2,915

    1,653

    -1,262

    -43·3

    North Colchester

    4,129

    2,345

    -1,784

    -43·2

    Uxbridge

    2,625

    1,494

    -1,131

    -43·1

    Leominster

    3,192

    1,817

    -1,375

    -43·1

    Thurrock

    5,822

    3,343

    -2,479

    -42·6

    Carshalton and Wallington

    2,899

    1,665

    -1,234

    -42·6

    The City of London and West

    5,423

    3,120

    -2,303

    -42·5

    Worcester

    5,030

    2,894

    -2,136

    -42·5

    Wellingborough

    4,111

    2,369

    -1,742

    -42·4

    Worthing

    2,539

    1,469

    -1,070

    -42·1

    Hertsmere

    2,595

    1,502

    -1,093

    -42·1

    Croydon Central

    3,609

    2,091

    -1,518

    -42·1

    Devizes

    3,310

    1,921

    -1,389

    -42·0

    Rutland and Melton

    3,473

    2,016

    -1,457

    -42·0

    Central Suffolk

    3,097

    1,798

    -1,299

    -41·9

    Salisbury

    3,208

    1,865

    -1,343

    -41·9

    Cambridge

    3,554

    2,067

    -1,487

    -41·8

    Winchester

    2,057

    1,197

    -860

    -41·8

    Daventry

    2,713

    1,579

    -1,134

    -41·8

    Sutton and Cheam

    2,029

    1,183

    -846

    -41·7

    Aberavon

    4,762

    2,780

    -1,982

    -41·6

    Cheadle

    2,921

    1,707

    -1,214

    -41·6

    Romford

    2,776

    1,623

    -1,153

    -41·5

    Shoreham

    2,053

    1,202

    -851

    -41·5

    Suffolk Coastal

    2,452

    1,437

    -1,015

    -41·4

    Staffordshire Moorlands

    3,608

    2,116

    -1,492

    -41·4

    South West Norfolk

    3,844

    2,259

    -1,585

    -41·2

    Ashford

    3,396

    1,996

    -1,400

    -41·2

    Chelmsford

    3,035

    1,786

    -1,249

    -41·2

    North Luton

    4,332

    2,558

    -1,774

    -41·0

    Watford

    3,235

    1,911

    -1,324

    -40·9

    Croydon South

    2,023

    1,197

    -826

    -40·8

    Congleton

    3,322

    1,968

    -1,354

    -40·8

    Stroud

    3,743

    2,223

    -1,520

    -40·6

    Unemployed claimants

    Parliamentary constituencies

    August 1984

    August 1988

    Change

    Percentage change

    Havant

    4,918

    2,928

    -1,990

    -40·5

    Bexhill and Battle

    1,774

    1,057

    -717

    -40·4

    The Wrekin

    9,589

    5,724

    -3,865

    -40·3

    Gravesham

    4,984

    2,976

    -2,008

    -40·3

    Wyre Forest

    5,135

    3,067

    -2,068

    -40·3

    Alyn and Deeside

    4,694

    2,811

    -1,883

    -40·1

    East Hampshire

    2,419

    1,449

    -970

    -40·1

    Bishop Auckland

    7,166

    4,299

    -2,867

    -40·0

    Employment Service
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the development of the employment service.
    Mr. Fowler: In the six months since April the employment service placed over 75,000 unemployed people in jobs, including over 120,000 long-term unemployed. It has also introduced new procedures, such as more effective interviews with those making new claims for benefit. Since last October, when we established the employment service, unemployment has fallen by 504,000 overall, with particularly steep falls in long-term unemployment.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for his wonderful reply. I hope that he will express the House's appreciation of the work done by civil servants in the Department. I wonder whether he is progressing well with obtaining agency status for the employment service? Are there plans for the re-amalgamation of the benefit service and the employment service, as is happening in Weymouth at the moment? Are there also plans to amalgamate the Department of Social Security offices and possibly, at long last, to transfer many of these services to the private sector?
    Mr. Fowler: The plan on which we are working is aimed at improving even further the management effectiveness of the employment service. To that effect, we are considering creating one of the new agencies.
    Mr. Nellist: How will the development of the employment service be aided by the attacks on the rights of 16 to 18-year-old workers? Having seen the abolition of the wages councils two years ago reduce the level of wages for that group, but not produce the 50,000 to 100,000 new jobs that the Government promised in July 1985, is not the single purpose of the provisions announced by the Secretary of State to increase the exploitation of school leavers, which will inevitably lead to an increase in injuries and deaths? If the Secretary of State is really concerned-[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking many questions at great length.
    Mr. Nellist: Why has the Secretary of State never signed the Employment of Children Act 1973?
    Mr. Fowler: The purpose of our policies and of what we announced yesterday is to increase the employment prospects of young people. We want to reduce unemployment. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that between 1986 and
    166
    this year unemployment for 16 to 19-year-olds has fallen by no less than 62 per cent. That is the record of the Government.

    Enterprise Allowance Scheme
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently participating in the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: At the end of October, 91,856 people were participating on the enterprise allowance scheme.
    Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 400 people on the scheme in Bury and that that is a tribute to their initiative and enterprise and to the skills of those who are advising them, to whom we should pay tribute? How many people are on the scheme throughout the north-west, and what is the success rate for the new businesses so created?
    Mr. Cope: About 14,000 people are on the enterprise allowance scheme in the north-west region. The success rate can be measured in terms of jobs. For every 100 people who start a business on the enterprise allowance scheme, about 120 people are working for those firms three years later.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that many new enterprises will expect to make a loss not only during their first year but may make a loss well into their second year? In those circumstances, is there not a good case for enterprise allowance to be allowable at say 50 per cent. of the first year rate, so as to safeguard against that and to help people setting up enterprises who fear such circumstances?
    Mr. Cope: We can certainly consider that suggestion. However, the enterprise allowance is intended, not to subsidise new firms against losses but to replace the benefit of those who are on unemployment benefit when they start the business.

    Training
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the employment training scheme.
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of The transport and General Workers Union to discuss the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: I have not received any such request but if the recent decision by the Trades Union Congress genera] council leads to further positive co-operation by individual trade unions, that is to be welcomed.
    Mr. Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent letter by the president of the Confederation of British Industry, published in the Financial Times, which says that skill shortages cause high wages and inflation? Will he press that upon the general secretary of the TUC and ensure that he supports employment training, which will make Britain more competitive, bring down inflation and reduce skill shortages?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. Of course, the employment training programme is taking place in the context of a very high number of vacancies in the economy. That is why we want the support of local authorities and trade unions for that programme, which can bring down unemployment further.
    Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union is the most destructive, irresponsible and Luddite general secretary that it has had the misfortune to have for many decades? What advice can my right hon. Friend give as to how the Transport and General Workers Union can make a more positive contribution to solving the current skill shortage, which is resulting in bricklayers earning £175 a day in docklands?
    Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that the Transport and General Workers Union will change its views on the employment training programme. Up to now, on Dundee and on employment training, the Transport and General Workers Union has turned its back on the interests of unemployed people in Britain. The most deplorable thing is that that has never been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Iceland. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Bradley: In the light of the evidence published today by Barnardo's that children leaving local authority care face abject poverty because of the cuts in their benefits, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a 16-year-old living in my constituency who is trying to survive independently on less than £20 a week? In this season of good will, will the Prime Minister support the introduction of a special benefit allowance for teenagers leaving local authority care, as recommended by Barnardo's?
    The Prime Minister: We have only just received the report and the Secretary of State for Social Security will study it carefully. Ministers have given assurances that the reformed benefit will be monitored in detail. This
    168
    monitoring will include all income support recipients, including the young people covered by the report. Once that exercise has been completed we shall consider what, if anything, needs to be done. About 80 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds live with a family and they will have seen a real increase in their benefit, so we are talking about a small minority of young people who are living independently. It must be emphasised that they receive maximum help with rent and rates.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the accidental discharge of 100 tonnes of crude oil into Milford Haven in my constituency has seriously polluted the area? Will she join me in congratulating the staff of local agencies and volunteers who have been tackling the disaster? Will she arrange for the Department of Transport to investigate the matter?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the harbour authority, Texaco and the local authorities are working together effectively to deal with the problem. The situation is being closely monitored by the Department of Transport and an officer of that Department's marine pollution control unit is at the Haven today, carrying out an on-site survey. The district inspector of fisheries is also keeping a close watch on the effect on fisheries, particularly fish farms. I gladly join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff of local agencies and the volunteers for tackling this disaster.
    Mr. Kinnock: On another subject affecting young people, has the Prime Minister seen the official figures showing that the Government have allowed teacher shortages of 20 per cent. in mathematics, 17 per cent. in physics and 23 per cent. in technology, with worse to come in future? Does she think that this is the way to prepare Britain's young people for the economic and social challenges of the 1990s?
    The Prime Minister: We shall have enough secondary teachers overall, but we shall need more teachers in some subjects, including technology, science subjects and modern languages and fewer in some other subjects. The Government plan to build on our successful campaign to recruit teachers in the shortage subjects. They can do that because of the change of structure in teachers' pay to ensure that schools have the teachers that they need to deliver the national curriculum.
    Mr. Kinnock: As it is obvious, even from the Department of Education and Science figures, that shortages will remain, and will intensify in the 1990s, is it not clear that, rather than taking effective action to make up shortages, the Government are trying to shift the curriculum so that fewer young people will have the opportunity to study science? Would the Prime Minister put up with that for her own children?
    The Prime Minister: Because of the changing structure of teachers' pay, we are able to offer teachers in shortage subjects more than we would otherwise have done. We are way ahead with the problem. On the science curriculum, it is possible that children can take the double curriculum, or we have been asked if they could take the single one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking at that.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the devastation caused to the livelihoods of many people in the poultry industry by the reckless and uninformed

    169
    statement by a junior Minister with an uncontrollable tongue and an insatiable desire for self-advertisement? As my right hon. Friend is responsible for the composition of her Government, what action does she intend to take about it?
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but the answer to his question is no, Sir. I read very carefully the statements by the chief medical officer, first, on 21 November and, secondly, on 5 December. Having read them carefully, I decided to have scrambled egg on toast for lunch, and I enjoyed it.
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Walley: In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to meet the nurses who have come to lobby Parliament today and who are concerned about the long-term future of the National Health Service? Does she agree that nurses are being downgraded? Will she take the initiative to comply with their request for binding independent arbitration within the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: No. It is under the Labour Government that nurses were downgraded, and downgraded very much indeed. They were not merely downgraded, but their pay was severely cut. It is under this Government that they have been upgraded, and it is under this Government that they have had a 46 per cent. increase in real pay, due to the excellent record of the Royal College of Nursing in always putting the patient first.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her comment in the House on 1 November that we do not have the same need for a Channel tunnel fast rail link will bring much comfort to many thousands of Kentish men and women who oppose the four options as proposed by British Rail? If my right hon. Friend is so against it, and so am I, why are we proceeding with that ghastly and unnecessary scheme?
    The Prime Minister: Those comments caused joy in some areas and less joy in others. British Rail is considering taking a long-term view, but there are no immediate plans for that development.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that Torbay council is presently engaged in selling off its entire housing stock, despite a petition signed by more than half its tenants, objecting to the plan and calling on the House to ask the Secretary of State not to allow the sales to go ahead? Will she offer any advice and comfort to those tenants to the effect that their wishes will be respected?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that proposal is at present before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will consider all matters before making a decision.
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Baldry: Will not the reeds rustle at Runnymede if we as a House do not take every action to uphold the rule of law and defeat terrorism? To that end, will my hon. Friend ensure that Hansard is more widely available so that the whole nation can see the names of those Members who last night voted against the declaration against terrorism and who tonight may vote against the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill? By their actions do they not unwittingly assist the IRA and give comfort to terrorists?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's quotation from Kipling and I agree with him that people will believe that everyone is serious about fighting terrorism only when the Opposition Benches join this side in voting for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Prime Minister accept that her reply to the question about the Barnardo report is hypocritical and unconvincing? Far from being a novelty of information to her, the precise consequences wrapped up in that report were inevitable as a result of the decision by her Government to withdraw all benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds. Does she accept that the "guarantee" of YTS places, on which the withdrawal of all benefits to 16 and 17-year olds was based, was and is a lie? [Interruption.] I am quoting from the press release issued by the Department of Employment, which used the word "guarantee". On the basis of that lie in the Department of Employment press release, every penny of legal income has been removed from at least 20,000 young people. Does the Prime Minister accept personal, moral responsibility for the fate of those 20,000 youngsters?
    The Prime Minister: The YTS guarantee is being met [Interruption.] There are many more YTS places than young people applying for them in all regions. On 31 October, the latest figure available, there were 120,000 unfilled YTS places. Those not capable of YTS are entitled to income support at all times. Others guaranteed an offer of a YTS place if living away from parents after leaving care will be entitled to income support for a short period while awaiting a YTS offer. If living in board-and-lodging accommodation or a hostel they will normally be entitled to income support while on YTS.
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Knapman: In the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider a recent report that appeared in Pravda and was reprinted this morning in the Financial Times, which states that over the past nine years my right hon. Friend has lifted the country out of its depressed state, privatised ailing industries and sacked incompetent people? Does she agree that the journalists of Pravda are more likely to grasp reality than Members of the Opposition parties in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All round the world Socialists are abandoning their dogma because they know that it does not work and brings neither prosperity nor dignity. The only Socialist party that is to the far Left of the Communist party is the one that sits opposite.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Prime Minister today had an opportunity to look at the opinion polls in Scotland and to consider their implications? Against that background, can she tell us at what stage, either in the percentage recorded in opinion polls, votes cast at a general election or seats lost at a general election, she will decide that she has no legitimacy whatever to implement her policies in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I note, as I have noted before, that the people of Scotland are doing far better under this Government than under any previous Government and we shall continue with the same policies. I hope that most of us in the House still believe in the United Kingdom, and it is the majority of the United Kingdom that forms the Government. I also point out, as I have done before, that there have been times when the Labour party has not had a majority in England, but because it has in the United Kingdom we have abided by that result.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note the Western Morning News report of yesterday that the Royal College of Nursing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is now recruiting at five times its normal membership rate and it is not in the lobby today? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects the RCN's regrading policy of using the appeals procedure in cases of dispute rather than working to grade. which can harm patient care?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the appeals procedure is there should there be any dispute, and it should be used. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we owe much to the Royal College of Nursing. It was the devotion of its members to patients and the fact that they have never gone on strike that led us to set up a pay review body. It is due to the nurses' devotion that they now have a bigger pay award than they have ever had before. I am delighted to hear that the Royal College of Nursing is fast recruiting people from other unions.

European Council (Rhodes)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Rhodes on 2-3 December, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The Council's detailed conclusions and the separate statements which it issued have been placed in the Library of the House.
First, the Council took note of the Commission's progress report on the single market, which is due to be completed by 1992. Approximately half of the measures required are now agreed. The priorities for the next stage will include banking and financial services and public procurement, which are of particular interest to the United Kingdom.
I made clear that we do not regard Community decisions on tax rates as necessary to complete the single market. There is, I think, a growing recognition of the bureaucratic and other difficulties which the Commission's proposals on indirect taxation raise.
As regards what is called the social dimension, it is also widely recognised that the best way to meet social needs and to advance the living standards of all the people is through the extra economic growth which the single market will generate.
The second main subject was the environment. The Council issued a declaration which draws attention in particular to the need for international action to deal with damage to the ozone layer and with the greenhouse effect. The United Kingdom is of course convening a conference in London in March on the depletion of the ozone layer.
Thirdly, we discussed the Community's role in the world. The declaration that we issued helpfully underlines that the Community will not close in on itself after 1992 but will keep open its markets and encourage others to do likewise. That is a good message for the mid-term meeting of the GATT Uruguay round which is taking place in Montreal.
In political co-operation we discussed the middle east and confirmed the cautious welcome which Foreign Ministers had given in their statements of 21 and 30 November to the outcome of the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers. It would not be right to go further than that until the PLO has unequivocally recognised Israel's right to a secure existence and renounced violence.
I also used the opportunity of bilateral meetings with the Prime Ministers of Belgium and the Republic of Ireland to make clear the extent to which people in Britain felt let down by the Belgian Government's treatment of our recent extradition request and the delay by the Irish authorities in backing our warrants.
In its conclusions, the European Council recognised the need for co-operation between Governments to combat terrorism, and we are thankful for the co-operation that we receive from most of them.
I am grateful to the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, for chairing the Council despite his ill-health. I am sure that the House will wish him a full recovery.
The Council was an occasion for Heads of Government to take stock of European Community and wider world issues. Its principal result was to give fresh impetus to
174
completion of the single market by 1992. That remains Britain's current priority in the Community. We can therefore be well satisfied with the outcome.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for her statement. It is obvious to everyone that the formal proceedings of the European Council in Rhodes made it something of a "wait and see" summit. However, will the Prime Minister confirm that there will not be any concessions on the VAT zero rating of food and other essentials, or on British border controls to combat terrorism and crime? Will the right hon. Lady resist any proposals that would put British producers at a disadvantage in securing public procurement orders?
In anticipation of the recommendations of the Delors committee on economic and monetary union—which will report to the next summit, the Madrid summit—what measures will the Prime Minister propose to inhibit destabilising short-term capital movements in the single market? On that subject, will she be taking the advice of her right hon. Friend the Chancellor or that of Sir Alan Walters?
For reasons that will be obvious to the House, the European Council summit last weekend will be remembered not so much as the Rhodes summit but as the Ryan summit. It appears clear to many of us that the Belgian Cabinet should have accepted the counsel of Belgian judges and should have allowed the extradition of Mr. Ryan to Britain. However, it is also clear that, if the confusion began with the political evasion by the Belgian Cabinet, it was turned into chaos last week by the prejudicial tantrums of the British Prime Minister.
To ensure that there is no hiding place for suspected terrorists in these isles, will the Prime Minister take what opportunities still exist for bringing the suspect, Patrick Ryan, to face charges? Will the Government use the proven instrument of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act to take action on the allegations of handling explosives and unauthorised possession of explosives? Will the right hon. Lady, as reported in column 575 of Hansard for 29 November, now takes her own advice, and back up her speeches and statements with "appropriate deeds" instead of indulging in damaging histrionics?
The Prime Minister: A value added tax or any other tax measure which the Community may attempt to impose cannot be adopted except by unanimous vote of all the members. We have made our position clear both on that and on zero rating on several occasions, and I confirm what has been said previously.
We have made it clear that, until there are other effective ways of stopping terrorists, of apprehending criminals, of dealing with those carrying drugs and of dealing with immigrants, some border controls simply must remain. Quite a number of countries are anxious to get rid of them, which one understands. They would like people to be able to travel from one side of Europe to another. However, it is vital that we have effective measures for those groups of people whom I have identified. So far there is no effective alternative. In some countries, people must carry identity cards and produce them when asked on any occasion. That is not the case throughout the Community, and it would give offence to a number of people if it were.
Public procurement orders are very much at the top of the agenda, because we feel that we do not get a fair whack

175
of business when applying for procurement in other countries, which is why we are anxious to have the appropriate directives.
I shall wait until the Delors committee reports, but, on the question of what the right hon. Gentleman calls destabilising short-term capital movements, I point out that there is already freedom of capital movement between countries such as the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Holland, Denmark and Luxembourg, and that has not proved to be destabilising for any of us, as we are always telling those who, in fact, want to introduce equal tax on capital movements. That is the view which we shall continue to take.
The facts about Belgium spoke for themselves. That was the trouble, the facts did speak for themselves. When we made those facts perfectly clear, I believe that most people who really believe in fighting terrorism were on our side.
We were asking the Republic of Ireland to back the warrants which were sent over so that Ryan was taken into custody while the application for extradition—which takes much longer—was fully and properly considered.
With regard to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which enables people to have extra-territorial jurisdiction, I am advised that only two of the four charges against Ryan could be heard under that Act. Therefore, it does not seem very relevant.
Sir Ian Gilmour: During her visit to Washington, my right hon. Friend was reported to have urged the American Government to build on the Palestine National Council's statement. Her remarks this afternoon seem, instead, to suggest that she wants further action from Mr. Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the Government's attitude?
The Prime Minister: While in Washington I said, having looked carefully at the comuniqué but not having done all the detailed work that I have since carried out, that it seemed to me that what the PLO had said about United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 was a distinct move forward and that we should encourage such moves forward. My right hon. Friend knows that many other parts of the communiqué are very much less welcome and which we could not possibly accept.
As for dealing with the PLO in this country, we have always made it clear that we believe that three conditions should be satisfied before senior Ministers discuss matters with that organisation. One concerns United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, the second is that the PLO should recognise Israel's right to exist, and the third is that it should renounce violence. Those conditions were laid down some years ago, and we have not departed from them.
Mr. David Steel: There will be some concern at the Prime Minister's choice of phrase in her statement about
"what is called the social dimension"
although we are not surprised at that coming from somebody who does not believe that there is any such thing as society. Does she agree that the European Community accepts that the social dimension of the Community is important and that not all the member states share her belief in the total beneficence of market forces? Will she accept that people outside the south-east
176
of England will be looking to her to bat for Britain, especially in Scotland, and to see that we get a reasonable share of the regional and social funds of the Community?
The Prime Minister: I did refer to
"what is called the social dimension",
but it is called by many, many strange names, including social space.
Mr. George Foulkes: What does the Prime Minister call it?
The Prime Minister: Social affairs, which is what we would normally call it in this country. Under the heading come such things as employment and training and measures to help with unemployment. Unemployment is rapidly going down in this country, particularly among the long-term unemployed. Some come under the heading of worker participation. We say that the best worker participation is wider share ownership.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this has been an extremely successful summit—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question of the Prime Minister, not of others below the Gangway.
Mr. Dykes: The summit has been a success, notwithstanding that, unfortunately, it had to deal with extraneous matters. How confident is my right hon. Friend about the 285 Commission measures for the single market? How many will be agreed at the end of the Spanish presidency in a year's time, and how many by 1992?
The Prime Minister: As I have said, we have got on well with them so far, but there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that as we come closer to 1992 the more difficult ones will come. They are difficult because there are genuine disagreements and some of the measures will undoubtedly not be passed. That is exactly what we would wish. We do not accept that, for example, the Commission needs to impose tax measures on people merely to complete the single market. The single market can be completed without that.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will welcome what the Prime Minister said about not harmonising indirect taxes and also what she had to say about maintaining border controls against terrorists, drug smugglers and the like. If that is the British Government's attitude, and if it was properly communicated at Rhodes, as I am sure it was, why is it that the Rhodes communiqué, the presidential communiqué, speaks of irreversible progress towards a single European internal market without frontiers by 1992?
The Prime Minister: I think that the progress that we have achieved makes the single market irreversible [Interruption.] It is not a phrase that I like, but it was used in the Single European Act that passed through this House.
We need border controls. It is not a Community without borders, and nor can it possibly be. We need to reduce the number of controls on the borders for travellers and for those delivering goods, but there must still be controls. Our international border—apart from the Republic of Ireland—is the same as our internal border.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: After my right hon. Friend's justified anger and indignation about the Ryan case, did she calmly reflect that it was not an isolated case, but one that reflected the fundamental differences of view and approach between the people of the United Kindom and the people of the Republic of Ireland on the issue of Northern Ireland? Did she not calmly go on to reflect that no useful purpose would be achieved by the continuation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
The Prime Minister: It is clear that the present arrangements for extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are not working well and that attention must be given to that. In the case in question, we were well aware that, all of a sudden, the Republic of Ireland had Mr. Ryan returned to it without warning. We were asking not for immediate extradition, but for a warrant for his arrest to be put into effect so that a due and proper decision could be taken on extradition in the usual way.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is in place and we are currently reviewing the way in which it works. We shall consider the extradition aspect and consult with the relevant parties. I believe that the agreement should continue.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that during the discussions she adhered to her attitude to the Europe of the future as set out in her Bruges speech, which had widespread support throughout the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I confirm my support for the attitudes and approaches set out in the Bruges speech, which are supported by many other people, including many on the mainland of Europe.
Mr. David Curry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the declaration renouncing protectionism is extremely important and that it comes at an opportune moment given the current GATT talks in Montreal? Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at Rhodes to point out that the Community has an excellent chance during those talks to translate its fine words into positive action?
The Prime Minister: Yes. In view of the apprehension of many countries outside the Community about the effect of 1992, we thought it vital to make it clear that, although we were taking away some of the internal controls on movement and trade, we were not putting up barriers around the Community. The original purpose of the treaty of Rome was to take away some of the internal barriers to trade as an example to others to do the same. I agree that the GATT talks present a great opportunity, and I hope that they will make progress. However, we must still tackle the fundamental agricultural problems.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Are there not two interpretations of the single internal market? The first, which the Prime Minister favours, is little more than a Customs union and the second, which is favoured by others, is political and economic union and the construction of detailed legislation to give flat-field competition throughout the EEC whenever there is any commercial activity. Is it not true that the prerogative for such legislation lies entirely with the Commission, not with
178
Ministers? Is it not also true that any decision on whether it is permissible under the treaty of Rome and, if so, whether it is subject to majority decision will be made by the European Court?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to know that there are certain measures, of which taxation is one and immigration another, on which unanimous decisions are required. So we are particularly protective about those. Others are done by majority decision, and that is in the interests of this country, because some of the things that we want to do would otherwise be blocked by a few other members in the Community.
We have two interests: we need unanimity in some matters; in others, we want majority voting. The Commission does not always make it clear that the measures that come before the national Parliaments must be scrutinised by those Parliaments. We should make that abundantly clear to all our industries that have a particular interest in any directive that may come forward.
Sir Peter Hordern: With regard to co-operation between the police and the security forces of different European Community countries on terrorism, drugs and fraud, would it not be a good idea if there were a European Community bureau of investigation within which all the efforts to combat terrorism and other offences could be closely co-ordinated? Has that been considered? Might it be considered in future?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Home Office Ministers meet regularly, and I think they are steadily working towards much closer co-operation between police forces—and between Ministers. I am not quite certain that what my hon. Friend wants would necessarily be the right solution, but I am certain that there is increasing co-operation. In the Belgian case, there was excellent co-operation between the police and security forces of both countries. There was no difficulty at that level.
Mr. John Hume: Following the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the events of the past week, particularly the Prime Minister's conversations with the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Ireland, has the right hon. Lady given any further consideration to the question I asked her on 30 June? If she wants to achieve her objective of ensuring that there is no hiding place anywhere in these islands for people who commit horrific crimes—an objective shared by all parties in this House and in the Irish Parliament—that might be better achieved by making greater use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, an Act which is much less emotive and much more efficient and which was brought in by the Government of which the right hon. Lady is a member on the recommendation of an eminent commission of lawyers from both countries. That would also speedily build up the mutual trust that is necessary between both Governments to deal with problems of this nature.
The Prime Minister: Sometimes that Act can be used. It is no substitute for effective proceedings on extradition. In the case that we are now considering, I am advised that only two of the four charges would be applicable under the Act.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Is the Prime Minister aware that she spoke eloquently on behalf of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom when she made her statement at the summit about terrorism and extradition? Do not the Ryan case and other incidents reveal the need for the Government to establish an information unit that could convey to the Common Market countries and other countries the truth about the IRA, which is that its members are out to murder innocent people throughout the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has a point. Too few people realise that all the people in Northern Ireland can vote in a similar way to send hon. Members to this House, and that they all have the same civil liberties. In so far as there is any remaining discrimination, we are attempting to put that right in legislation going through the House this Session. So the people of Northern Ireland have all the apparatus of democracy and it is those who dislike the result of the ballot box who turn to bombing and maiming to achieve what they want. We must get the message across that they must never succeed.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Instead of lecturing the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Ireland, would not the Prime Minister be better employed in devising a way for the Government to persuade the judges to own up to the serious mistakes made in the cases of Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham and, in so doing, restore international confidence in British justice?
The Prime Minister: In no way do I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, nor, I think, would most Conservative Members. I believe in fighting terrorism in every way, including supporting the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.
Mr. John Redwood: While welcoming the progress that my right hon. Friend has encouraged in Europe towards an open and competitive market in industrial goods, we still have an agricultural system that results in dear food for the housewife and high tax bills for the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend think that the European member states might soon be ready to make a better response to American offers of mutual subsidy reduction in agricultural areas?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will remember, that problem was discussed at the Toronto economic summit. Some of us who were there were anxious to agree with America that we should do more to reduce the subsidy to agriculture. Although the European Community has done a good deal to put its agricultural house in order, it still has more to do. That is still our view, and it is shared by some of the other members of the Community but not by all. The steps that we took recently are working. Surplus stocks are going down fast. In 1987 there were 1 million tonnes of surplus butter and there are now only 158,000 tonnes. There were 700,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder and there are now only 11,000 tonnes. The surpluses in beef, wheat and barley are also down. The policies are beginning to work.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: With reference to the social dimension, does the Prime Minister understand that it is called a social dimension and social space because it is about the inequalities created spatially by a free market system? Will she commit herself
180
anew to an increased regional policy so that the inequalities that will be created by the single market in 1992 will not disproportionately affect regions in the Community?
The Prime Minister: By a decision last February we increased the structural funds enormously to 52 billion ecu. As I said at Rhodes, over the next three years the amount will be greater in real terms than the whole of the Marshall plan for Europe after the end of the war. My right hon. Friend and I also said at Rhodes that under what is called the social dimension we do not believe in there being two sides to industry; we believe in every earner and owner pulling together for the prosperity of all.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only three weeks ago Mr. Jacques Delors wrote to the economic and social committee in Brussels asking it to give its views and, I think, to support social measures in industry? He also talked about "a people's Europe". Will my right hon. Friend assure industry, at least in Britain, that she will have none of that sort of thing and that we have been down that path before? If that were ever allowed to happen in industry in the EEC, we would cease to create the new jobs that we want and would see employment reducing.
The Prime Minister: The phrase "people's Europe" has been about for quite a long time and it is intended to mean freer travel and easier access across borders. Although it may not be popular in all parts of the House, that is why we have gone to a common-form passport, although passports are still issued in the name of each country. Passports are in a common form to enable people to go through border controls much more easily. I think that it was meant to make Europe more accessible to all citizens of all countries. That is why the phrase developed.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: When the hon. Lady discussed the middle east, did she explain why the Government failed to support Mr. Arafat being allowed to enter the United States of America? Is it not clear that if there is to be any settlement in the middle east the PLO must be fully involved in any discussions? It is vital that the world should know what Mr. Arafat and the PLO are saying. Why did the Government refuse to support the entry of Arafat to the United States?
The Prime Minister: That is not correct, as our ambassador to the United Nations and the communiqué by all the Foreign Ministers of Europe made perfectly clear. We felt that Mr. Arafat should have been permitted to address the United Nations. We protested vigorously about the language of the motion, and if we had been able to amend it in accordance with our own motion we would have supported it. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the communiqué that the Foreign Ministers produced immediately after the United Nations communiqué, he will see that it is couched in moderate language. We all agreed on that communiqué.
Mr. Robert Adley: Nevertheless, it is today reported that my right hon. Friend has intervened to prevent a meeting taking place between the Minister of State, Foreign Office and a representative of the PLO. Can she explain this to the House? If it is the Government's policy to insist that the PLO put up an illuminated sign to ensure that the Israelis have the right to exist behind secure

181
borders and that they renounce violence, why do we not expect the Israelis to put up an illuminated sign giving the Palestinians the right to a secure existence behind secure borders and the right to live without their children being mown down by Israeli bullets?
The Prime Minister: As I think I explained the last time I answered questions, and again this time, we set down three conditions for senior Ministers to meet anyone from the PLO. First, if whoever was coming from the PLO accepted United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, secondly, if they recognised Israel's right to exist and, thirdly, if they renounced violence the conditions would be fulfilled and we would meet them to talk. Two representatives who came previously could not meet those conditions, so we did not see them at ministerial level. The same has happened this time.
If my hon. Friend reads the Palestinian communiqúe all the way through, he will find some extremely good parts and some parts that hit out hard. For example, in parts Israel is called Fascist and racist. In other parts, the people involved in the uprising in the territories are urged to use every means possible to increase that uprising. My hon. Friend will find grounds for the view that we have taken.
Nevertheless, when I was in Washington I thought it right to say that the attitude taken at the Palestine National Council conference towards the United Nations resolutions was a step forward that we should welcome, which I did.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister clarify her response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) when she said that the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act 1975 could not be used in relation to two of the four charges against Patrick Ryan? Why is it impossible to use the Act in relation to the other two charges, especially as six of the seven cases in which the Act has been used in the Republic have resulted in convictions?
The Prime Minister: Because those two charges are outside the scope of the extraterritorial jurisdiction. They are outside the scope of that Act, which granted extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Was my right hon. Friend able to advise the Taoiseach that those in Britain who wish for closer relations with the Republic, and even wish the Anglo-Irish Agreement well, would find it extremely difficult if he was seen to be attempting to find technical grounds on which to decline to return alleged terrorists to this country to answer for crimes alleged to have been committed in this country?
The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Although there is limited extraterritorial jurisdiction, that is no substitute for effective extradition and no substitute for the warrants sent by one country being backed willingly by those in another.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply in relation to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which was passed by the Labour Government following the Sunningdale agreement the previous February? Her explanation about the
182
two sets of two charges was not clear enough. Why cannot the other two charges be dealt with in Dublin? It is most important that we get the matter clear. If extradition, which is the best way to deal with it, is not possible, would it not be possible to go to Dublin?
I have just been casting my eye over the report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act which the Home Secretary presented to the House in December last year. It is clear from the report that the law of conspiracy is complicated, that proving the offence is difficult and that the law is in a state of uncertainty. That may make it extremely difficult to obtain extradition in the normal sense of the term. It is vital to deal with terrorism. Why do we not consider using the 1975 Act?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to understand that I asked about this and that the legal advice which I received led me to give that answer. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges the legal advice—[Interruption.] I am not being difficult. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges the legal advice, he must ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about it.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall the dismal conclusion of the Attorney-General in the House on Thursday that the refusal of the Belgian Government to agree to the extradition of Mr. Ryan was based not on legal but on political grounds? My right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary are both lawyers. Is there any legal reason, of which either is aware, why the Irish Government should not now agree to the extradition of Mr. Ryan?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I should pronounce on legal grounds. I would only point out that the application for extradition went before the court of first instance in Belgium and the extradition was granted. It went to the court of appeal in Belgium, which confirmed the decision of the court of first instance. We understand that advice was given to the Minister of Justice. It would seem that that advice was similar to the view that the courts had taken. Nevertheless, the Cabinet in Belgium can say yea or nay to a matter of extradition, and it said nay.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: When the Prime Minister is batting for Britain with our European partners, does she ever mention the fact that the only Head of State of a European Community member who has never addressed the European Parliament is the Head of State of our country?
Mr. Tony Banks: She is not the Head of State. She may like to be, but she is not.
Mr. Rooker: May I ask the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman has asked the question.
The Prime Minister: The formal meeting of the European Parliament is in Strasbourg. I should have thought it obvious that the Head of Government does the political work here. Having an executive president is very different from having a monarch.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest long-term difficulties in the development of the European Community is that its

183
political developments may outpace the economic and social realities that underpin it? In that context, does she agree that the proposal to abolish frontier controls when there are no satisfactory alternatives and the proposal to have worker participation on company boards are two examples from many of that process at work today?
The Prime Minister: Yes. If there is to be a European company statute, we must have the minimum required for such a statute and not try to include matters that may be all right for one country but not for another. Germany would have worker participation. We would have much more share ownership. We want a minimum European company statute. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said about border controls.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On banking and financial services, will there be a directive for a free market in life assurance? If not, will the Prime Minister press for one? That would give Britain a direct advantage, since life insurance in this country costs only a third of what it costs in Italy and France.
The Prime Minister: We will press for a free market in that. That is why we have made financial services one of the priorities for the next round of directives.
Mr. James Couchman: Further to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), does she agree that the independence of the judiciary is precious to civilised countries and that the overruling of the Belgian judiciary by the Belgian Cabinet was very sad? In that context, will she ignore the weasel words of the leader of the Labour party, many of whose members are likely to oppose the Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill tonight?
The Prime Minister: I hope as many people as possible will support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill being made permanent and support its Second Reading. I can think of nothing more important to show that people are determined in the fight against terrorism.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Having regard to the fact that there is to be another statement after this and the business before the House, I will allow questions to continue for another five minutes before I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: No doubt the Prime Minister realises that working people in this country have far fewer rights at their place of work than most of their counterparts in the Community. Does she not find the term "social Europe" offensive because she is opposed to industrial democracy and wants the present autocratic system in British industry to continue? That was the real reason why she made her silly speech at Bruges. She simply wants an internal market to exploit her free market excesses. She does not want to extend that right to working people.
The Prime Minister: No; that is absolute nonsense. Health and safety comes under the social dimension. We have no fears about the health and safety regulations which Europe will introduce. We are well ahead in our arrangements.
184
With regard to workers' rights and citizens' rights, which everyone has, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the ordinary trade union member has far more rights now than previously. The ordinary citizen now has a greater chance to become a capitalist than ever before. We should like to extend that to other countries, as would many other member states.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In seeking assistance from our friends and allies in Europe, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reflect on how much easier that task must have been 10 years ago for her predecessor when he could fully rely on her, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, to maintain a fully united front against terrorism? Will she further reflect on the fact that, whatever may take place in this House, the British people are right behind her right across the political spectrum?
The Prime Minister: Judging from the post-bag after the Bruges speech and from the many signs that we have had after returning from Rhodes, I accept what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister said earlier that she had been fighting terrorism in every way. When she met Mr. Haughey, did she refer to k and r—kidnap and ransom—insurance? Is there not a huge hole in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in so far as it does not ban that practice which is a major source of funds for the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: That matter has come up on several previous occasions. We have considered it and, at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, even if we refuse to have it in this country, some of it would go elsewhere. We must have agreement across countries that that is not acceptable. If we could achieve that, that would be very effective. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and am wholly against the taking out of any such insurance.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have no mandate for bringing forward a united states of Europe, for the equalisation of taxes, or for social tinkering? When the British people voted in the referendum many years ago, they supported a free market in Europe. They still support that. The British people support my right hon. Friend as the leader within Europe of that free market principle.
The Prime Minister: I accept that we signed up to a European Economic Community.
Mr. David Winnick: Like my hon. Friends, I am no less opposed to terrorism in Northern Ireland than the Prime Minister. However, on reflection, will the right hon. Lady consider that the manner in which she raised the Ryan case in this House and at the meeting with Mr. Haughey clearly caused the maximum of embarrassment and difficulty to our friends in the Irish Republic and gave a good deal of satisfaction to the IRA and its allies throughout Europe and the United States? Why did the Prime Minister act in a manner more characteristic of her junior Health Minister?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I put the facts and will continue to do that. Bearing in mind that, under the extradition law of the Republic, the provisional warrant which the Irish Attorney-General can

185
issue is for three days, it is perfectly clear that the Republic considers that the provisional warrant is for three days and that that is sufficient for it to take a decision whether the warrant should be backed or not.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the main reason why she has difficulty in speaking about the problems of the common pound, the common bank and common frontiers is that she made a rod for her own back when she urged her right hon. and hon. Friends to vote on a three-line Whip to carry through the legislation on the single European market? She does not kid Opposition Members when she goes across to those booze-ups like the one in Rhodes and conducts a private brawl to give the impression to the British people that she is really against the Common Market. She does not fool us about that. If she wants to resolve the problem of the common frontiers and all the rest, she should bring forward legislation to repeal the Single European Act and we will give her a chuck on.
The Prime Minister: As is customary from the hon. Gentleman, that was a very confused question. However, if he wants to have a brawl with anyone, he must choose someone who is used to brawling. He had better choose someone his own size.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I welcome the new-found conversion to a green policy and the decision to have a conference in the spring on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. Will the Prime Minister explain the apparent contradiction between that new-found concern and the fact that the Government have just announced a considerable reduction in the budget for the institute for research into the environment with the ensuing sacking or redundancy of 300 environmental scientists?
The Prime Minister: The amount for research on the environment, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is determined by the advisory board which divides it between the scientific research councils, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Agriculture and Food Research Council. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the amount available in real terms for basic research has increased and was increased further as a result of the Autumn Statement. If we had not had an effective amount for research, the British Antarctic survey would never have discovered the gap in the ozone layer.
Mr. Foulkes: What did they discover?
The Prime Minister: The ozone layer was discovered. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not know that.
Mr. Tony Banks: As most Heads of Government favour the abolition of border controls, would it be legally possible for this country to insist on maintaining border controls if other European countries abolish them?
What was the Prime Minister's opinion about a European federal police force?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it would because, apart from the border with the Republic for which we would have special reason to retain border controls, the external borders of the United Kingdom are international borders as well as internal borders. We must therefore retain our border controls at airports and ports. They will all maintain controls through ports and airports because that is the entry from the outside world. I said earlier that the Trevi Ministers meet frequently and they are moving closer together.
I am not certain whether a federal police force would be advisable. I believe that it would be very difficult to achieve because such a force would have to be answerable specifically to someone, and our present arrangement with co-operation between forces is better.
Mr. Kinnock: There have been several questions on the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which the Prime Minister does not seem to have answered with the necessary clarity. Is she aware that, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), we can understand that, on the conspiracy allegations made against Patrick Ryan, the legal advice may have been that they could not be pressed effectively under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act? However, is that the advice that the right hon. Lady has received on the other two allegations against Patrick Ryan—possession of explosives and handling of explosives? Is she saying that if she cannot get everything—including bringing Patrick Ryan from Ireland to this country—she will not take legal means to achieve anything?
The Prime Minister: No, I am not saying that. As I told the right hon. Gentleman, my legal advice is that only two of the four charges would come under that Act. The right hon. Gentleman is making an assumption about which two they are, although I have not told him that. If he wants more specific answers, he knows full well that he must obtain legal advice from the proper officer—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my hon and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
Let me make it perfectly clear that we believe, nevertheless, in a policy of extradition and that it is far better to extradite people to stand trial in the country in which the offences have been committed.

Scottish Enterprise
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the White Paper on Scottish Enterprise, laid before Parliament today. The proposals set out in this paper will further strengthen the Scottish economy to meet the challenges of the 1990s by integrating the Government's support for training and for enterprise creation into a new body, Scottish Enterprise.
The Government have already transformed the British economy and given new confidence to industry, commerce and, indeed, the whole business community. We have reformed industrial relations legislation, stimulated increases in productivity, pushed forward a programme of deregulation, and opened up many sectors of the economy to competition through our privatisation programme and by other means. As a result, unemployment is now in sharp decline and enterprise is flourishing.
As these processes have gained in momentum, our two main instruments of direct support to the business of wealth creation in Scotland have seen a change of emphasis. The Scottish Development Agency, in its early years preoccupied with the problems of declining and elderly industries, now has the more positive purposes of accommodating, advising, informing, financing, attracting and developing enterprise, as well as a continuing commitment to renewing our environment. The Training Agency has coped admirably with the difficult and demanding task of alleviating the worst ills of unemployment, but it is now increasingly engaged in the aim of uprating and updating the skills of new entrants to the labour market, of unemployed adults and, indeed, of those in jobs.
As we enter the 1990s, two challenges face us. One is that of international competition, typified by the single European market in 1992. Skills of the highest order will be required at every level as firms increasingly look outward. The other challenge is the prospect of skill shortages. Continued growth is offering the unemployed wider opportunities, while the number of young entrants to the labour market is set to decline in Scotland, as elsewhere.
These challenges are combining to bring into sharp focus the need for a new and integrated approach. Enterprise creation and the growth of existing businesses are inextricably bound up with developing the skills of the work force. Industry is now prospering and able to shoulder its full responsibility for investing in the skills of its work force. Employers have to rediscover fully a sense of ownership of the system of training and enterprise creation. It is my hope that the proposals I am announcing today will constitute a quantum leap forward in this process.
Our proposals involve the creation of a new national body, Scottish Enterprise, whose main role will be to consider strategic issues relating to enterprise, employment creation and training and a network of employer-led local agencies, which will be responsible for stimulating the growth of self-sustaining enterprise, encouraging the creation of viable jobs and improving the skills of the work force in each area.
Scottish Enterprise will be a powerful agent for change. The statutory functions and powers of Scottish Enterprise
188
will be broadly like those in the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, as amended, together with the powers in the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended. Consequently, Scottish Enterprise will have a wide-ranging remit to enable it to continue the process of building the enterprise culture in Scotland.
It will continue the vital ongoing work of the SDA, but in addition, and for the first time, training in Scotland will be delivered through a Scottish body, working within a training policy framework for Great Britain agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but answerable to and provided with its resources by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Broadly speaking, Scottish Enterprise can be expected to receive the level of funding which would otherwise have been provided both for the Scottish Development Agency and for training programmes in Scotland. In the current year, that would amount to the best part of £500 million. The challenge for Scottish Enterprise and for the Scottish Office will be to use this enhanced role to meet the needs of business in Scotland in the 1990s.
A radical feature of our proposals is the creation of a comprehensive network of employer-led local agencies. Such local agencies will offer a one-door approach to employers and the wider community and will enable provision to be more closely attuned to the needs of the local labour market. They will allow local employers and others a much greater say in the delivery of services in their areas for training and enterprise creation. The opportunity is there to forge strong partnerships at local level and to provide a powerful focus for effecting local change. Local agency functions will include analysing the local labour market, developing training plans, subcontracting training work and monitoring performance, encouraging employers to increase their investment in training and providing business advice and support. Local agencies will, therefore, be responsible for the delivery of training tailored to meet local needs while operating within the framework of national policy.
Once local agencies have gained in strength and confidence, and shown themselves capable of taking on wider responsibilities, certain functions at present carried out by the Scottish Development Agency may be devolved to them. There are attractions in delegating as much authority as possible to the local level. However, in certain of its areas of operation, a national remit and powers have proved a major strength of the agency. A balance will have to be struck between local and central powers which enables the retention of present strengths as well as the desired improvement of local delivery. The Government have not yet come to a conclusion as to where this balance should lie and would welcome the views of all those concerned.
To set up the local agencies proposed, the Government will issue a prospectus inviting local employers to come forward with others from the community, such as people from enterprise trusts, colleges, training providers, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary organisations, to form the board of management in each area. We would expect two thirds or more of the membership to come from the senior ranks of private sector business. The Government are committed to giving the employers who will lead local agencies real responsibilities and the power to take the main decisions within a framework that ensures

189
public accountability. We are confident that within each community there are local employers and others who can rise to this exciting new challenge.
I am aware that these proposals will touch directly the lives of many people in Scotland: trainees, trainers, those already involved in enterprise support and, of course, the staff of the two bodies that are to merge. The success of Scottish Enterprise and of the local agencies will depend greatly upon the quality of their staff. For that reason, the Government believe that many of the staff in both the SDA and the Training Agency will choose to continue their present work with either Scottish Enterprise or the local agencies.
I should now like to draw attention to the position in the highlands and islands. We have in mind that the same principles outlined for Scottish Enterprise and the local agencies should apply there. Local employers should be given the opportunity to take a similar role as elsewhere. Of course, the geographical and economic characteristics of the north and west are different and we recognise the distinctive value of the contribution made by the Highlands and Islands Development Board to the regeneration of its area. We take the view that future arrangements must build on success to date. This points to the retention of a distinctive body for the highlands and islands and we put forward three options: to set up a new body, Highland Enterprise, incorporating the HIDB's functions together with responsibility for training; to retain the HIDB as it is and invite Scottish Enterprise to set up local agencies for training services in the highlands and islands; or to invite the HIDB to act as a local agency with Scottish Enterprise for training provision. We look forward to hearing the views of those who live and work in the highlands and islands on these options.
In conclusion, I take pride both in pointing to the achievements of the past and in presenting a White Paper which opens up challenging new vistas for the future. In so doing, I pay tribute to the contribution of Bill Hughes of the Scottish CBI who has stimulated public interest and debate in these ideas. I have been delighted by the widespread interest and enthusiasm for these proposals already obvious in public and private comment over recent weeks. It is clear that the people of Scotland are attracted to the new opportunities offered by this approach to training and enterprise creation. Important new responsibilities are proposed for the Scottish Office, for the staff of the Scottish Development Agency and for those involved in training, and especially for the Scottish business and industrial community.
We have not sought to answer all the questions at this stage. There will now follow a full consultation period until the end of March. I hope that everyone concerned with training and enterprise in Scotland will take the trouble to comment on these proposals so that together we can produce the best possible Scottish solution to Scottish needs.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I cannot remember any announcement that has been so well trailed and heralded. When we received it, the statement had been well decorated with public relations copy, including a fetching picture of a well-known Glasgow public house. The Secretary of State has done well in the cliché business in the past few minutes. There was one really purple
190
passage at the beginning, which says something for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courage, or at least for his brass neck. However, it is not clear how much substance there is behind the style. I suspect that those who were alarmed by the advance publicity will be at least temporarily relieved and that those who wanted a real attack on the problems of industrial training will be bitterly disappointed.
I shall start with the positive, because there is a positive side. I agree with the Secretary of State and welcome the need for a Scottish dimension to training. There should be a means of tailoring schemes to our needs in Scotland. I welcome the transfer of responsibility to the Scottish Office, although I note that the Department of Employment will still call the shots on national schemes. Will the Secretary of State note that one test for the new organisation when it is in being will be its ability, working with the Scottish Office, to influence the development of employment training and new training schemes?
There is an assumption in the White Paper that training is done for, not by, industry. There is no attack on the sad failure of industry in this country, which has left us trailing so far behind our principal competitors. At some point the Government must think seriously about the responsibility of industry, not just in terms of seconding an occasional executive to a local agency, but of tackling training in its own plants and factories with determination and the necessary resources.
The Secretary of State said that local agencies will be employer-led. We will expect them to represent the community generally. There must be a partnership, and few of us are convinced that there is an army of bright business men ready to enrol. In any event, whatever contribution employers may make to the new structure, they cannot have exclusive jurisdiction. The trade unions and local education authorities must have their place—not just a nod in passing.
There was also an assumption in the White Paper that the new structure will be funded simply by aggregating the existing budgets of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency in Scotland. I take it from that that there is to be no new money to back the new proposals. The Secretary of State must accept that adequate funding is essential if the quality is to be established and maintained. Our European competitors do that and do it well. Why should we not do the same? The Secretary of State talks about the challenge of 1992, but there will simply be window dressing if the investment is not made.
Training will obviously impact heavily on the Scottish Development Agency. Many of us feel that the case for combining the SDA and the Training Agency is not proven. Does the Secretary of State recall that the Opposition set down a number of tests which should be met?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of specific questions. Will Locate in Scotland be affected in any way by the new arrangements? Will the ability of the Scottish Development Agency to stimulate investment, back growth and provide risk capital be in any way inhibited? Will the agency be able to mount local task forces and initiatives, linking with local authorities and the community, such as we have seen in Dundee, GEAR, Greenock and the Garnock valley? What happens to the Scottish Development Agency's decentralised structure? Will it continue, given that the agency's functions appear to be largely unaffected, at least at this stage? Does the

191
Secretary of State accept that we shall want to look closely at the impact of any transfer of function to local bodies, which may be proposed at some future date? Finally, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, whatever option is selected, the Highlands and Islands Development Board will be in a position to carry on with its distinctive and valued work?
The Secretary of State made a lengthy statement, full of complex hints and suggestions. Inevitably there are worries about the loss of the SDA name—a trade mark built on years of well-tried success. The House is entitled to ask the Secretary of State why we should fall into line with the copywriters of his noble Friend Lord Young at the Department of Trade and Industry and why we should accept that sort of Thatcherian rhetoric in Scotland? I should have thought that the name Scottish Development Agency might have been preserved, even if the restructuring was to go ahead.
We are entitled to look closely at what we are getting in return. It may simply be a minor reform of the training structure—perhaps more of a lost opportunity than anything else. Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite its title, his White Paper says nothing about enterprise creation and says less on training than had been promised? The Secretary of State described his scheme as "a quantum leap". Whatever it is, it is certainly not that.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for at least a good proportion of his response, which has consisted of some perfectly relevant questions that I shall now seek to answer. I thank him especially for his welcome of the proposal in the White Paper that there should be a Scottish dimension to training and that responsibility for training in Scotland should become part of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office.
The hon. Gentleman made one point with which I entirely agree—that training should ultimately be the responsibility of industry itself, and that Scottish industry, and industry in the United Kingdom as a whole, has been sadly reluctant to acknowledge its responsibilities in that sphere to the extent that is found in other countries in Western Europe. It is enormously encouraging that many of the ideas in the White Paper have come from Scottish industry and the chairman of the Scottish CBI, and that those representing industry in Scotland have already stated publicly that they welcome the idea of industry being expected to take more responsibility for the provision of training. That suggests that in Scotland industry is well aware of the relevance of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and that points the right road forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the composition of the local agencies and whether local authorities would have a role to play. He will see from the White Paper that that point is specifically covered. It states that, of course, local authorities as employers may have a contribution to make in their locality and that there is nothing to stop them and other bodies from coming forward, together with the private sector, and putting forward proposals for the creation of local agencies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. He will agree that the funding of Scottish Enterprise, which is to be about £500 million, is not exactly small beer. It is an enormous sum, of which £350 million represents what is currently being spent on training in Scotland. That
192
illustrates the seriousness with which the Government have approached the needs of training in Scotland over the past few years.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about Locate in Scotland. I can give him a categoric assurance that the work of Locate in Scotland will not be affected by any of the proposals in the White Paper. Locate in Scotland is concerned with inward investment, and its role and the way in which it operates will not be in any way diminished, damaged or affected by the proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the decentralised structure that the Scottish Development Agency has introduced in the past 18 months will be affected by the proposals. It is unlikely that it will be, but that will be a matter for the agency to decide in the next few months. The agency has chosen to decentralise its responsibilities to a more local level, and that has been widely welcomed. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, there is nothing in the proposal that need interfere with that process unless the agency itself were determined, for some reason, to choose otherwise.
In both the statement and the White Paper, I specifically acknowledged the hon. Gentleman's point about the Highland and Islands Development Board. I shall simply add that the principle behind the proposals is to encourage local diversity with regard to the provision of training. There is no reason why training in Dundee should be identical to training in Aberdeen or in Glasgow, because in many respects it is important to identify the needs of local economies within the national framework so that local training can be tailored to those requirements.
If that is true of individual localities in the central belt, the same principle clearly has to apply when considering proposals for the highlands and islands which have an economic framework and sparsity of population which is peculiar within the United Kingdom, never mind within Scotland. From that it follows that, although the same principles might be relevant in the highlands and islands, we are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the community in that part of Scotland should make its own contribution to identifying the way in which these principles can best be adapted to the economic circumstances of that part of Scotland.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the context of a fall in unemployment of 70,000 in Scotland in the past two years, that will provide a tremendous opportunity for youngsters and people of all ages to take a leap forward in training and skills and that it will accelerate the opportunity to provide more jobs in Scotland?
In the context of devolving Scottish Enterprise to the regions, will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the integration of the enterprise trusts, the Scottish Development Agency regional offices, the Training Agency and the regional councils' economic development and planning committees? Are they to work together to provide more jobs, bearing in mind that in doing so they will need largely increased financial resources?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course I pay tribute to the work of the enterprise trusts. When I visited my hon. Friend's constituency and met members of his local enterprise trust in Dumfries, they said that they were very excited about the ideas that were then being discussed in the press—ideas

193
of a kind similar to those that I have set out today. I have no doubt that the success of the enterprise trust movement throughout Scotland illustrates that large numbers of people who are actively involved in industry are both willing and enthusiastic about making their contribution to the economic development of their localities. This proposal will provide them with an opportunity to have not merely an advisory role but a role in the execution and implementation of training in their localities. That can only benefit the local economy.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Secretary of State accept that training that is employer-led—presumably by many friends of the Government—does not mix well with the development role of the Scottish Development Agency? Scotland will be worried to hear that the Scottish Development Agency's name and reputation, which have been built up over the years, are to disappear overnight. Will the Secretary of State also make a commitment that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will remain master in its own area and will not lose its social commitment to the people of that area?
Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I think that she might not have properly understood the proposals. I suggest that she ought to read the White Paper before suggesting that employer-led local agencies do not mix well with the development role of the Scottish Development Agency. Over the last few years, the SDA has made it clear that it sees the encouragement and development of local, employer-led initiatives in the localities within the various parts of Scotland as crucial to its objective; otherwise, it will be wasting its time. I am quite sure that that is its view now.
We recognise that there is a continuing need for a distinctive body, such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board, to serve the needs of the highlands and islands. When the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to read that part of the White Paper which deals with the matter, I think she will acknowledge that that requirement and that concern have been fully met.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Scotland will welcome the statement? Those who have been involved in training and in the running of businesses will regard it as the first sensible approach that there has been for a long time towards meeting the needs of industry. The divorce of training from the development of an industry has meant that bureaucratic machines have been dealing with two interrelated activities that were dependent on each other. The proposal will remove that problem, and it is to be welcomed.
During the consultations on the future role of training in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area, will he bear in mind that a large part of the Scottish highlands is not included in the HIDB area? Those who live south of the Drumochter pass in my constituency will expect training activities, incentives and management to be the same on both sides of the Drumochter pass.
Mr. Rifkind: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, we have said that the same principles should apply. We shall examine whether it will be possible, in the
194
much more sparsely populated areas of north and west Scotland, to have the same structure of local agencies as might be appropriate either in the central belt of Scotland or even in constituencies, such as that of my hon. Friend, which, compared with parts of Sutherland or Inverness-shire, are more populated. Moreover, the structure of their local business communities is much more substantial. We hope that the same principles will apply. We shall seek the views of those who live in the highlands and islands about how best these principles can be adapted to their circumstances.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State pays tribute in the statement to Bill Hughes for his initiative, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the original idea came from the private industry councils in the United States, where the main thrust of private industry councils is training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we welcome the determination to bring training back into the Scottish forum.
In his statement the Secretary of State refers to a "one-door approach." He must know that the Dundee project is a one-door approach. I remind the House that that project was started by a Tory-controlled regional council, a Labour-controlled district council and the Scottish Development Agency. It is one of the best examples of how industry can be encouraged to come into an area. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the one-door approach of the Dundee project will not be lost in this initiative?
Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I envisage that Scottish Enterprise will be directly involved in matters of national Scottish significance and that it may also be directly involved at its headquarters with projects which, although they may have only a local, geographical remit, may be of such significance to the overall Scottish economy as to justify that degree of involvement. Proposals about decentralising the functions of the SDA will continue with Scottish Enterprise unless and until it is demonstrated that they could be more sensibly dealt with at purely local level. We want to examine the best ways of delivering locally those services that can benefit the local economy. However, important projects will continue to have the same opportunities as they have now.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Secretary of State understand the concern that, under the guise of the welcome devolution of Training Agency functions to Scotland, we may be seeing the filleting of the Scottish Development Agency and perhaps of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? What core functions and how many jobs does the Secretary of State expect will be held at the centre of what succeeds the SDA and even, perhaps, the HIDB? Will the Secretary of State either confirm or deny that recruitment for the membership of local agencies is already under way? If not, what status does Sir Hector Laing's letter to enterprise boards, looking for likely candidates, have? Does he understand that there is a great deal of concern that the professionalism of the SDA and of the HIDB may be replaced by the patronage of the Conservative party?
Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I have not seen any such letter, nor was I aware of the

195
possible existence of such a letter until I saw a newspaper report which, in every other respect, was inaccurate and which, for all I know, may have been inaccurate in that respect as well. Sir Hector Laing is involved with Scotbic, which has been involved with an enterprise trust. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ought to address that question to Scotbic and find out what letters may or may not have been sent. I have no idea whether such a letter exists. I have not seen such a letter. The only knowledge that I have as to whether such a letter might exist is certain newspaper reports, which I presume are the source of the hon. Gentleman's information. Scotbic is not part of the Scottish Office. If it wishes to send letters, that is entirely a matter for Scotbic. No doubt it can provide the hon. Gentleman with the information that he seeks.
As for the staff who now work for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board at their headquarters, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that over the last year or so the number of staff has been reduced—in the case of the SDA, because it decided to decentralise some of its functions to its regional offices in various parts of Scotland. I do not envisage any of the proposals in the White Paper as likely to have a direct effect on the number of staff employed in the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency.
Mr. Tony Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the spirit of enterprise comes from within and that it is difficult to impose it from without? For that reason, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to make the local agencies independent? Four years ago in Stockport the president of the chamber of commerce, a Scotsman, Ernest Petrie, started our local enterprise agency. Since then, there has been a burst of activity in Stockport and jobs and self-employment have been created. There has been no grant and no development agency, and unemployment is now less than 6 per cent. If there are 10 Scotsmen half as good as Mr. Petrie still in Scotland, that country has a great future.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend, and, in answering his remarks, I shall also deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who talked about patronage. Contrary to certain press reports, the Secretary of State for Scotland will not appoint either the chairmen or the members of the local agencies. They will come fron the local community. As I understand it, that is how they operate in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect a little? In a way we are all indebted to Bill Hughes for launching this venture. Those of us who have had discussions with Mr. Hughes recognise that his views were extremely embryonic. However, the responsibility for the White Paper lies with the Secretary of State alone. Will he reflect on the fact that one of the difficulties of employer-dominated training is that employers tend to train for jobs as they are, not jobs as they are likely to be? For example, if we had had employer-dominated training in Clydeside, we might still be training riveters if there were ships to build, and in Dundee we might still be training jute workers. The relationship between training, education and the future development of industry must be discussed, and there is little in the White Paper about that.
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is extremely difficult to reconcile the two roles of initiating new
196
ventures and training? Those two matters are not as co-related as they appear to be in the White Paper. Will the Secretary of State address that issue; and does he accept that, although we welcome the devolution element, we are anxious to see more money and effort put into it?
Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He said that he did not believe that training should be left to employers. However, he will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that industry should accept responsibility for providing training for its employees. That view is certainly shared throughout Western Europe. We acknowledge that training must be provided, and we believe that a partnership of the type proposed is the best way to do it. In addition, we envisage local agencies preparing economic profiles of their localities showing the likely skill shortages over the next few years and identifying—at a time when demographic changes will lead to fewer youngsters being available for employment—the type of training necessary to ensure that the youngsters and other local people get the jobs available and that local industry obtains the people with the necessary skills.
For example, it is worrying that, with continuing high unemployment, a recent survey by the Scottish CBI identified that 15 per cent. of its members report skill shortages and an inability to recruit those with the necessary skills. That problem must be eliminated.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call all those hon. Members who are rising, but will they please ask briefer questions because that leads to briefer answers?
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that nobody could quarrel with some of the language in the White Paper—for example, where it says that we should be prepared for the future, where it refers to "Scottishness," and so on, and, on page 27, where it says that the document is for discussion by the general populace in Scotland. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea to help to retain the industry that already exists in Scotland? Is he aware that for the first time in a hundred years the Scottish coal mining industry is depleted and that all the planning, engineering and service industries will be dealt with south of the border? We have lost the Scottish coal mining industry as an indigenous industry for the first time in a hundred years. Will the Secretary of State look into that?
Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was unable to find anything with which to quarrel in the White Paper, because on other occasions he has not found that too difficult. It is true that the deep-mined coal sector has been going through a difficult time. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been more growth in opencast mining in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom and that it is now responsible for half the coal produced north of the border. Therefore, even within the coal industry, which has difficulties and problems, there have been areas of significant growth.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State issued a consultative document on the future of Scotland's new towns. Does not today's

197
statement prejudge the efforts that have been made in looking for suitable alternatives to replace the new towns as job attraction agencies?
Mr. Rifkind: I hope not. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that it might, I should be delighted to hear the detailed reasons for his worry. I see nothing in the White Paper that is incompatible with the consultative document.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Secretary of State expect us to believe his assurance that Scottish Enterprise will be broadly based in view of the blatant abuse of patronage powers by the Government to invent what looks like a job creation scheme for failed Scottish Tory Members of Parliament, such as Ancram, Fletcher, Anna McCurley, Peter Fraser and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to accept that appointments to important public positions in Scotland should go to those best qualified to occupy them.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State explain how the local agencies will relate to the enterprise trusts and the development corporations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) referred? It is important that that should be clarified.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has raised important questions. Clearly, the enterprise trusts have been successful in attracting a significant number of people in local industry to serve in the local community and identify opportunities for economic growth and development. I am sure that many of those people would wish to serve on the local agencies. It might be that some of the enterprise trusts would put themselves forward as possible local agencies. We would like to explore those ideas with people who have experience in those matters.
As regards new towns, the responsibility for training has until now been the responsibility of the Training Commission—now the Training Agency—on a national basis. Clearly, if training is now to be delivered locally in the way we have suggested, there is no reason why that could not apply equally in the new towns. I accept that the new towns are in a special position and, as I said to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I shall be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on any particular problems of which we should be aware.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State, for once, acknowledge the excellent work being done by local authorities in many parts of Scotland, including my constituency, in promoting industry and enterprise in their areas? I accept that the new training agencies may need to be slightly more broadly based than the local district council areas in Scotland now, but does he accept that the suggestion that Edinburgh and East Lothian should be regarded as a local area for enterprise creation in the future may not be greeted enthusiastically in my constituency?
Mr. Rifkind: Those who draft the boundaries for the local agencies will be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's views. I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of local authorities. Indeed, it is referred to in the White Paper, which says:
198
"it is encouraging that many local authorities are already increasingly choosing to work in partnership with private sector interests to generate local economic development."
Mr. James Wallace: As well as training duties, the Secretary of State has said that he sees local agencies as having a role in providing a local economic audit or profile. How does he see the local area agencies, particularly in areas such as mine, being resourced for an administrative purpose.
Mr. Rifkind: We anticipate that the bulk of their funds—in some cases a high proportion of funds—will come from Scottish Enterprise. The local agency will present to Scottish Enterprise its proposals on the needs and training requirements of the local economy. If Scottish Enterprise were satisfied that the local agency consisted of people who were fit and proper to be responsible for the implementation of training policy and that they had sensible proposals which would involve the proper use of public funds, Scottish Enterprise would enter into a contractual relationship with the local agency for the delivery of the services.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware that the White Paper is testimony to the lamentable record of the Government over nine years of failing to train people? Not only have they given training opportunities at a lower rate than the United States, France and Germany, but they have provided fewer than even Taiwan and South Korea. Will he tell the House what in this vacuous paper gives hope to the 6,000 youngsters who are currently unable to be offered YTS places by his Government?
Mr. Rifkind: As the level of resources and training provided during the past 10 years was light years in excess of anything provided by the last Labour Government, any defects in the United Kingdom in regard to training certainly did not begin in 1979.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: Among the clichés and half-truths of the statement and the Minister's waffle today, there are one or two real nuggets of wisdom. The White Paper, in page 9, states:
"Efforts to date to persuade the private sector to take greater interest in and responsibility for training have had disappointing results … Even though skills shortages in some sectors are already becoming apparent, industry as a whole is still insufficiently aware of the key changes ahead in the labour market and so is not planning ahead to cope with future needs."
What makes the Minister think that people who have failed to plan for their own needs are in any way capable of planning for everyone else's needs?
Mr. Rifkind: That is a perfectly reasonable question. I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, Scottish industry and the Scottish CBI have said that they wish to be given the responsibility for the provision of training and for developments described in the White Paper. Industry would not have been calling for that a few years ago.
Secondly, in the past few years there has been the very welcome development of the enterprise trusts which have similar activities, which owe their genesis to the private sector in Scotland, and which now cover virtually the whole of Scotland. The fact that hundreds of local business men throughout Scotland have given their time, effort, enthusiasm and sometimes their resources not for the

199
immediate benefit of their own companies—although their companies often indirectly benefit—but to identify the local economic requirements of their community and to act in a responsible and constructive way in developing the potential of their locality is a very good reason for believing that they will respond to these new opportunities as they have said they will.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I welcome the Government's admission that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland described from the Front Bench in a Scottish Grand Committee debate on 14 July 1988 as a Bennite instrument of state intervention, has been of central importance to improving life in the highlands and islands in the past 20 years. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that he failed to answer from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and give an assurance that none of the three options will in any way diminish the unique social remit of the Highlands and Islands Development Board?
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are lots of hens in the highlands and islands of Scotland, and I am sure that a good proportion of them have the unqualified admiration of all my hon. Friends. I am happy to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. We recognise the distinctive contribution of the HIDB in the highlands and islands. We look forward to a contribution from the HIDB and from those who live in the highlands and islands on the sort of structure that they believe would be relevant in their circumstances.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the SDA's area projects will not be diminished or adversely affected in any way by these proposals? More particularly, will he give the people of Inverclyde an assurance that the Inverclyde initiative will continue with its work? I remind him that annex A on page 29 contains an admission that Greenock, together with Irvine,
"exhibit a very high rate of unemployment."
Does he agree that the Inverclyde initiative, which has not done a great deal until now, requires more resources than the threat of being shifted to Irvine or some other place?
Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no danger of the Inverclyde initiative being shifted to Irvine. He will be aware that I had a meeting with representatives of the local community in Inverclyde, who gave me a number of examples and suggestions as to what they believe should be the structure and format of the Inverclyde initiative. We have been able to respond positively to all of them, including the most important of all—the creation of the enterprise zone.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I am quite surprised at the Minister. It was a lovely package but it says nothing because the most important element is missing—new money. There is no new money here. There is nothing to tackle the crisis that is about to arise in my constituency with the closure of the Bishopton royal ordnance factory.
The Minister mentioned employer-led initiatives. There are nearly no employers left in my constituency because the Government have done their best to close them. The most recent occurrence, at CalMac, is to move 200 jobs from Gourock to Oban. What does the Minister propose
200
to do about the workers who will not move there? Is he going to retrain them? Nearly every penny that is committed here could be spent on the 1,100 jobs that will be lost in Bishopton. My constituents will see this as a fancy package with poison inside it. No one wants it unless it produces the goods. It does not produce the goods for Scotland. We need new money—a massive injection of cash—without it being frittered away by the Government.
Mr. Rifkind: That was a splendid, if not predictable, contribution from the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that his solution for every problem in Scotland—and no doubt anywhere else in the world—is more money, but he does not appear to have worked out what he would do with it if it were provided. As Scottish Enterprise will have resources of £500 million, which represents the current resources of the Training Agency and the SDA, he can hardly suggest that it will be skimped for ways of ensuring that the needs of his constituents and of those in other parts of Scotland will be fully satisfied.
Mr. Tony Worthington: When the Hughes plan was mooted, I welcomed it because it would return training to Scotland and to Scottish control, but that is not what is proposed here. The White Paper states that the Department of Employment will remain the lead agency and that it will set the national framework. At the moment, if one wants to change the employment training scheme or the youth training scheme, one writes to the Department of Employment in order to get to the organ grinder, but one is referred back to the monkey. Will the Secretary of State confirm that nothing in the proposal will allow any Scottish alteration of the employment training scheme, the youth training scheme or any other scheme?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood what is in the White Paper. I would advise him to read it more carefully before he jumps to conclusions. The White Paper and my statement today say that the national training policy will be decided jointly by the training Ministers. Obviously the Secretary of State for Employment, whose responsibilities cover 45 million people in the United Kingdom, is the lead Minister. It would be very odd for it to be otherwise. Training policy will be determined by the Ministers who are responsible for training, and in future the Secretary of State for Scotland will be responsible for training policy in Scotland.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State said that he expected two thirds of the local agencies to consist of the senior ranks of private sector business. Will he expand on the role that he envisages for local authorities in the agencies, and in particular the mechanics for securing local authority representation? It is only a matter of weeks since his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office came to Dundee and sang the praises of the local authority-led Tayside enterprise board as representing all that is best in co-operation between the public and private sectors. Why does he disagree with his ministerial colleagues in this matter?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that local authorities, as employers in their areas, together with other employers, will be perfectly free to come forward with proposals for local agencies. The primary purpose of the initiative is wealth and job creation. That must clearly be the primary

201
responsibility of those in manufacturing industry and in commerce and business generally.
Therefore, any initiative that is not led by those who are essentially involved in the business of wealth and job creation would fail from the start. Local authorities have a contribution to make, as have other non-industrial organisations referred to in the White Paper, but it would be quite unrealistic to pretend that their responsibility in this area of policy should be the same as or greater than that of local industry.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), may I say that the Secretary of State is quite right to point out that there are many bens in the islands and highlands, but there are also a few buts. One of them is on page 29. The White Paper seems to equate the social and economic features of Skye and Wester Ross with those of Sutherland, which would be true to an extent, and of Thurso and Wick. Surely the Secretary of State must concede that the economic base of northern Caithness is substantially different from those of Skye and Wester Ross. Looking to the future—it is a gloomy one—the only similarity that I can see is that, if the potential threat to Dounreay, as outlined by the Secretary of State for Energy, ever comes to pass, both areas will share in a sad major industrial rundown. In Skye and Wester Ross, it will involve the Kishorn yard, and, in the Caithness economy, it will involve Dounreay. What is the other basis on which it is a manageable area in terms of the similarities that the White Paper seems to suggest?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman and of those who live in those areas. If there is to be a structure of local agencies in the more sparsely populated parts of Scotland, clearly such areas cannot be so small as to be unlikely to provide those who will actually be responsible for running the local agencies and supervising the implementation of training policy. There is a certain minimum area size for an agency to be viable.
Mr. KennedyIt is enormous.
Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly enormous in geographical terms, but it covers a total population of 55,000—[Interruption.] No one is questioning the importance of it. As I said, these are not final conclusions on the areas of the local agencies.
The hon. Gentleman must consider whether an area as small as Skye or as small as Skye and Wester Ross—[Interruption.] In terms of population, it is very small—can provide the personalities and the framework that would enable a local agency to carry out its responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will not be serving the interests of his constituents if he puts forward proposals which, by their essence, are non-viable. This is not a conclusion; it is a suggested framework of proposals, and the hon. Gentleman might like to bear that in mind.

Scottish Question Time
5.12 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have already given you private notice of this matter. I refer to Scottish Question Time well ahead of 21 December, when we should first discuss these matters. I refer also to substantial interventions made by English Members during Scottish Question Time. I am seeking a remedy from you within the powers that are available to you and within your responsibilities.
On 30 November, in column 714 of Hansard, when the Scottish Transport Group statement was before the House, there was an interruption on the Opposition side of the House, no doubt because a Conservative Member representing an English constituency wished to speak. You said:
"This is a United Kingdom Parliament."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 714.]
However reluctantly, I acknowledge that that is the case. More importantly, in column 352 of Hansard, on 22 July 1987, you are recorded as saying:
"Scottish Members take part in English Question Times and English Members may take part in Scottish Question Times."—[Official Report, 22 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 352.]
You, Mr. Speaker, seriously misdirected yourself on the facts. This is not a personal attack upon you. I am sure that at some time in their careers everyone sitting in the House of Lords, the highest Bench, has misdirected himself. The important thing is that, when somebody misdirects himself, he must re-examine the conclusions that he drew at that time.
I have carefully looked through questions on the Order Paper, Department by Department. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as a Department that can be categorised as dealing only with English questions. Moreover, even the Department of the Environment, which has a finger in the pie in the administration of Edinburgh castle, has a United Kingdom dimension, however large or small.
I have read "Erskine May" and Standing Orders. In a sense, the House is rather like the legal system, which operates on the common law and on statute, the common law being practice and the statutes being the Standing Orders. Under the heading "Written and Unwritten Procedure", in page 209 of "Erskine May", it states:
"On its smaller scale, the study of English parliamentary procedure presents the same difficulty as the study of English law in that its rules are not covered by any comprehensive and authoritative code."
It goes on to state:
"The written part is merely a pendant to the unwritten part."
We must look at "Erskine May" and Standing Orders to define exactly what your powers and responsibilities are, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, practice is important. When I was previously in the House, the practice was quite clear. Scottish Question Time was dealt with by Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies. Looking at Standing Orders, which are the equivalent of statute law, the recognition of the Scottish dimension within the United Kingdom Parliament has been a progressive affair over a period of years.
When I first came to the House in 1970—you will recall this from your previous incarnation also, Mr. Speaker—when the Scottish Grand Committee was established, people such as Sir William van Straubenzee, who told the

203
Tory Whips that his name rhymed with Mackenzie, were directed to the Scottish Grand Committee. In those days Committees were made up to represent the Government and the Opposition numbers in the House. Many English Members served on the Scottish Grand Committee—a sort of purgatory for those whom the Whips did not like. Over time, that practice has been dispensed with.
Above all, this is a political institution, and it must be sensitive to political reality. It became an untenable practice to load the Scottish Grand Committee with Members of Parliament representing English constituencies. Why has the practice—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is raising general matters.
Mr. Sillars: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I must disagree with you. They are specific matters. We are talking about the change in practice, and that change is a recent one. It goes back only to the 1987 general election results. If you compare the period before that with the period since the general election, you will see that the practice has fundamentally changed. I suggest that the matter is within your powers and responsibilities. It is no longer the case that Scottish Question Time is reserved for Scottish Members of Parliament.
I seek two actions from you, Mr. Speaker. They are within your powers and responsibilities. The relevant authorities setting out your powers and responsibilities are "Erskine May" and Standing Orders. "Erskine May", in page 334, clearly states:
"The Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions.
The Speaker's responsibility in regard to questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House."
I shall quote an analysis of Scottish Question Time since this Parliament was established after the general election.
Mr. Speaker: As we have an important debate following this matter, in the interests of the House—we are dealing with the interests of the House—I think it would be sensible if the hon. Gentleman were to come to see me about this matter, when I would gladly and willingly consider it with him in great detail. I do not think that it is appropriate to raise these issues when we have such a busy day in front of us.
Mr. Sillars: That is an unacceptable suggestion from you, Mr. Speaker, because "Erskine May" tells us that the place to raise a point of order of public concern is in the House, and that is exactly what I am doing. I am about to give you an analysis of the position since 1987 which demonstrates clearly the unacceptability of the new practice that you have introduced.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make accusations like that. Come to the point and I shall deal with it.
Mr. Sillars: This is not a question of accusations—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been here at Question Time and the hon. Gentleman has not been here. I know what he is talking about, and I do not need to be reminded of it.
Mr. Sillars: I take it that you are familiar with the fact that English and Welsh Tory Members of Parliament have asked nearly 20 per cent. of balloted questions and 15·9 per cent. of supplementaries, whereas the SNP has asked only
204
5·9 per cent. of supplementaries—[Interruption.] It is you, Mr. Speaker, who selects supplementaries. Four Tory Members representing English constituencies have been able to ask more questions than my hon. Friends in the SNP parliamentary group.
I will tell you why I am raising this with you in public, Mr. Speaker. On 21 December I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question about drug abuse in Govan and how further aid can be given to communities dealing with that problem. My constituents will fail utterly to understand if I am knocked out of the queue by English Tory Members who have no interest in the Scottish matter. Therefore, I am asking you to say that you will not select English Tory Members to ask supplementaries and that you will convene a conference of the Whips of the four relevant parties.
I hope that you will not refer me to the usual channels, Mr. Speaker, because, if you do, I shall refer you to Standing Order No. 130, which lays an obligation on this House to have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The operative word is not "may" but "shall". Eighteen months into this Parliament, the usual channels have still failed to deliver.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: After 10 minutes on the preceding point, another two minutes on this will be about enough.
Mr. Walker: I have no wish to detain the House. When you take into consideration all the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), as I am sure you will, I trust that you will bear in mind the fact that Members, such as myself, who regularly attend Question Time, are frequently not called because of the numbers on these Benches. Frequently, Scottish Labour Members are called on matters in which we on this side have an interest. That is how this balances out. I hope that you will bear that in mind when you consider such aspects of this United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and I have no authority to change that. It is a heavy responsibility for Mr. Speaker to be completely even handed. We welcome back the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) after some time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. In that case I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. He only needs to do the arithmetic to see that if the Chair were wholly fair no Member of Parliament would be called to speak in a debate more than about four times a Session on average. If he looks at the record, he will find that members of his party have done rather better than that, largely because I have an obligation to look after the rights of minority parties.
I shall certainly not be put in a position of agreeing only to call Scottish Members at Scottish Question Time because this is a United Kingdom Parliament and certain questions, for instance on the Forestry Commission, can be answered only by Scottish Ministers. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for English Members to table questions on the day for Scottish questions and to participate as Members of a United Kingdom Parliament, just as it is legitimate for Scottish Members to take part in questions directed to other Departments, as was the case at both Employment Question Time and Prime Minister's

205
Question Time today. I had not anticipated what the hon. Gentleman was going to say, but his party did rather well today. I do not think that he has any complaint.
Mr. Sillars: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: No. I am not taking it again.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I raised a similar point of order in July last year about the first Scottish Question Time after the general election. If you check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will see that you made a mistake in referring to English questions and you corrected yourself afterwards and reference to said United Kingdom questions.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) makes a fair point. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prohibit an English Member from intervening in Scottish Question Time, but until July 1987 by custom, tradition and practice only rarely, if ever, did English Members intervene in Scottish Question Time. The tradition was broken last year because, to be blunt, the Labour party was too successful in Scotland, winning 50 of the 72 seats, and the Tories were reduced to a discredited rump of 10. We are being punished for our success because now it is more difficult for a Scottish Labour Back Bencher to catch your eye due to the infiltration of English Tory Members. All we are asking is that you use your discretionary power, Mr. Speaker, return to what was the custom and tradition of the House before July 1987, and let us have more opportunities to speak on behalf of our constituents.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
206
I also have to bear in mind that we have questions to the Northern Ireland Office. In the past, I have been heavily criticised by Labour Members who have not been called for calling too many Northern Ireland Members to ask questions and supplementaries. Some of those hon. Members are nodding their heads now. I have a heavy responsibility and the House had best leave this to Mr. Speaker, whom I hope they trust to be entirely fair.
Mr. James Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the substantial transfer payments from England to Scotland, is it not entirely reasonable that English Members should represent English taxpayers' interests by asking questions about Scottish business at Scottish Question Time?
Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your direction on the point raised about Standing Order No. 130, which states that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs "shall be" established, not "might" or "may be" established. What recourse do I have as a Back-Bench Member to ensure that this House follows its Standing Orders? Is that matter not in your province, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Last week there was a procedure debate in which the Leader of the House promised a debate on that very matter. If the hon. Member and his hon. Friends think that Mr. Speaker's practice should be changed, we have a Procedure Committee which has wide powers of reference and he could put this matter about Scottish questions to it. If the House in its wisdom decides that only Scottish Members should be called at Scottish Question Time or only Ulster Members at Northern Ireland Question Time, I shall follow that decision. Until then, I propose to carry on as I have in the past, being even handed to both sides of the House.

Orders of the Day

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Since we have such a late start to this important debate, I appeal for brief contributions from the Front and Back Benches.
  5.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Like my predecessors, Labour and Conservative, I have to show that the necessary effort against terrorism requires certain limited powers for the police and for the courts which go beyond those granted by the ordinary law. I hope that I shall not have great difficulty in doing that this afternoon because events in all our minds make the argument for me.
  The Bill covers international as well as Irish terrorism. There are examples of how we have suffered from international terrorism which I need not rehearse because they are familiar to the House. But for some months now our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland, and we ourselves, have been living through a particularly intense phase in the latest campaign by the Provisional IRA. The past 20 years have seen in the United Kingdom a terrorist campaign unparalleled in the western world, aimed ostensibly at the goal of a united Marxist Ireland. This campaign has caused the death of almost 3,000 men, women and children, more than three quarters of them Irish men and women. It has also been responsible for the deaths of more than 400 soldiers. This year alone 91 people have been killed in Northern Ireland.
  Those statistics take their place among all the other statistical information with which we are bombarded, but they do not tell the full story of the individuals—of 21-year-old Gillian Johnson murdered in county Fermanagh: she is not just a statistic; a 12-year-old schoolgirl severely injured when a bomb exploded on a school bus; two elderly householders killed when a booby trap bomb exploded in a block of flats in Londonderry; 32 soldiers and six police officers killed this year; Mr. Lavery and his 13-year-old granddaughter murdered last week in the village of Benburb.
  It should not be just for right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to lay those tragedies before us. Recent events prove beyond doubt a point that was made at Question Time today—that we must redouble and intensify our efforts to tell the world the simple truth about the Provisional IRA.
  I want to make two brief points before I come to the Bill. The record shows that the only currency in which the Provisional IRA is interested is that of corpses. In creating misery they are masters, but in advancing towards a united Ireland they are failures. They have not broken the determination of the people of Northern Ireland. They have not deflected our security forces. They have not bullied the House or our constituents into calling on us to abandon the effort against them. The few and fractious
  208
  voices raised in support of the abandonment of Northern Ireland find no echo. For all their ferocity, the IRA has failed, and will continue to fail.
  A month ago the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) accused the Government of working on
  "the cardinal error that somehow we can make the law defeat terrorism."—[Official Report, 2 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 1113.]
  But it is not an argument against a particular measure that by itself it does not do all that is required. Success against terrorism in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, depends on energetic co-operation in the security effort on both sides of the border. It depends on all the valiant efforts, in which the hon. Gentleman's party joins, being made to reconcile the two communities in the north. It depends on sustaining the economy. But it also depends, and depends crucially, on having in place laws properly adapted to the prevention and pursuit of terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, but it is an exceptional crime, directed at the heart of society, carried out on the whole by well-trained and well-equipped men. Society has to learn to protect itself by measures to prevent terrorism and then, if necessary, to bring terrorists to justice.
  The Bill is called the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, not the "Punishment of Terrorism" Bill. The limited special powers which I shall ask the House to approve save lives because they are powers of prevention. I exercised those powers for a year as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for three years in my present position and, incident by incident, I have no doubt of that. If we have to wait to act until evidence of a specific offence is available, we may have to wait until there is a victim. That is to wait too long. We must be able to act where we can before blood is spilled on the streets.
  The first Prevention of Terrorism Bill was introduced by a Labour Government in two days in November 1974 in the light of a particular violent campaign on the mainland. Members of the Opposition Front Bench once grasped the nettle and took the action that they have since come to oppose. The 1974 Act and the Act passed two years later in 1976 contained many of the powers which we have come to see as essential to our security forces—proscription, special powers of arrest and detention and exclusion, as well as examination at ports handling traffic within the common travel area. The 1976 Act was replaced by a further Act in 1984, which was given a five year life. It expires on 21 March 1989.
  The Bill before the House replaces that Act. In working it out we have had in mind three principles. We want to preserve the core of the powers which have proved their worth in the fight against terrorism. We want to bring before the House a number of new measures, principally financial, which we believe will add significantly to those defences, and we want to bring in a number of reforms which have been proposed in the review of the legislation by Lord Colville.
  During the passage of the 1983 Bill my predecessor announced an independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act each year. There have been thorough and critical reviews by Sir Cyril Philips in 1984 and 1985, and by Lord Colville in 1986 and 1987. Last year I asked Lord Colville to widen his terms of reference to consider not just the operation of the Act but the legislation as a whole. The Bill includes many of his recommendations, and I thank him for the care and thoroughness with which he has

  209
  approached a difficult and sometimes thankless task. Lord Colville has agreed to continue his work of scrutinising the operation of the Act, by the police and the Executive, and that is good news.
  The central powers in the Bill remain unchanged because we believe that they are needed. Lord Colville accepted the continued need for the powers of arrest and detention, but disagreed with us over exclusion. I share Lord Colville's dislike for exclusion in principle. I must take great care when exercising the power. A great amount of detail is brought before me in each case. But I see no alternative when it is not possible to bring charges against those who are planning acts of terrorism. Let me give an example.
  Earlier this year the police were able to locate and follow a number of people in London whom they suspected of being members of an IRA active service unit. It was not possible to bring charges against them because no terrorist act had yet been committed. But I had no doubt on the information available to me that they should not be allowed to remain here to prepare or plan for acts of terrorism. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, we sometimes have intelligence which, for obvious reasons, we cannot quote in court. Case by case, there are justifications for exclusion. Let me give another practical example which crops up from time to time. Exclusion seems to be justified when people convicted of serious terrorist offences talk openly in prison of their intention to become involved in terrorism again once their sentence has expired. There again, with the proper precautions, a decision on exclusion is justified.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary accept from me that no Opposition Member supports terrorism or bomb outrages, or indeed, as far as I know, the IRA? However, since the right hon. Gentleman is giving examples, let me give him one. One of my constituents, Peter Clifford, a bookseller, was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and, frankly, that was an outrage. That is why people such as me object to it. How many people have been arrested under the Act but have never been charged with terrorist offences?
  Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with exclusion. He misses the whole point of the legislation, which is prevention. It is illusory to suppose that every act of detention or exclusion can be justified only if a charge follows. If the hon. Gentleman had been following my argument, he would know that the whole point is that that is not necessarily so.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but I have already shortened my speech considerably because, as Mr. Speaker said, we are starting at a late hour through no fault of ours, and that will limit to some extent my giving way.
  Mr. Hunter: I just felt that my right hon. Friend was being too fair in referring only to Lord Colville's objections to exclusion orders. It is equally relevant to record that Lord Jellicoe, in his review, regarded exclusion orders as being vital to public safety and to combating terrorism.
  Mr. Hurd: There is disagreement between those two noble Lords, and I have given my view.
  The system of three-year reviews introduced in the last Bill has meant a substantial reduction in the number of people excluded, which is now 123. Even if the power were used even less than it is now, I should continue to believe that in a rare number of cases it is necessary.
  The power to arrest and detain persons on reasonable suspicion of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism has shown itself to be an invaluable part of our armoury, and Lord Colville had no hesitation in recommending its continuance.
  The House is aware of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others, which was delivered last week. The court found that the purpose of the arrests of the four applicants in that case fell well within the purposes permitted by the convention—that these arrests were based on reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence within the meaning of the convention, and that the intention behind the arrests was to bring charges if sufficient and usable evidence could be obtained. The judgment makes it clear that the arrest powers—a cornerstone of our prevention of terrorism legislation—do not conflict with the European convention on human rights.
  Where the court differed from the Government was not over the arrest power or the length of detention available under the Act, but on the need for detainees to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
  The Government have no doubt that the seven days detention, which has been available under the 1974 Act and its successors, is fully justified in some cases in order to give the police time to complete often complex inquiries to establish—
  Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall finish this section about detention, because it is an argument that runs forward, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I was saying that I believe, as our predecessors did, that this power is fully justified in some cases to give the police time to complete often complex inquiries in order to establish whether an offence has been committed. In his report, Lord Colville set out 14 reasons why the police might need this period of detention in such cases. The extended period of detention has led to major charges in respect of a number of terrorist crimes. I shall give an example. Following the shooting at close range of an off-duty part-time RUC reservist, and, acting on information, the police detained a person in connection with the crime. A three-day extension of his detention was requested for questioning about the suspect's alleged involvement in the incident and to await the completion of forensic and fingerprint comparisons. But it was only after a further two-day extension—up to the maximum—for the police to check out an alibi that the detainee could be charged with murder. He is now serving a life sentence.
  Against the background of the terrorist campaign that this country continues to suffer, and the overriding need to bring terrorists to justice, we do not believe that the maximum time a detainee is available for interview under the terrorism legislation should be any less. We wish to ensure that the police continue to have the powers which they and we believe they need to counter terrorism. It

  211
  follows, as those familiar with the convention will know, that there are two ways in which we can proceed. We can decide to derogate under the convention in respect of the exercise of these powers, as provided for in article 15 of the convention; or we can introduce a judicial element into the procedure for authorising extensions of detention in order to comply with article 5.3 of the convention. The court recognised the difficulties of judicial control over decisions to arrest and detain suspected terrorists. It acknowledged that these may call for suitable procedural precautions. It acknowledged, too, the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  Our system contrasts with that on the continent, in which examining magistrates supervise police inquiries and also, normally, authorise detention. I have no doubt that the House, as I would, would have preferred to see this matter resolved before debating the Second Reading of the Bill today. But it would not have been sensible to rush into hasty decisions on a highly complicated problem between last week's judgment and today's debate. I believe that the House will understand why we feel it necessary to proceed with a little more deliberation in this case. We are examining the problem with an open mind, and I shall bring forward our proposals, as the House is entitled to expect, before the Bill leaves this House.
  Does the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) wish to comment on detention?
  Mr. Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that at the root of many of the actual and alleged miscarriages of justice lie convictions based mainly—or entirely in some cases—on confessions obtained in police custody? Does he agree, therefore, that the longer a suspect remains in police custody, the easier it is for police to obtain uncorroborated confessions? Does he agree that that is an unhealthy aspect, which is common to many of the principal alleged miscarriages of justice, starting with Timothy Evans and finishing with the Birmingham and Guildford bombing cases?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's worries about these matters are to a substantial extent out of date. I believe that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the changes in procedure as to what happens in police stations in Northern Ireland mean that many of those fears are now unfounded.
  Lord Colville recommended that the Act should become permanent. We have considered his recommendation carefully and, of course, one can argue that after 14 years, if terrorism shows no sign of abating, Parliament should face the need for permanent legislation. We believe that it is right that exceptional powers, such as these, should be allowed to remain on the statute book only for as long as is absolutely necessary. We believe that Parliament should regularly have to take a conscious decision as to whether they should remain in force. That is why the powers in the Bill will, as now, have to be renewed regularly or they will lapse. They can be renewed wholly or in part, as Parliament decides, so that if Parliament takes the view at any time that a certain provision can safely be allowed to cease to have effect, this can happen. But we do not believe that it is necessary to have a new Act every five years. So we have returned to the position in the 1974 and 1976 Acts of annual review and continuance, but we shall give the Bill no expiry date.
  212
  There are two provisions in part V of the Bill which are new and which apply only to Northern Ireland. I shall mention them only in summary, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with them in his reply. Those provisions refer to changes in the remission arrangements, which arise because of our growing concern about the number of people who return to terrorism after being released from prison. Those changes will not affect those now in prison and will apply only to those who commit offences after the Bill becomes law.
  We have decided first to reduce remission from one half to one third for people who commit serious terrorist offences and who are sentenced to fixed terms of five years or more. This will not apply to those sentenced to less than five years imprisonment or to those convicted of non-scheduled offences. We are also providing—remember that this is important—that people on conditional release from prison, who are convicted of a scheduled offence, will be required to serve first any unexpired period of remission relating to the previous prison sentence. These measures are designed to deter people from committing terrorist offences and, by restricting the opportunity for those convicted to become further involved on release, to protect the general public.
  Ms. Clare Short: From the time that the right hon. Gentleman served in Northern Ireland, he will appreciate that the large numbers of young people who are in prison because they have been convicted of offences connected with terrorism tends to tie their families, those who live near them and whole sections of the community to support and loyalty to that individual and loyalty to the paramilitary organisation. He must know that because it relates to the concern to obtain the release of young prisoners. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill will simply tie even more people, for even longer, to loyalty to the person in prison and thus to the paramilitary organisation?
  Mr. Hurd: The great thing is to prevent people from being swept into that disastrous cycle. Notions such as, "You are in the Maze, but not for so long and then you come back and join us again" are held by certain people. If the new added deterrents are known, from the start, by new offenders I believe that they could have the opposite effect to what the hon. Lady fears. I believe that they will effectively discourage people from getting involved in such horror.
  The new provisions on the finances of terrorism are complicated. I am truncating my remarks, but if there are any particular points that hon. Members wish to raise, as opposed to in Committee, my hon. Friend will deal with them later.
  The existing Acts prohibit contributions to acts of Northern Irish terrorism and give a power to the courts to order the forfeiture of any money or property intended to be used for terrorist offences. In recent years, it has become clear that we must do more than that and that we need more extensive financial legislation to strike at the financial roots of terrorism. The Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir John Hermon, made that clear in his annual report for 1987. One estimate of the annual income of the Provisional IRA is put at between £3 million and £4 million a year. The provisionals need that money to buy arms and equipment because it is not all given to them by

  213
  Colonel Gaddafi. They need the money to support the members of their ASUs and their dependants and also to fund the work of Sinn Fein.
  Because money is so important to the Provisional IRA, that organisation has devoted a good deal of time and effort to fund raising. We must halt and reverse its success. Such fund raising is partly a matter of extortion and armed robbery and, of course, that is already covered by law. However, the IRA has gone into apparently legitimate business that gives it an assured income and a firmer base. It is, for example, producing, on quite a large scale, pirate videos. It is engineering mortgage fraud through unsuspecting estate agents. The RUC is actively investigating those matters, but the Chief Constable believes that the powers contained in the Bill are vital if he is to tackle the root of such terrorist racketeering.
  It is not just the IRA which is involved in such things. We also have evidence that middle east terrorist groups have used the London banking system to their advantage. An Abu Nidhal cell was discovered in London in 1986 and it was run at a cost of about £50,000 a year. Money had been brought into the United Kingdom by couriers and maintained by the cell's leader to pay for safe houses, the travel expenses of the agent, as well as the salaries of the team.
  In the Bill we propose a range of measures aimed at intercepting the flow of funds to terrorism. We have built on section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to provide a comprehensive scheme of investigation, prosecution and forfeiture of funds or property destined to be used to finance terrorism. Under clause 9 of the Bill it is an offence to solicit, receive or to make available money or other contributions for terrorist purposes. It will also be an offence to enter into, or otherwise be concerned in, an arrangement whereby money or other property is made available to a person for terrorist purposes, which are widely defined in the Bill. That is intended to cover, for example, banking transactions involving payments to a customer's order. The offence will also cover an arrangement whereby money or other property is made available to a lawful business and either that money, or the profits of that activity, is intended to be used for terrorist purposes. I make it clear—it could become an important point—that those offences will apply to Northern Irish and international terrorism. Moreover, entering an arrangement facilitating the retention or control of terrorist funds will be an offence—the so-called laundering offence. In order to commit that offence the person entering into such an arrangement must know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that the arrangement is related to terrorist funds.
  We hope that, as with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the police will have the co-operation of the banks and other financial organisations. We have discussed the proposals with the financial institutions of the banking world in London and Belfast and they accept the need for incisive action against funds passing through banks and other financial institutions. We are glad of that.
  The Bill will provide for the forfeiture of money or property destined for terrorist use or which was the subject of an arrangement for handling or laundering terrorist funds. It will prohibit dealings in property, which is liable to be forfeited, and the police will be able to apply for a
  214
  restraint order before a person is charged. That power to freeze has been extremely important in the case of drug trafficking and that power is crucial if anyone liable to be charged with one of the financial offences is not to frustrate the forfeiture procedure by shifting his assets abroad while the proceedings go on.
  The Bill provides for Orders in Council to designate other countries whose forfeiture and restraint procedures will be enforceable in the United Kingdom. Those Orders in Council will be made as and when we manage to negotiate mutual enforcement agreements with other countries. We would hope to start that process as soon as the Bill becomes law. If funds can cross international barriers, the powers to intercept those funds must also cross those barriers. That is an obvious point that was also applied to drug trafficking cases and it is beginning to work out quite well.
  Linked to the strong new proposals on finance are new powers for the police to carry out investigations into terrorism. The police may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search for material on terrorism that does not include "special procedure" or "excluded" material or items subject to legal privilege. All those terms will be familiar to those who soldiered through the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in 1984. The police will also be able to apply to a circuit judge for an order requiring specified material to be produced, including bank records or bank transactions.
  In Northern Ireland there will be a separate option available to the Secretary of State where he considers that a court-based application for a warrant or order would not be appropriate. He may then issue a "Secretary of State's Order", but only after applying a rigorous test to the case in question to prove that the RUC investigations would be prejudiced, that a person's safety would be endangered, or, on a broader plane, that the safety of Northern Ireland would be endangered. In weighing up such an application, the same considerations then apply to the Secretary of State's order as would apply to a court application.
  The new measures, which hang together to an extent, are complex and far reaching. They aim to prevent the flow of funds to terrorist organisations. They will apply to the funding of terrorism here or abroad. I believe that if we get them through and get them working properly, they will greatly reduce the resources of terrorism and thus the ability of the terrorist to kill and maim.
  Ms. Short rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have already given way to the hon. Lady and I am coming to the end of my speech. I am also aware that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a long list of speakers. It is already nearly 6 pm and the debate must end at 10 pm.
  Finally, let us consider the point of principle. I hope that I have set out in summary, but nevertheless across the board, a convincing case for limited, special powers to resist terrorism, and, in particular, for the specific powers in the Bill. Some of those powers are familiar from similar previous Bills, but the provisions that I have spent the past 15 minutes outlining are new.
  In recent years this subject has stoked up a great deal of anger and heat across the Floor of the House. Is it really unrealistic to hope that we can do better than that today? I have deliberately presented the case in uncontroversial terms and I have deliberately refrained from making the

  215
  kind of debating points that Opposition right hon. and hon. Members know that I could make, perhaps to some effect.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), we do not say that the Labour party, here or in the country, supports terrorism because it has voted against the predecessors of the Bill. We simply say that, in our view, those who oppose the Bill have not thought through the nature of terrorism. They have not thought through the techniques that are at the command of terrorists, nor have they thought through the means that society, through the House and the Government, need to prevent the spilling of blood and to deal effectively with those who have spilt it. That is our charge, and it is a serious one. I hope that it can be met tonight.
  It would be a great strength to this country if we could proceed on this matter with general agreement. There really is no abuse of power in the proposals. Lord Colville's scrupulous examination of how the powers have hitherto been handled confirms that. There is nothing tyrannical or abusive in the new proposals on finance. It is a carefully thought out response to the efforts of our enemies. I very much hope that the Opposition will, if they can, take advantage of the fact that it is a new Bill and support us tonight.
  6 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, reasserting its determination to defeat terrorism and believing that the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland can only be achieved with the wholehearted support of law-abiding citizens, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which undermines the rule of law on which the fight against terrorism must be based; and refuses to provide permanent powers either for a suspect to be detained for seven days without charge or for exclusion orders which effectively impose internal exile on British citizens, since such powers are wrong in principle and, by the offence they cause, aid rather than combat terrorists and terrorism; and further asserts its support for the measures to confiscate terrorist funds since these are both consistent with a free society and likely to provide practical results."
  We invite the House to vote for our amendment which, if carried, would deny the Bill a Second Reading. We wish to do that as a demonstration of our irrevocable opposition to the continuation of powers that we believe to be wrong both in principle and in practice.
  The way in which the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading enables me both to follow Mr. Speaker's injunction to be brief and to attempt to match the reasonable tone that the right hon. Gentleman employed in advocating his cause. He was right to say that the dispute between us—and dispute there is and will remain—concerns the best way to defeat terrorism and the obligations of a free Parliament in a democratic society. I am delighted that he put on record the fact that that is the nature of our disagreement, thus repudiating a Conservative research department brief—"AH(88)37 enquiries to Steven Brindle"—which was prepared for the debate and which made a quite different point.
  I shall attempt to match the right hon. Gentleman's tone of logic and reason by saying, categorically, that in a free society it is wrong in principle to detain a suspect for seven days without charge and that it is wrong in a democracy to oblige a man or a woman, through the use of exclusion orders, to live in parts of the country
  216
  stipulated by the Government. The application of both those measures is justified by those who advocate them, as they were justified by the Home Secretary today, as an undesirable but necessary encroachment on our liberties. To describe such powers as undesirable is grossly to understate the proper objections to such denials of our traditional freedom. To describe them as necessary misunderstands the way—and it is the only way—in which the war against terrorists and terrorism can be won.
  Mr. Derek Conway: I do not want to raise the heat of the debate so early in our proceedings, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain why twice as many people were detained under the legislation during the five years of the Government of whom he was a member than have been detained while the Conservative Government have been in office?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall attempt to reach out across the Floor and conduct the debate in the way in which I believe that it should be conducted. I accept that I was a member of the Cabinet that supported the continuation of the prevention of terrorism legislation. If I so choose, I could construct arguments to show that matters were different then from now. However, that is not the point that I wish to make tonight. I believe that my Government were mistaken at that time, but the fact that we were wrong then is no justification for being wrong now. There are occasions when it is sensible for politicians to say that what we did 10 years ago was wrong based on present evidence. Indeed, I said just that about an immigration matter dating back to 1967, and I say it about this Bill. If we feel able to say that, we are more likely to have a rational debate than if we were required to defend everything that we have done in the past.
  I could mention special considerations not about terrorism in general, but as it is associated with Northern Ireland. It was to defeat the Northern Ireland terrorists that the measures were introduced and have been continued. They are punitive after 13 years of application—and that is the difference—and are no longer intended to meet a brief emergency, but to be an accumulative and permanent part of our legislation. Their present effect is the reverse of the original intention. At that time no one said that the purpose was to defeat terrorism in the way that it is now described by the Home Secretary. The measures were designed to convince the British people that the Government of the day were acting robustly in response to the appalling Birmingham bombings. They were also designed—and this was said publicly—to protect the Irish population living in the United Kingdom against a potential backlash. Now, they are said to have a crucial part to play in the war against terrorism.
  The war against terrorism will be won only by the wholehearted support of the law-abiding population, including and especially the law-abiding population in Northern Ireland. Both seven-day detention and exclusion orders alienate and antagonise men and women whose assistance we need. If the Bill becomes law, it will impede rather than assist the defeat of terrorism and the suppression of terror that we all seek.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was a junior member of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. He does less than justice to the motives of that Government who brought forward the legislation in response to the Birmingham bombings by

  217
  suggesting that it was simply to demonstrate an attitude of robustness to the troubles. He underrates the understanding of that Government that the measures, in themselves, would have a material effect on preventing terrorism—a view that was upheld two years later.
  Mr. Hattersley: As I said, these matters were not whispered about in the Corridors that the hon. Gentleman and I habituated at that time—they were fully aired in debate. I am not putting words into people's mouths, imagining what they said to me, or interpreting what might have been their motives. The Government's views were made clear in debate and I am not in any way describing them as discreditable. They had to meet the position at the time, but the passage of time has changed the position.
  The measures that the Home Secretary proposes to make permanent are likely to alienate the very men and women whom we need to support us. They will make the right hon. Gentleman's task harder. We are prepared to support those measures that appear to have a practical application and to be consistent with the rules of a free society. Therefore, in Committee we will support clause 9 which makes it an offence to solicit, receive, or accept contributions of money or other property intended to finance or support terrorism. There are some legitimate concerns even about that clause. The libertarians are concerned about the way in which the powers will be used. In some circumstances, the onus of proof will be upon the suspect. If he is to be acquitted, he will have to demonstrate that the money or property under investigation was not intended to finance terrorism.
  I do not minimise the danger of requiring a suspect, innocent under the law, to prove innocence. I regret that this is the second time since the general election that it has been necessary—and I deliberately use that phrase—to switch the onus of proof so that innocent men and women are required to demonstrate that they have committed no offence. I believe, as I believed when the House debated the provisions to prohibit the carrying of offensive weapons, that when the need is desperate, desperate measures are justified to meet it. The power to prosecute those who financially assist terrorism and the matching power under clause 13 to confiscate funds used for terrorist purposes possess an advantage not enjoyed by other parts of the Bill. It will have a practical and positive effect and is consistent with the rule of law. We shall, therefore, support it.
  On the other hand, part II, which deals with the power to make exclusion orders, will have quite the opposite effect. It is for that reason, almost as much as for the denial of the basic liberties which it involves, that we shall oppose it. A good deal has been heard about Lord Colville. The Home Secretary mentioned him today, and no doubt we shall hear more as the debate continues. I join the Home Secretary in expressing thanks for the meticulous work that has been carried out; but it is, I fear, Lord Colville's fate to be quoted and most admired when his conclusions coincide with those of the people who quote him. Lord Colville, let us not forget, recommended the abolition of exclusion orders. Sir Cyril Philips, who also examined prevention of terrorism legislation at the Home Secretary's request, made the same recommendation, and the Attorney-General in the Government who introduced the
  218
  orders described them as "tantamount to internal exile". An examination of Lord Colville's statistics on this subject shows how accurate that description is.
  A majority of the men and women excluded from Great Britain have been convicted of no offence. They are innocent under the law, yet they are exiled to Northern Ireland or to Ireland. We do not know—we are not told and we are told that we cannot know—the reason for their exclusion, but we are told that the right to appeal to the Secretary of State's advisers should reassure us that exclusions, in Lord Colville's words,
  "are only enforced when they are absolutely essential".
  Will the Minister who replies give us even a hint of the criteria by which it is judged absolutely necessary to exclude men or women from this country? Such criteria must involve the inability to prosecute these men and women for offences or proposed offences under the law. I understand, for instance, that members of an Irish folk dance society were prevented from making a reciprocal visit to Wales by the application of exclusion powers. A dozen jokes immediately come to mind, but I fear that the joke is on Great Britain as the IRA asks its rhetorical questions about British respect for Ireland, Irish men and the rule of law as it is applied to them.
  It is equally true that many members of the majority community in Northern Ireland find exclusion orders offensive. The idea that terrorists can be excluded from the mainland of the United Kingdom and be required to live in the six counties of the north is wholly inconsistent with the idea that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and should be treated like other parts of it. There is much resentment at the idea of Northern Ireland being used as a repository for terrorists, who are left free to walk the streets of Belfast and Derry but not to walk the streets of Birmingham or Derby.
  I admit at once that the resentment caused in the majority community is nothing compared with that felt by innocent Irish men and women who, because of part IV, clause 16, risk being treated like suspects if they visit Britain. The system on which port controls are based—cards filled in by a proportion of randomly selected passengers—is interpreted by many Irish passengers as a sign that general suspicion hangs over the whole country. All hon. Members who represent large numbers of Irish constituents know how their relatives feel about the checks to which they are subjected. They think that the checks are carried out merely because of their Irish origins and accents. I do not claim that their resentment drives them into the arms of the IRA—they are far too honest and sensible for that—but it erodes the feeling of wholehearted support for the rule of law which is essential if the war against terrorism is to be won.
  Our complaint against the exclusion orders is based on the same principle as our complaint against detention: coercive powers are applied to men and women who have been convicted of no offence. The common response—I was going to say the weak-minded response—to this complaint is that because of the nature of terrorism in general and Northern Ireland terrorism in particular normal judicial conviction is often impossible. Translated into honest English, that amounts to the assertion that in some situations policemen and politicians must be allowed to override the rule of law, the necessity for evidence, the obligation to convince a jury, the duty to persuade a judge of the propriety of the proceedings and the discipline of justifying all those actions in public. With detention orders

  219
  —part IV—all those aspects of proper judicial process are missing, and that is not acceptable to the Opposition. We have argued against it for seven years and now our opposition, at least to the length of detention, has been echoed by democratic world opinion as represented by the European convention on human rights to which this country is a party.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to go down a wrong path. It is not the length of detention that is the matter between us and the court—in many European countries people are detained for much longer than seven days. The question is whether there should be recourse to judicial proceedings.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am referring to the length of detention under this process without charge and trial. I shall continue to describe such detention as the result of Executive, not judicial, action; and the length of detention as well as its method is crucial.
  The Home Secretary's response to the decision by the European Court of Human Rights was wholly unsatisfactory. The Government have been found guilty by a court whose powers they endorse and whose jurisdiction they accept. It is the Government's clear duty to accept the ruling and abandon the practice of imposing detention without charge or trial. I do not want to heighten the temperature of the debate, but I must say that the Government's refusal immediately to accept the ruling of the court shows their true relationship with the rule of law, both national and international. From the sinking of the Belgrano to the police raid on the BBC's Scottish studios the Government have shown that they support the rule of law when it is convenient for them to do so.
  The Home Secretary should have made an announcement about the Government's intentions today—whatever they may be. His failure to do so naturally and inevitably raises the fear that the Government intend, once the debate is over and the Irish extradition treaty is out of the way, to apply for a derogation on the wholly spurious ground, that the IRA is a threat to national security throughout the United Kingdom—the only terms on which a derogation is possible.
  To claim that the IRA is a threat to national security throughout the United Kingdom is to elevate it so far beyond its real importance that that provides it with a victory in itself. Were the Home Secretary to have recourse to that alternative, the IRA's greatest victory would be won in the propaganda war. I can offer the right hon. Gentleman the headline now: "Britain defies human rights court". That message would reverberate throughout Northern Ireland and the republican clubs of North America.
  The Home Secretary has told us that he will announce the Government's response to the European Court's ruling before the Bill's Committee stage is over. He said that he wanted proper time to give appropriate judicial consideration to what is a difficult problem. Exactly the same argument was used to me in Dublin a week ago, when I was pressing for the early extradition of Mr. Ryan. Leaving that aside, it is wholly unacceptable, and should be unacceptable to the House, to be told that we shall be given the Government's view on how they will, or might, amend the crucial aspect of the Bill before the Committee stage is over. The Government's intention must be announced before the Committee begins, and it must be
  220
  announced to the House. I trust that if they refuse to make such an announcement the Chair will protect us against such a clear abuse.
  I have tried as best I can to advance the pragmatic arguments against the Government's proposals, which will alienate the support that we need and provide our enemies with a propaganda victory. These pragmatic arguments against the Government's intentions are overwhelming. But the argument in principle is equally irresistible. The extent of the offence against our traditional liberties can be demonstrated simply by stating last year's figures. In 1987. 184 men and women were detained in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and 17 were charged with committing an offence either under that Act or under other legislation. Some of those charged might have been acquitted, but at least 104 were innocent under the law. However, they were held in custody by Executive authority.
  In Northern Ireland during the same period 1,479 men and women were detained and only 343 were charged with any offence. That means that throughout the United Kingdom 1,663 men and women against whom no charge could be laid, let alone sustained, were detained in custody by Executive action. It is not altogether surprising that Lord Colville reported:
  "I have been told that there are worrying indications in the level of charges brought as a proportion of detentions made under the Act."
  Whoever expressed the worries, I fear that it was not the Government because when they were arraigned before the European Court they attempted to justify holding a suspect without charge for up to seven days on the most spurious ground imaginable. The Government's case submitted to the European Court is the most disturbing of all the possible answers. I shall read from the Government's submission which they are reported to have made to the court to justify prolonged detention not endorsed by courts. They insisted that they could not make the necessary evidence available and said, "If it is produced,"—that is, the evidence—
  "there is a strong risk of compromising the source of information—perhaps even with fatal consequences. If it is not produced, there is an equally real risk that terrorists will go free notwithstanding the existence of evidence against them."
  In simple language, that means that, despite the lack of evidence to warrant a formal charge, politicians and policemen believing a detainee to be guilty can hold him in the hope of drumming up enough information to make a formal charge possible.
  Mr. Conway: Reasonable suspicion.
  Mr. Hattersley: If there is reasonable suspicion a person can be taken to court. That is the case that we are struggling to make. Our case is that if it is possible to take a man or woman to court, that should be done. If it is not possible, it is the beginning of a most dangerous slippery slope for politicians and policemen to say, "We may not be able to convict them under the normal process but because we know that they are guilty we shall take special measures."
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would weigh what he says against the facts. I shall give him an example. The people who exploded the bomb on the Ballygawley road that killed eight of our young soldiers and injured many

  221
  more had been brought in for questioning again and again because high-grade intelligence had shown that they were guilty of terrorist offences. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately for the cause of justice—the courts require greater proof than simple high-grade intelligence. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the people to whom I refer were, within a short time of the bus bombing, killed by troops as they carried out another act of terrorism. He must weigh the detention of suspected terrorists against the vast number of people—2,800—who have died in Northern Ireland during the present troubles.
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I appreciate that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for doing so. I do. not minimise the strength and passion of the hon. Gentleman's question and I shall answer him in two ways.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) may not have heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and I propose to answer that first. My first point—and I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will not regard me as unacceptably idealistic in making it—is about my opposition to and terror of the concept of high-grade intelligence being used to say that a man or woman is guilty. If it is not information that can convict in a free, open and democratic court, it should not be used outside such a court. I understand the pressures to accept such a system, but if we begin to accept it we shall begin to accept a view of justice and democracy that should be unacceptable despite the price that has to be paid.
  My second point is a pragmatic one. I am aware, as hon. Members must be aware, that to defeat for ever terrorism and terrorists—which is our mutual objective—we must have the overwhelming support of the majority of the law-abiding minority population in Northern Ireland. Acting outside the judicial system by saying that security reports may convict a person even though the courts could not and that he will be detained or excluded makes success over terrorism further away than it would be were we able to carry the whole majority population with us.
  I have heard many questions about British justice and the way that it is applied in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I have done my best to say what I believe, that British justice is fair and even-handed and that normally, with the inevitable human exceptions, does what is right and proper. However, we have to create that impression in sceptical minds and the idea of convicting people without using the courts is one of the ways in which we will undermine confidence in British law. That confidence is essential to the defeat of terrorism and without it terrorism will not be defeated.
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way, not least because other hon. Members want to speak.
  Less than 22 per cent. of men and women held in detention by Executive action are charged and taken to court. That demonstrates a gross infringement of the
  222
  liberties of Britain. More important, there is a profound and fundamental danger in policemen and politicians acting as though they know that a man or woman is guilty even though the guilt cannot be proved in court. Without proof acceptable under the law, men and women are innocent and must be treated accordingly, but under this legislation they may be kept in prison for up to seven days. Paragraph 36 of Lord Colville's report says:
  "The reasons adduced by the police for an extension"—
  from the original 48 hours to perhaps seven days—
  "included a few alibi enquiries, some requests for an identity parade and a substantial number of forensic investigations."
  Those things in themselves are not arguments for using special power. All those procedures are features of the normal system of criminal justice. Lord Colville also said that "broadly" application for detention
  "was based on suspicion of involvement in a particular crime".
  That is what normally results in prosecution under the criminal law. I shall give a non-contentious example that I gave when we last debated this. I am open to convincing that it is my ignorance that makes me incapable of understanding it, but I do not understand why the persons convicted of the attempted murder of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could not have been prosecuted under our normal criminal law. People loitering in private gardens with no reason or purpose for being there are arrested every day, held in custody and their cases pursued.
  Dr. Maire O'Shea, an elderly psychologist in my constituency, was arrested under the Act, charged and acquitted. Nobody who looked at the charge sheet could doubt for a moment that she could have been prosecuted in the normal way. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will explain exactly the point that was made by the Home Secretary. He told us about a policeman shot at close range and a suspect held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and eventually convicted.
  Mr. Hurd: He was held for seven days.
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, held for seven days.
  What happens in the United Kingdom if a policeman is shot at close range, not by a member of the IRA but by a bank robber? The idea that it is necessary to have special powers to convict a man who shoots a policeman does not bear close analysis. But, in the spirit of rational debate which the Home Secretary urged us to follow, I am open to conviction when the Minister replies.
  There are other explanations of why the processes of normal justice are unnecessarily bypassed in detention cases. One certainly applied to the case of Dr. Maire O'Shea. Detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act was the easy way to facilitate her arrest and to begin prosecution. But another reason, which many people fear is why detention without subsequent prosecution is so widespread, is far more sinister. Detention without normal access to a solicitor or the full use of custody sheets is a way of obtaining information from innocent men and women who may have a passing, peripheral, innocent association with terrorism. That is an intolerable use of the powers.
  On detention, the Government seem to believe that one safeguard should satisfy us. That is the need to obtain the Secretary of State's fiat if detention is to be extended beyond 48 hours. I mean no disrespect to the Home

  223
  Secretary or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when I say that they are wholly unsuited to the task. It is not the job of a politician to decide, on Executive authority, that a man or a woman who has not been before the courts can be held in detention for a further five days. If the job must be done at all, it is a job for the judges.
  Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, special rules apply to terrorist suspects. They can be held for 48 rather than 36 hours without access to a solicitor. Yesterday The Guardian argued that the law should he amended to allow terrorist suspects to be held, as now, for 48 hours on the authority of the police alone and that judicial agreement should be required for their further detention after that time.
  I do not advocate that as the solution to the Home Secretary's dilemma. I believe that the European Court ruling should be accepted in toto. But if the right hon. Gentleman will not go that far, what is the possible objection to the judicial review that The Guardian suggested yesterday? Some people fear that it will involve the judiciary in Executive decisions. That argument is wholly wrong. Judges would be brought in to protect us from Ministers usurping the judges' proper role. I assume that no one believes that a judge sitting in camera would run to the IRA with the evidence that the police provided to justify the extra five days' detention. The only conclusion that can sensibly be drawn is that the Government want to detain men and women for that extra period on evidence and on a basis of which the judiciary would not approve. That is wrong in principle and is unlikely to help in the war against terrorism.
  If we are to defeat terrorism, as every Member of the House wants, we must never be seen to adopt tactics or policies that provide terrorists with the opportunity to claim, here or abroad, that the democratic processes are denied to them and that violence has become their only avenue of expression.
  At the time of the atrocity in Enniskillen, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said with great courage that to oppose the reintroduction of internment, which many Conservative Members demanded then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They say, "Hear, hear." That confirms my point.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: It was Labour Members who said that. The right hon. Gentleman is deaf as well as daft.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said with great courage that the reintroduction of internment without trial would act as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. The Opposition agreed with and supported him. We believe that the Bill will have the same effect. That is why we shall vote tonight for the reasoned amendment, which if passed would deny the Bill a Second Reading. That is why, if the Bill is not drastically altered in Committee, we shall vote against it on Third Reading.
  6.34 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish that the position in Northern Ireland could be described as normal. The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has been dealing with normal circumstances, but they are far from normal in Northern Ireland.
  224
  I give two simple illustrations, and I wonder how hon. Members would feel if this happened in their constituencies. Last Saturday week, my telephone rang at 12.30 am. A distraught parent was on the other end of the phone saying, "We have been burned out for the second time. The shed in our farmyard, which contains about 1,000 tonnes of potatoes, has been put to the torch. We telephoned the Antrim police at 7 o'clock when it happened. At half-past 11 the sergeant telephoned us and said that he could not come out until the morning. When the police arrived in the morning, they said that they were unable to enter our area without Army backing, so if anything happened during the hours of darkness they could give us no protection." That was not on the border; it was not in Crossmaglen; it was two miles from Belfast airport. It is not normal that people can be burned out, yet the police can do nothing for them in the hours of darkness.
  The second example is the tragedy on the Ballygawley-Omagh road. I was in the area last week. The road is again closed to police and Army vehicles. It was closed six months before the tragedy, and it is closed again. It is practically a no-go area for the police, but it is an all-go area for the IRA. That is not normal. In abnormal circumstances, unpleasant things must be done that ordinary people do not like and that I personally do not like, but they are necessary to defend lives and to look after people's safety.
  During the three to four years before 1985, the graph of violence in Northern Ireland was going down. There was less violence, less murder and less terrorist activity. Then in 1985 the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed and immediately there was an upward spiral in violence.
  Replying to yesterday evening's debate, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said:
  "In a democracy, political change must come as a consequence of discussion and through the ballot box."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 101.]
  The Anglo-Irish Agreement did not come about as a result of discussion amongst the people of Northern Ireland; nor did it come through the ballot box. From the day that it was signed, the upward spiral recommenced.
  Let us consider the tragic figures. In 1985 there were 54 killings. This year, until 6 December, there have been 91. The figure has almost doubled. In 1985 the RUC lost 14 members. This year it has lost four. In 1985 the RUCR lost nine members. It has lost two members this year. In 1985 two members of the British Army were killed. This year 21 have been killed. In 1985 four members of the UDR were killed, this year 11. In 1985, 25 members of the general public were killed, and so far this year 53 have died. We have now been warned by the Chief Constable of the RUC that there will be horrific murders and IRA violence up to Christmas. We do not know what lies ahead for the people of Northern Ireland.
  I want to present some figures to the House tonight which will be of much interest to Opposition Members because they were not prepared by a Unionist. They were put before the SDLP annual conference by that party's leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. I will quote from a typescript of the speech that he made to his party. No one can say that these are Unionist prepared statistics to put a gloss on the situation. The statistics were given by the leader of the SDLP. Around this place I find people who

  225
  seem to think that the UDR is concerned with shooting and killing Roman Catholics and that the RUC is engaged consistently in an anti-Roman Catholic campaign.
  The leader of the SDLP said, when he addressed his party conference on 26 November:
  "Up till last Saturday 2,705 people have died in the 20-year period of the current troubles … who killed all these people?"
  His answer was:
  "The statistics are devastating. 44 per cent. were killed by the provisional IRA and 18 per cent. by their fellow travelling 'republican' paramilitaries."
  That makes 62 per cent. killed by the IRA and their fellow travellers.
  "27 per cent. were killed by Loyalists. 10 per cent. were killed by the British Army. 2 per cent. were killed by the RUC and 0·28 per cent. by the UDR. In short people describing themselves as Irish republicans have killed 6 times as many human beings as the British army, 30 times as many as the RUC and 250 times as many as the UDR. And wait. One of their main claims"—
  referring to the IRA—
  "is that they are the defenders of the Catholic community. Of the 1,194 members of the Catholic community who died, 46 per cent. were killed by Loyalist paramilitaries, 37 per cent. by people describing themselves as republicans and 17 per cent. by the security forces. And in the last 10 years since 1 January 1978, of the 306 members of the Catholic community who have lost their lives, 112 have been killed by people describing themselves as republicans … In the last 20 years republicans have killed more than twice as many Catholics as the security forces and in the last 10 years have killed more than the Loyalists."
  Those are the facts as the hon. Member for Foyle sees them and as he presented them to his party conference. That puts a different slant upon what is propagated in this country about the position in Northern Ireland.
  As I consider those figures, I am bound to ask why there is such agitation to get the UDR and the RUC off the roads of Ulster when their term of killing is nothing compared with the other people mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle in his representation to his party conference.
  Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not give way because I wish to be brief and the hour is late. No doubt the hon. Lady will be able to make her point as effectively as she usually does.
  Those are the facts as seen by us. I have referred to personal happenings in my constituency and to the representations made by the leader of the SDLP. What can we do in that situation? We must remember that we have to show that there is a will in the Government and in this House to deal effectively and adequately with the problem. I will not argue the case for the great deterrent of hanging. I am convinced that capital crimes of this nature should receive capital punishment, and I have argued that in this House before.
  I will not dwell on the question of Executive detention. However, I was amazed that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that the Home Secretary, or a Cabinet Minister, does not have the right or knowledge to detain people executively. During the war the Home Secretary had the sole right to detain. Executive detention is a weapon in the armoury of any democratic Government, and it is used by democratic Governments in emergencies.
  226
  We also hear much in this House about the Irish Republic. It would be interesting for the House to know that the same kind of law—seven days detention—is on the Irish Republic's statute book. The Government of the Irish Republic will also have to have a derogation or they will have to drop their legislation. That fact has not been announced by Mr. Haughey. He has not made a declaration about what he is going to do.
  In 1976, during a state of emergency—which still exists—declared by the Dail, legislation on detention was passed. When it was no longer used after 12 months, section 2 gave the Irish Government authority to bring in that detention up to seven days. The Irish Republic has the same law on its statute book as we have on ours, a law which some people try to tell us will antagonise the South of Ireland and those who support the South of Ireland. The Irish Republic has such a law on its own statute book, so it should clean up its own house before telling this House how it should act.
  We read in the papers that there is uproar from the South of Ireland about the fact that remission will be cut. One fifth of terrorist prisoners released in 1984 have committed a further scheduled offence within two years. If people return to crime within two years of being released as a result of a 50 per cent. cut in their prison sentence, they deserve to have to serve out the rest of that sentence when they are apprehended after committing another criminal offence. The figures also show that one quarter of non-terrorist prisoners committed a scheduled offence within two years of release. The deterrent and the punishment must fit the crime.
  The situation in Northern Ireland is serious and horrific. I spoke to an hon. Member from Northern Ireland today and he said, "Ian, do you worry when the phone rings?" I said, "Of course I do." He said, "That's how I feel because I don't know what the news will be." Therefore, I believe that the Bill can help.
  I know that it is an infringement of civil liberties to take away a person's liberty for seven days. However, if a person is innocent of a crime, and if he can stand up to four days of interrogation, he can stand up to seven days or 14 days of interrogation.
  Ms. Short: That is not true.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I know a little about the matter because I live in Northern Ireland and I know about it from both sides of the community.
  I have always supported the police, but that does not mean that I support actions by police officers that are contrary to the law. If people are detained for seven days, their rights should be defended when they are being interrogated. Nobody should be abused, cursed or threatened and family matters that are immaterial to the interrogation should not be introduced. Let me give an illustration.
  A young man was detained recently. His father had hanged himself, so there was tragedy at home. The police officer who interrogated him said, "You'll be at the end of the rope like your father." Such language should not be used in interrogation. The Minister should consider such incidents carefully. I am glad that we have an independent police complaints board and I have taken the case that I have just mentioned, and many others, to it. Some members of the divisional mobile support unit in Northern Ireland need to realise that they cannot treat people in that

  227
  disgraceful way even though they have been lawfully arrested and detained in detention centres. Such abuses must cease.
  I shall lend my support to the principle of the Bill. I trust that the House will acknowledge the reasons why we are discussing these matters. The sooner that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is put on ice, the sooner that it ceases to be implemented, and the sooner that the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland get round the table, the better it will be for everyone concerned. There will be no way forward until the constitutional parties discuss Northern Ireland together in such a way that we can find an agreement that will supersede the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is flawed and has failed. We must bring constitutional and political hope to the people of Northern Ireland. That is my plea to the House tonight.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Bill is based on the review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 that was carried out by Lord Colville between April and November 1987. He was able to undertake that review in the light of the experience that he had acquired when he reviewed the operation of the Act in 1986. Therefore, the noble Lord is not unfamiliar with the Act when he tells us:
  "I fully believe that there is a continuing need for special legislation against terrorism".
  Those of us who have been privileged to make submissions to Lord Colville have been impressed by his deep understanding of the needs of our nation, threatened as it is by both home-grown and international terrorism.
  Yet we are equally aware of Lord Colville's anxiety to ensure that we, as a nation, do not become hedged in by harsh and rigorous law, which would in itself become oppressive. No one who loves and values freedom and democracy would wish to see any legislation on the statute book that would diminish or devalue those ideals.
  But we live in a world where the shadow of the great and ugly wars of yesteryear has been superseded by the mean but equally ugly spectre of terrorist violence. Some people—I admit to being one of them—believe that today's widespread terrorism, which pervades virtually every corner of the globe, constitutes the third world war. Although I share Lord Colville's convictions, I cannot claim to do so on the basis either of academic study or of professional training in legal matters. I share his convictions because of 20 years of practical experience of having lived cheek by jowl with the reality of terrorism and having been obliged, both as a soldier and as a politician, to witness—often at first hand—the tragedy and suffering that have been inflicted on thousands of citizens of the United Kingdom by ruthless and brutal assassins.
  It is right that the House should examine carefully the provisions in the Bill. However, it should do so with the conviction that only by ensuring and maintaining the democratic integrity of our whole community can it hope to promote the civil rights of individual citizens. The United Kingdom is facing political and economic terrorism, such as that carried on by the IRA, so we all have a responsibility to differentiate between the immediate luxury of philosophical libertarianism and the long-term benefits of belonging to a properly free and fearless society.
  The Bill is particularly important in so far as it is a major piece of legislation that addresses the threat of Irish
  228
  Republican terrorism without the Government of the Irish Republic having the right to influence its form and format as they have done with exclusively Northern Ireland legislation.
  Unfortunately, the folly of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has meant that, for example, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 has become a political football. The Irish Republic exercises the authority given to it through the Anglo-Irish Conference to question, and more often than not dispute, any measure that might be considered to oppose the terrorism of the IRA. Sadly—I sincerely wish it was otherwise—the SDLP and the Irish Government have opposed as means to inhibit IRA violence the following measures: capital punishment; the proscription of Sinn Fein; selective internment; an anti-violence pledge for candidates for election; identity cards; the removal of the 50 per cent. automatic remission from prison sentences for terrorism; the banning of Sinn Fein from the airwaves; and the change in the matter of the right to silence.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: In a moment.
  The list is much longer. It could even include opposition to protective barriers outside vulnerable police stations such as the Strand road station in Londonderry and to look-out posts manned by the Army in south Armagh.
  It is well known that I would not support all the measures that I have mentioned, but to reject them all out of hand surely verges on the malicious and could give considerable comfort to the terrorist.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way since he referred to my party specifically in his panegyric. Will he tell me exactly where he and the members of his party were when the public order legislation was going through the House? Will he have the good grace to tell us why they did not vote for that legislation? Just to keep the record straight, will he recognise the fact that I was the only Member of the House from Northern Ireland to vote for the legislation, in the face of our colleagues on the Labour Benches who voted against it? The hon. Gentleman should now have the good grace to put the record fully straight. He should also point out—as I will do later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that I welcome very much—I shall expand upon this—the part of the legislation dealing with racketeering. Indeed, I sought such a measure long before it was considered for legislation in the House.
  Mr. Maginnis: We did not vote for the public order legislation because it was entirely different from the legislation that applied to Great Britain, but was in line with aspects of proposed legislation which was thrown out for Great Britain.
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Mr. Maginnis: No, I am sorry—
  Mr. Mallon: I would thank the hon. Gentleman for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point. [Interruption.] I hope that I have answered it fully.

  229
  I was talking about the attitude of the SDLP and the Irish Government to virtually every proposed measure that is designed to inhibit or prevent terrorism. This House has seen the obstructive attitude of the Government of the Irish Republic in the case of Father Ryan, a man who has acquired a reputation as an international terrorist. The House has seen the destructive attitude of that same Government in its campaign against the British court system, not only or indeed mainly in Northern Ireland, but here in Great Britain.
  To put it bluntly, where there is doubt about international co-operation in the fight against terrorism—surely there are grave doubts—we must, as legislators, ensure that we meet our responsibility to the nation.
  Bearing in mind your request for brief speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I felt that on the Second Reading of this Bill it was appropriate to address the principle rather than the detail. That is not to imply that my party accepts the details because the opposite is the case, but it would take too long to deal with, for example, the Home Secretary's somewhat flawed and somewhat naive reasoning on the matter of terrorist funding and how it might be prevented or hindered.
  Ulster Unionists will hope to table amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Bill as it progresses through its various stages. Indeed, we hope to have the opportunity to play a full part in the consideration of the Bill at each stage. Tonight we will, as we did last night on the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, vote for this Bill in principle.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seemed very pleased with himself when he resumed his seat. He had made a speech against the Bill to please the half of his party that wants to see no anti-IRA measures passed, and a speech in support of some parts of the Bill to please those of his party who believe that terrorism has to be opposed by legislation and by a united approach across the Chamber. However, the British public will be thoroughly unimpressed by his performance. They will have heard with amazement his assertion, which I hope the media will cover tomorrow, that the IRA is not a threat to the British nation as a whole. The public will show what they think of that contemptible and mealy-mouthed performance at their first opportunity, which will be at Epping Forest and the Euro constituency of Hampshire, Central next Thursday.
  On 8 March 1973 I was leaving court at the Old Bailey when a bomb went off outside the building, leaving a great deal of devastation. I arrived at the House of Commons one morning minutes after a bomb had blown out the north window in Westminster Hall and destroyed the secretaries' offices. In 1979 I left the Car Park minutes before Airey Neave was blown to pieces by a terrorist bomb. I was with the Israeli ambassador shortly before he attended a function at the Dorchester and had half his brain blown out and became, as he still is, a paralysed relic of his former self.
  Many of us in this place have had the experience of our parliamentary and political friends being assassinated or of attempts being made on their lives by terrorists. Many
  230
  of us were living in London during the 1970s when bombs went off, killing and maiming hundreds of people in Hyde park; in the Green park Underground station; at Harrods; and at the Woolwich arsenal. There were also the bombings at Guildford and Birmingham. Those are some examples from just Britain alone.
  In 1981, there were 3,618 terrorists incidents worldwide. By 1984 that figure had risen to 6,653, and the number continues to grow—
  Ms. Short rose—
  Mr. Lawrence: I shall give way when I have finished this.
  In that year there were 3,324 bombings; 1,123 assassination attempts or assassinations; 1,341 arson or incendiary attacks. The murder, the maiming, the destruction and the misery goes on. There are 3,000 dead in Northern Ireland, including soldiers, policemen, civilians and women.
  The terrorist threat continues. This year there has been the hijacking of the Kuwaiti Airlines jet; the foiled car bomb attack in Gibraltar; the cowardly murder of the British service man in the Netherlands. The bombs, the bullets and the destruction of the men of violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere goes on and on.
  Ms. Short: Obviously we agree that that is a catalogue of tragedy and we all want to bring it to an end and avoid it. However, the prevention of terrorism legislation has been on the statute book for most of the period that the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, so it clearly is not preventing terrorism. That is our argument. Indeed, that legislation is likely to make some people more likely to support that kind of activity. That is our case. Of course, we all deplore the deaths.
  Mr. Lawrence: We know that that is the hon. Lady's case and that several of her hon. Friends, who will vote against the Bill, have voted against such measures consistently when they have been introduced to the House. Indeed, they voted against such measures when they were introduced by the Labour Government in 1974 and 1976. We know that some people share that view, but the question is: what will end the murder and the maiming? Will cynical deals with terrorists by frightened Governments end it? Will weak Governments refusing to co-operate with information and action ever conquer terrorism? Will weak laws, half-heartedly enforced, achieve that end, or the wringing of hands, accompanied by weasel words? Will opposition to sensible Prevention of Terrorism Bills, showing that Britain is not united in its determination to root out this spreading virus, destroy terrorism? No. Only tough, determined, united, single-minded measures can possibly stop this terrible virus of international terrorism.
  The first requisite is a Prevention of Terrorism Act that gives to the security forces the necessary powers to counter terrorism. We have such an Act, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, though Labour opposes it and is pledged to repeal it. Because of that Act, the IRA bombing campaign of British resorts in June 1985 was thwarted. Because of that Act, 54 people who were detained for Irish terrorism and 18 people who were detained for international terrorism have been charged with offences such as possessing explosives or conspiring to endanger life. Fifty-three out of 77 of the cases that

  231
  came for trial in 1988 were found guilty, and these people were sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment under the legislation. How absurd it is to suggest that it has played no part in the control of terrorism.
  What is needed is this power to proscribe terrorist organisations and to exclude from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as a purely preventive measure, those who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. We need this power to arrest and detain for up to seven days and this power to control the movement of passengers in and out of the United Kingdom. The prevention of terrorism legislation has struck hard at the terrorists and has helped to make the United Kingdom a safer place, whatever the hon. Member for Ladywood may say.
  All of those who are determined that the fight against terrorism ought to be strengthened, not weakened, will welcome the powers in the Bill. They will welcome the power that strikes at the heart of terrorism—the fund— raising—by confiscating the assets of terrorist organisations, stopping the laundering of their assets and requiring the forfeiture of terrorists' possessions. We welcome the wider power that is to he given to the police to apply to the courts for search warrants and orders requiring specific materials to be produced and the power to apply to the Secretary of State for warrants in Northern Ireland when the police have reason to suspect that certain offences are likely to be committed or are being committed. We welcome the changes in the remission arrangements that will do much to increase the element of deterrence.
  So great is our concern, however, that civil liberties should be curtailed to the least possible degree that even here, in dealing with the abominable crimes of terrorism, we control the powers of the police by obliging detention for more than 48 hours to be reviewed, and we maintain parliamentary control by requiring the new Act to be debated and renewed in this place and the other place annually. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concedes, there will have to be further amendment as a result of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against detention for interrogation for longer than four days.
  The question must be asked: why do the police need more than four days? The answer can be simply given: because forensic testing these days is a very detailed process that requires a great deal of diligent care, because alibis sometimes need to be checked thoroughly—and that takes days—and because other people are sometimes arrested and new information is brought that has to be used in the process of interrogation.
  The facts are that over 80 per cent. of those who were detained in 1988 for terrorist offences were either released or charged within five days and that, of the other 20 per cent., half were charged with serious offences, 16 were charged with murder and eight with attempted murder. The police simply must have all the powers that they need and the time to exercise those powers, or terrorism will not be defeated.
  The next question is what the Government should do about it. My guess is that most people in this country would say, "What on earth is a court of foreign judges, brought up under a very different legal system and without the United Kingdom's terrible experience of unremitting terrorism, doing telling us what we may or may not do, particularly since we always give terrorists a fairer trial than terrorists ever give their victims?" But the
  232
  Government will not take that over-simplistic stand. They will want—and they will be supported by most hon. Members—to keep us within the restrictions of the European convention on human rights, if at all possible—which, of course, it is.
  That leaves two options. First, we could derogate from the ruling of the court on the ground that the powers are needed because of the threat posed by terrorism to the life of the nation. Secondly, we could compromise by rejecting the ruling, but we could meet the spirit behind it by requiring a judicial element—a High Court or circuit judge, or a magistrate, or a tribunal of judges—to consider any police applications to extend the interrogation time beyond four days.
  Derogation is, in my view, the least acceptable of those alternatives. When we derogate, although we act within the system, we make no concession to the civil liberties of the suspect, who might be innocent. We reject the ruling out of hand, although we do it politely within the terms of the convention. It would be more acceptable to many of us to require a judicial element—a judge, if there is no problem of availability, or a stipendiary magistrate, if that is more practicable. But what is needed is that the public should have confidence that injustice is not being done by the procedures. I think that a judicial element would meet that requirement.
  There is the problem that defence challenges to police requests might bring out into the open highly sensitive material. That is a possibility. As always, the police will have to decide whether it is important enough to the success of their application to speak of such material. lf, however, such hearings were in camera, as are applications for bail before a judge in chambers, there is less likelihood that such statements would get into the public arena. It is only a week since the ruling. The Government will need, and the House will support their request for, time to consider these matters.
  That is the first requisite in dealing with terrorism—a Prevention of Terrorism Act.
  The second requisite for a tough and effective campaign against terrorism is international co-operation over information, intelligence and action. The Government have taken the lead in Europe in such co-operation. Quiet, good work has been done through the Terrorism, Radicalism, Violence, International Committee of the European Countries—the Trevi group—and by anti-terrorist police and army units, such as the SAS, the GSG 9, Holland's marines and Spain's anti-terrorist group. The Government have improved international co-operation further by reforming the law of extradition, thereby satisfying the European convention on extradition which has served Europe well for 30 years. Are we not entitled to expect similar international co-operation from our friends and allies in this fight against terrorism?
  We were all shocked and hurt by the cowardly behaviour of our friends, the Belgians. The arrest had been made in accordance with the Belgian laws. Belgium had sought our co-operation in asking for extradition. When appealed against to the courts, the extradition was upheld. When there was a further appeal to the court of appeal in Belgium it was upheld. The Belgian Government overruled the decision of the Belgian courts. The Belgian Government decided not to tell us—as they had undertaken to do 24 hours before they took action—what they were doing so that we could not try to stop it. They

  233
  just did what was necessary to get the problem off their plate, which is as near an act of cowardice as I have ever seen any Government perform.
  We are all staggered by the reaction of the southern Irish Government over Patrick Ryan. They may need time to examine the evidence for extradition. Nobody doubts that. However, they needed no time to back our warrant for his arrest. Can they be surprised if many people in Britain are asking today whether the southern Irish Government's heart is in the fight against IRA terrorism?
  The third requisite for the effective containment of terrorism is the maintenance of border controls—the minimum necessary to reach as close as possible the unified Community market, targeted for 31 December 1992, and its concomitant, the free movement of peoples and goods, but the maximum possible to contain terrorism, as well as drugs trafficking and other serious crimes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We want to strengthen the European Community in its freedoms but certainly not at the expense of the security of the United Kingdom.
  The fourth requisite is the determination of a united people in the United Kingdom to share in the responsibility of fighting terrorism. We all share that duty—every citizen and every organisation. It is wholly contrary to that obligation for any broadcasting authority to refuse to supply to the police film of atrocities in west Belfast or anywhere else. It is wholly contrary to that obligation for the IBA to allow film about the shooting of the three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar to be shown before the inquest has been held. It is contrary to that responsibility for mischief-making film makers to take statements from people who will not sign them and then to use them on television. It is most certainly contrary to the principle of joint responsibility for the Opposition to be less than totally united with the Government as they always used to be on matters of terrorist legislation.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so effectively said, for all the murder, maiming, misery, heartbreak and human agony, the IRA is no closer to its aim of a united Ireland, nor will it ever be if the Government—with British people of all political parties resolutely behind them—stand strong in their total rejection of the inhumanity of the terrorist, wherever he may appear in our realm.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: That contribution was unworthy of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for whom, as he knows, I have great respect. He was not the only hon. Member in the House who knew and respected the Israeli ambassador. Many of us have known well other victims of terrorism and we do not minimise the tragedy. No one doubts the concern or sincerity of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). However, I wonder whether any of the previous three speakers listened to the contributions from either of the two Front Bench spokesmen.
  This debate is not about whether to take a firm stand against terrorism, whether to protect the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from political violence, or whether to bring paramilitaries to justice; it is about how
  234
  best to obtain those goals. We must not permit terrorists to destroy—either by their own hands or by manoeuvring the Government into doing it for them—the freedom under the law which the people of these islands regard as their heritage. If they achieve that, they will have succeeded in their principal objective.
  There may be general agreement in the House over some of what the Government are doing in the Bill. Sometimes it is necessary to give to the police powers which are not shared by other citizens. Sometimes it is necessary to impose inconvenience on our citizens in the interests of security. Sometimes it will be necessary to sentence convicted offenders to long terms of imprisonment. No doubt it will sometimes be necessary to intercept funds that would otherwise find their way to the paramilitaries. So far as I know, none of that is in dispute in the Chamber, although I have no authority to speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  But equally, the Government must be aware of two traps, both of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). They must beware of doing something simply in order to give the appearance of activity and to deceive the public into believing that something is being done. When young Albert's ma announced, "Somebody's got to be summonsed" she was voicing the anguish and frustration that people feel when they believe that someone, somewhere, should be doing something dramatic about a tragic situation, yet they cannot be specific about what would remedy or even improve it. It is misleading and cruel for a Government to respond by appearing to be doing something which will not solve the problem, or worse, which may be counter-productive.
  We do not prevent terrorism simply by passing an Act of Parliament and calling it the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Secondly, we have to beware of doing something, which, because it is seen to be unfair, will lose the sympathy of decent, law-abiding people and transfer that sympathy to the very people to whom we are trying to deny support—[Interruption.] If the hon. and learned Member for Burton wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way to him. This is intended to be a serious debate. All of us may be wiser over a period of years because so much blood has flowed under the bridges.
  Those who try to understand the psychology of terrorism do not always agree, although they probably accept that there is no one single diagnosis or one single remedy. However, they all believe that potential recruits are not deterred from violence by the clang of the prison gates. All prison can do is to keep those who are properly convicted where their power to commit acts of terrorism is restricted. But that depends on whether we are convicting the right people.
  We know that the most important single factor in influencing a young Catholic in Divis or Bogside or a young Sikh in Southall who is deciding whether to join the men and women of violence is not speeches made by politicans in the House or editorials in newspapers but the opinion of their peer groups—young people of the same age group in the same area, whose assumptions are similar to their own and whose opinions they value. If they believe that the law is unfair and discriminating, they will influence one another to resist law and order. If they can be persuaded that the law and the authorities are trying to

  235
  be fair and that someone is trying to listen to what they say, they will look for ways of airing their grievances within the system.
  The Opposition believe that there are unjust provisions in the Bill, which for that reason are likely to be counter-productive. The time to look at those provisions is in Committee, but I shall give two examples, both of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. The exclusion powers in part II of the Bill are seen as discriminating in two ways. First, it is frequently people with Irish connections and Irish accents who are almost automatically on the receiving end, and, secondly, the powers are used to confine people to Northern Ireland. So someone who is thought to have terrorist connections must not be allowed to walk the streets of London or Birmingham, even if his family lives there, but it is perfectly acceptable for him to walk the streets of Belfast.
  In addition to being discriminating, it is unfair in operation. The subjects are not told why the order is made. There is no public hearing where it can be challenged and no appeal to an independent arbitrator. There is just a pointless and usually frustrating interview with a Government-appointed adviser.
  There is no evidence that the most minimal contribution to protecting anyone from terrorism arises from those powers. No one could accuse Lord Jellicoe, Sir Cyril Philips or Lord Colville of being soft on terrorism. The Government use their recommendations in support of the legislation. Yet they have all expressed reservations as to the value of retaining the exclusion power and Lord Colville has twice recommended that it should be excluded from the Bill. The Government do not seem to have grasped the fact that the value of being able to rely upon the recommendations of a distinguished reviewer is totally lost if it is seen that they use them not as guidance but selectively, as backing for the Government's preconceived conclusions.
  The second example is the power of detention in clause 14, to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred and which was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. If that power were not in the Bill, the Government would have to rely on the powers of detention in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which does not seem particularly worrying because it is their own creation, and presumably was considered by the Home Office under the present Government to be adequate to the requirements of the police. If it is said that the PACE powers do not extend to all the situations contemplated in clause 14, they could table an amendment saying that the PACE powers should extend to clause 14. I am not saying that I approve of all the PACE powers but they are not the subject of debate tonight.
  It is now clear that, once again, the United Kingdom, which used to boast to the world about its tolerance, its rule of law and its respect for freedom, has fallen foul of the European convention on human rights. According to the Prime Minister, and, as I understood it, according to the Home Secretary tonight, the Government are considering not only what to do about it, but whether to conform with it. I hope that I did not misunderstand the Home Secretary or do him any injustice, but I thought that that was the burden of what he said. If I am wrong, I welcome being corrected by the Minister when he replies to the debate.
  236
  Considering whether to conform with our international obligations which have been accepted by successive Governments because everyone knows that the European convention on human rights represented the consensus of the whole of western Europe as to the minimum standards which a citizen is entitled to expect from his Government and their legislation—
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the Government of which he was an ornament as a Law Officer derogated from the European convention on human rights in 1978 on the introduction of the Emergency Provisions (Northern Ireland) Act concerning detention?
  Mr. Archer: Derogation is one thing, and it is a possible course that is now open to the Government. We should be clear that derogation, as I understand it, entails declaring that the paramilitary organisations have endangered the life of the nation. Those are the words of article 5. If the Government say that the paramilitaries have endangered the life of the nation, I suspect that that accolade would occasion some rejoicing among the paramilitary organisations, particularly when the Government are saying that month by month they are failing and becoming less effective. So I do not think that derogation would be an issue on this occasion.
  How dare the Government say that they are considering whether to comply with a legal regime which, as far as I am aware, occasions no difficulties to any other police force or Government in Europe. How can the Prime Minister preach about the rule of law or respect for the law and then announce that the Government are considering whether to bring British law into accord with the international convention accepted by all our neighbours?
  Finally, the Bill is claimed to be a temporary provision, but will it no longer be looked at afresh over periods of five years? It will be reviewed every year, but we all know what that means. It means an hour and a half s debate at 11.30 on a Thursday night. I know that some of us will want to say something about that in Committee, but I bear in mind the injunction of Mr. Speaker and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  I say again to the hon. and learned Member for Burton—I do not think that he is totally impervious to argument, and it may be that on reflection he will want to think again—that any hon. Member who seeks to represent our concerns as being soft on terrorism has either failed to understand what we are saying, or simply is looking for a stick to beat a political drum. He will be doing no service to the rule of law or to the people of Britain. To question how best to preserve the safety of our citizens and to maintain the rule of law is a serious matter, as the Home Secretary said. It requires analysis and not slogans, and it deserves better than to be trivialised by the Prime Minister, and the arguments should be addressed properly in the House.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I always listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) with respect. I have known him for many years, but I have to disagree with his observations tonight. I have reservations about the exclusion orders, but in my opinion they are necessary in the fight against terrorism. I put human life before human restriction.

  237
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman condemned exclusion orders as discriminating against the Irish. As someone who was born outside Great Britain, I think that no country in the world is as tolerant as the United Kingdom, and particularly the English people. I do not think that any other country would take in tens of thousands of citizens of the Irish Republic who are glad to come and live here and who are welcome. The Irish do not feel discriminated against. If they did, they certainly would not come to this country, and we must bear that in mind in considering the Bill.
  The reduction in remission from one half to one third for prisoners who have been charged with scheduled offences and sentenced to five years or more is welcome to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. My Unionist colleagues and I have been pressing for such a change for many years. Our only complaint is that it has taken so long. That is our criticism of all the measures in the Bill. Why have we had to wait for 20 years for the forfeiture of money and property to be used in terrorist campaigns? The IRA depends on money to maintain its carnage in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and on the continent. The Home Secretary estimated that the annual income of the IRA is £3 million to £4 million. Every effort must be made to make sure that that money is not available to the men of terror.
  The present IRA campaign of terror has lasted for 20 years, three times longer than the duration of the last war when we had restrictions on the rights and liberties of citizens, and, as has been pointed out, there was internment of people on the order of the Home Secretary. During the past 20 years, 2,800 innocent men, women and children have been slaughtered by vicious terrorists. The IRA has slaughtered people in Northern Ireland, in Britain and on the continent. After every atrocity there is a torrent of words condemning the IRA on all sides, and from the Irish Republic there are words of condemnation and sympathy to relatives of the victims. However, whenever the security forces shoot a terrorist, or whenever a terrorist is tried and convicted, there is an immediate outcry.
  Many people in Northern Ireland are as perplexed as I am at the contradictory attitude which seems hypocritical in that the forces of law and order are meant to defeat Irish Republican terrorists but not to harm or convict them. In fiction, it may be possible to do that, but we are dealing with the world as it is, with all its harsh realities. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), waxed strong about the resentment of citizens of the Irish Republic who were
  "likely to have their support for law and order eroded".
  It seems that the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that citizens of the Irish Republic are also liable to arrest and detention for seven days on reasonable suspicion. Like many other measures, that measure was introduced in the Irish Republic to deal with the threat of the IRA. It is only right and proper that we should be able to introduce measures of that kind without criticism of the Government and talk about discrimination against citizens of the Irish Republic.
  The IRA wins every propaganda campaign that it mounts. It is highly successful and highly sophisticated. It has the help of many people in Ireland, the United
  238
  Kingdom, America and elsewhere, who, for their own personal prejudices, are only too glad directly or indirectly to further the cause of the IRA.
  The IRA is engaged in a bloody campaign of sectarian slaughter in Northern Ireland. The past 20 years have been punctuated by the most horrendous outrages committed in cold blood. Yet, throughout the world, there is the belief that Britain is holding down Northern Ireland by sheer brute force, against the wishes of the vast majority of the people there. There is the appalling belief that IRA members are freedom fighters who are defending a helpless Roman Catholic population against the terrorist attacks of the Protestant community. As hon. Members know, that is untrue. At his party conference, the leader of the SDP stated that the IRA has killed more of its own Roman Catholic compatriots than have been killed by members of the security forces.
  As one newspaper suggested recently, the United Kingdom Government must spend an equal amount of money on trying to win the propaganda battle. It will be an uphill struggle, especially when those who are involved in television and radio broadcasting are doing everything possible to get around the ban on interviewing the spokesmen of the men of terror.
  I hope and pray that political progress will be made in Northern Ireland and that constitutional politicians will get together and devise a system that is acceptable to the decent people of Ulster. Of course, constitutional progress will not bring an end to terrorism in Northern Ireland. Evil men are waxing fat on the profits of their evil deeds. We can destroy terrorists only by tough measures—measures that we would adopt only in a time of war. No matter what anybody may say, the IRA is waging a war against the decent people of this country. We should respond in kind. We must be tough. We must be resolute. We must be determined.
  I hope that the measures will be implemented by the Government and that more will be introduced so that the Government can show that they are determined to destroy the IRA, not in another 10 or 20 years but as soon as possible. These measures may help towards that end, and I pray to God that they will do so.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: It is regrettable that, over the past few weeks, a certain atavism has grown up in Ireland and here in relation to justice and security matters. The Secretary of State was wise to ensure that that atavism does not raise its ugly head tonight. Unfortunately, in some cases it has done so.
  One point crops up again and again. I do not like wearing my heart—other than my political heart—on my sleeve, but accusations were made against me personally and against my party, and we should nail them. I represent the constituency of Newry and Armagh, and I am proud to do so. It was christened "bandit country" by a former Labour Secretary of State. It is a difficult area. We do not keep going a political organisation that is committed to non-violence to constitutional politics without having to fight hard against people who demonstrate the same atavism that the House has witnessed tonight.
  I know what it is to have to fight my way out of a polling station in the dark. I know what it is to have to take my workers to a polling station, when men with guns stand outside to prevent people voting. I know what it is to visit

  239
  my election agent and find him dead on his doorstep, with his four-year-old daughter sitting beside him. I know what it is to sit in my house and hear and see the mob outside trying to burn it.
  Let nobody in this House or anywhere else believe that, when we talk about beating violence, we are soft on terrorism or have any sympathy with it. We see it at the coal face. When I say "we", I mean all hon. Members from the North of Ireland—Unionists and Nationalists alike.
  The Secretary of State referred to the death and funeral of Mr. Barney Lavery. For over 30 years, he was a close friend of mine. I knew his little granddaughter well, too. I was at that funeral, as was, to his credit, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). It would have taken tears from a stone. Let nobody here imagine that, when we talk about suffering and terrorism and violence, we do not know it from all sides.
  The Secretary of State referred to what I said previously in the House about using the law as a weapon to defeat terrorism. Maybe he should have finished the quote. I said that it was a weapon not to defeat terrorism but an instrument to create justice. I stand by that view. I stand by that view also in relation to this legislation, as I have done in relation to other pieces of legislation that we have considered recently. and I do so for one reason. I ask the House to think about it in rational terms. There are two ways of regarding the legislation. One is the negative way, saying that it will defeat terrorism; and the other is the positive way, asking whether it will create peace. There is a clear distinction.
  An important point is at stake. Surely everyone's aim is to create peace in Ireland—a peace that will last; a peace that will not poison relationships every week of the year; a peace that will not bring poisoned relationships into inter-governmental squabbles such as the one that we saw last week, the one that we have seen brought into Europe, and the one that we have seen poisoning the relationship between people who live happily together on this island and in Ireland, and between two Governments who have the right to live without embarrassment and without such a poisoned relationship on an almost daily basis. Without that peace, the defeat of terrorism will not be successful.
  The Prime Minister rightly coined a phrase when she talked about the oxygen of publicity for terrorism. I make the point with all the sincerity at my command that, at present, the IRA, or Sinn Fein, does not need to look for publicity, because the House is giving it to it on a weekly basis. Those organisations were mentioned 168 times in yesterday's short debate. We all belong to political parties. If we were getting that type of cheap, free publicity, would we have to worry about what happens outside the House? Over the past four weeks the newspapers, the television screens and the legislation have given that oxygen of publicity to the very same people from whom everyone wants to take that oxygen.
  There is the oxygen of abnormality. I commend to everybody concerned about the problem a most accurate article by Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times last week in which he addressed that point. The habitat of the terrorist is the abnormal situation. He thrives in it and gets recruits and sympathy from it. Normality, where people go to work and lead normal lives, is the one thing that urban and rural terrorists cannot live with. They thrive on the abnormality that we have seen created in the North of Ireland. It is a tactic that they use successfully because we give it to them. A Sinn Fein political spokesman said:
  240
  "We thrive with repression, but we cannot live with reform."
  He knows from where he gets his recruits and support. But what do we do? We provide abnormal courts and abnormal laws, such as those on the emergency provisions, the prevention of terrorism, the freedom of the press, the right to silence and, as of yesterday, elected authorities. On and on we go. That is the context in which terrorism thrives. Surely the Government must consider the oxygen of abnormality sooner rather than later.
  Over the past few weeks this country and the Irish Government have developed an abnormal international profile because of a running sore. That sore has run not for one, two or three weeks, but for almost 800 years. I suggest with all the sincerity at my command that if a fundamental problem lasts that long, surely to heaven we all have the ingenuity and vision to start to see where the answer is, instead of putting the rubber stamp on abnormality each week as it goes by.
  Under this legislation 656 people were detained and released without charge between April and September 1988. Surely that must raise questions, one of which must be: is this legislation being used not on "reasonable" suspicion or even suspicion, but to trawl for intelligence and information? I believe that it is. Two weeks ago in Newry, at 6 am, a schoolboy of 18 was taken in on foot for questioning about a little civil disturbance. Before he left the police station he was taken into a room by two people who questioned him about his neighbours and asked him to join Sinn Fein so that he could provide information. He was told that his call number was Roger, and Roger rang that night. That is how the legislation is being used. Like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have made an official complaint about that. I have been making official complaints for 20 years and not sustained one, and I do not have great confidence that I shall ever sustain one. However incompetent I may be, I do not see how I can get them all wrong. I ask the Minister to look into that because that is an example of what is happening.
  I have one point to make on the European Court decision in the interests of this country and the standards of justice to which the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) referred. It is not an a la carte Europe where we can take what we like and leave what we do not like. If we subscribe to the European convention on human rights, we have a duty to listen carefully and to do what is required with good grace. We should not be dragged screaming and kicking so that once again the bedrock of justice in this country is questioned publicly and the country is embarrassed internationally.
  There is the oxygen of duplicity. I cannot think of a better word so forgive me for using it. I have spent many years, as have members of my party and Church leaders in the North of Ireland, asking this and other Governments to introduce legislation on racketeering. We told them what was going on and asked why there was no legislation. Irony of irony, it was introduced as a result of good investigative journalism by Roger Cook—the type of investigative journalism which will be prevented by legislation introduced a few weeks ago. Why did successive Governments not introduce such legislation? There are two reasons. First, it did not suit this Government's propaganda. For them it was good that people should believe that all the money comes from the United States. Secondly—the Loyalist paramilitary experience in Northern Ireland points to this—where there is

  241
  racketeering on such a scale, one has a constant entry into the intelligence of an organisation. Let us not be self-righteous about this or feel that something great is being done. We asked for this many moons ago and it is coming now because of a brilliant piece of investigative journalism.
  There is duplicity about the way in which racketeering has been presented. What about the racketeering of the official IRA? It is believed that £6 million a year is laundered through banks in Newry. I have been told that there is no official IRA now, yet at the end of the summer I found myself at a conference sitting with the political head of the same organisation, discussing how racketeering could be tackled. What will be done about that? What will be done about UDA racketeering? We have seen what is happening on the streets of Belfast. These are the problems that we are bringing to the Government and there is agreement that we have long asked for action.
  I have experience at first hand. Four years ago a young builder gave me all the details of his case. The police did not want to know because they did not have the power to do anything and the Government did not want to know because they were not going to deal with the matter at that time. That young man is now out of business and has had to come to the mainland to work on a building site. That is what we mean when we talk about the oxygen of duplicity.
  There is the oxygen of grievance, whether real or imaginary. One of the awful aspects of this legislation is that Irish people feel aggrieved by it. People coming through the ports are stopped and questioned. Lorry drivers are held for three days at Dover and their loads go bad. If one speaks with an Irish accent, especially if one is young, wears denims and has long hair, one is a suspected terrorist. That builds up a sense of grievance which showed itself this past week in the awful atavism that we have seen in Ireland. That frightens me as much as the atavism that I have seen from some Conservative Members. That caters for the lowest common denominator—something that borders almost on racialism in the two countries where we should be living as peaceful people, sharing our neighbourhood in a positive and constructive way, not as is happening at present.
  That oxygen of grievance is to be found in those young people who are affected by the removal of 50 per cent. of remission. We are not comparing like with like when we say that we are simply seeking to bring Northern Ireland into line with the Republic of Ireland or Britain. Here and in the Republic of Ireland parole is available after one third of a sentence has been served. That is not so in the North of Ireland. People are not sentenced by Diplock courts here; they are in the North of Ireland. They are not sentenced generally under emergency legislation here, but they are in Northern Ireland. Those grievances build up. As someone once said, that turns Nationalists and Republicans into terrorists. We live with the results of that.
  Mr. William Cash: Surely the hon. Gentleman is making a case for a united Ireland.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has not mentioned that.
  Mr. Cash: He has not mentioned it, but the question is whether that is what he is driving at. How does the hon.
  242
  Gentleman reconcile what he is saying with the grievance that would be present if the views of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland were to be overridden by the sort of arguments that he is putting forward?
  Mr. Mallon: I cannot fathom the rationale behind that question. I wish that I could, because I know of the hon. Gentelman's interest in the Irish situation. May we discuss the matter outside the Chamber, because I do not understand his question sufficiently to answer it? I am not sure whether anybody else understands it either.
  Finally, there is the oxygen of emotion, and that is a cogent factor in the type of problems that the Minister knows we have to deal with on a daily basis. That emotion can substantially carry people away. Exclusion is central to that emotion. We are to have internal exile in the days of glasnost and perestroika. The world is opening up as this type of legislation closes us in. Is there not something ironic about that? Unionists and Nationalists alike find it offensive.
  The Government will never defeat terrorism, because they cannot. They have to go down the road of derogation which will damage the Government and the country more than it will damage terrorism. I make that as a serious point. I am in no way supporting terrorism; I am simply making the point that terrorism will not be defeated by such an approach or by this type of legislation. What will defeat terrorism, or, to put it in a more positive way, create real and lasting peace in Ireland is when there is consensus among Irish people on the island of Ireland. Then we shall see terrorism defeated so quickly that we shall wonder what we have been doing for the past 20 years.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: No hon. Member will doubt the personal integrity and courage of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). However, it is slightly sad that, although he told us what he does not like in the Bill and what he does not like about what the Government are doing, apart from his latter comments, he told us nothing about what he and his party would wish the Government to do. It is sad that Opposition Members are always saying no—no to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, no to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, no, in due course, I have no doubt, to the Northern Irish equal opportunities legislation. There is very little that they say yes to in Northern Ireland. They say very little about how they would seek to combat terrorism. It is all very negative. They do no more than knock copy.
  Let me briefly comment upon why the Bill is necessary. Hon. Members have asked whether other powers for arrest and detention are available. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) suggested that those powers are available under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. But Lord Colville's report shows clearly that the ordinary powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are not adequate to prevent acts of terrorism because they can be activated only when an offence has been or is being committed. For the victims, it is too late if the police cannot take action until a bomb has gone off. Therefore, the police need a pre-emptive power to arrest on reasonable suspicion at the preparatory stage of terrorist crimes.
  Nor is it sufficient to say that in such instances the police should arrest on suspicion of conspiracy to murder

  243
  or to cause explosions and matters of that kind. The police frequently do not have sufficient evidence to prove an agreement with another person or persons to commit an offence, as the law requires.
  Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Lady, have been waiting patiently to speak.
  The police frequently do not have sufficient evidence to prove an agreement with another person or persons to commit an offence as the law requires, but they may have grounds for reasonable suspicion that a person is preparing to carry out an act of terrorism.
  It is suggested that it is wrong to lock up a person for a period without access to a solicitor or without being able to notify his family of his whereabouts. A balance has to be struck bearing in mind the seriousness of the potential offence. Clearly people in police detention have the right to have someone informed of their whereabouts and to consult a solicitor. But it is essential that the police, on the authority of a senior officer, should in certain circumstances be able to delay the exercise of those rights for up to 48 hours. There are undoubtedly cases where, if it becomes known that a person has been arrested, the police could have difficulty in preventing an act of terrorism or would be seriously hampered in investigating terrorist crimes and arresting other suspects.
  Lord Colville is right to say that a suspect's right to notify his family of his whereabouts and to have access to a solicitor should not be delayed a moment longer than is necessary and that the detained person should throughout be kept informed of his rights and the authority for their deferral if they are deferred. In that context it is important to realise that schedule 3 gives effect to Lord Colville's recommendation that the regime for detainees under the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be brought closer to that of people detained under other police powers.
  The Bill includes new safeguards because throughout the review officer has to consider whether the reason for delay remains valid, at all times seeking to do the best to strike a difficult balance between the rights of the person detained and the rights of the community to be protected from terrorist offences.
  It is vital to recognise that the Bill is essentially pre-emptive. It is designed to prevent acts of terrorism because its powers are often exercised while terrorist crimes are still in preparation. In some cases, preparation will not have gone far enough for a charge to be brought. We must recognise, too, that in some cases the information on which the determination was based may be too sensitive to bring before a court. However, the detention will clearly have been justified in preventing the terrorists' operation going any further. Let us be clear, as Lord Colville said in his review of the operation of the Act in 1986. Criticism of the Act based on the number of charges, which result from the operation of the detention powers, is misconceived and flawed, because it misses the central point that this Act's powers are pre-emptive in attempting to prevent terrorism. After all, it is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and, by definition, powers must be exercised in advance of the terrorist act, which is its entire purpose. That may mean that the preparation has not gone far enough for sustainable evidence to be available for substantive charges.
  244
  When considering statistics of charges for offences under the legislation—we have heard something about this—it is misleading to say that, simply because only a few charges are brought under it, this legislation is defective. The Act creates very few offences and they are generally ancillary, such as making a contribution to terrorism or withholding information about terrorist acts.
  This legislation is about preventing terrorist offences from taking place. If a terrorist offence has taken place or it can be proved that it would have taken place, those crimes—such as murder or explosion offences—will be prosecuted under other legislation. There is an adequate body of substantive criminal law. This Bill is about measures to prevent terrorist offences from ever taking place. There must be a reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism for a detention to take place. There should not be any shadow of a sustainable suggestion that the police are using their powers improperly. Indeed, we have not heard any such suggestion.
  In the recent case which was referred to the European Court of Human Rights, it was accepted that the arrests were proper. Lord Colville concluded that the allegations of abuse of this legislation were not justified. In any event, the Bill contains new powers for review of detention during the first 48 hours, similar to the tried and tested procedures contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If a suspect feels that the police have it wrong, there is the statutory police complaints procedure, both in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland, under which any complaints of alleged ill-treatment are thoroughly investigated. It is interesting to note that in all the thoroughly investigated cases mentioned in the 1988 Amnesty International report no evidence has yet been found of any justification for those complaints.
  When one puts this legislation in the balance and considers what it is seeking to achieve, one sees that it is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and, as such, when one analyses what it is doing, as against the ills and evil which it seeks to combat, I believe that it is a sound and balanced piece of legislation which the House should swiftly pull on the statute book.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The continuance of organised international terrorism has shown no sign of abating. Many instances have occurred in the United Kingdom in recent years which show That there can be no loosening of the necessary measures of protection required to safeguard the British public. Terrorist groups associated with Northern Ireland continue to show a capability to inflict murder and mayhem in the Province and in Great Britain. The casualties have certainly fallen from the highest levels of the early 1970s, but the threat and the actuality of outrage is ever present. It is against that background that Parliament again reviews these exceptional measures.
  The provisions of the Bill are for the most part not new. However, they are exceptional in their treatment of those suspected of involvement in terrorist activity. The powers of detention and exclusion, especially, are not those which would be considered appropriate in other circumstances. It is, therefore, right that their effectiveness and acceptability should be under constant review both by Parliament and independently. I am glad that the Government have

  245
  decided not to accept the recommendation of Lord Colville in his review of the 1984 Act that the core controls provided by the legislation should no longer be subject to annual renewal by Parliament. Lord Colville argued that the temporary nature of the controls fuelled what he called
  "the unnecessary controversy that surrounds them",
  making it more difficult to provide proper facilities at the ports and airports.
  The controversy that surrounds these measures is not unnecessary. It is a continuing and healthy reminder that the measures are exceptional and cannot be taken for granted. This debate has shown that these issues are still alive—and so they should be.
  Internal banishment—that is what the power of exclusion provides for—is a power that we would not wish permanently to associate with the criminal legal system of the United Kingdom. That is why the Government are right to have provided—designed to replace the existing statute—that this Bill should expire under the provisions of clause 26 on 22 March 1990, and be renewable only if Parliament so decides by an affirmative resolution on an annual basis. This arrrangement is a reversion of the provisions of the 1976 Act and seems preferable in that it does not assume the necessity for the legislation to continue for a five-year period, even though that may be more likely than not.
  Lord Colville called for annual reviews. I believe that it is proper that Parliament should pronounce on the outcome of those. I am glad that it has been agreed that Lord Colville will continue his role of providing Parliament with an annual report—which I hope will continue to be a thorough one—on the effective operation of the Act.
  Lord Colville's review was the third major examination of the workings of this legislation since its inception, and I believe that it was of great value. I am glad, however, that not all of its recommendations were accepted. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) suggested that, because the Government had departed from the recommendations, they were calling in question the value of them. I say to him that to accept the recommendations without cavil or question would be to deny Parliament and the Government any part in the review process, which is patently absurd.
  The Home Secretary was right to retain the offence of withholding information, which might be of assistance in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism in Northern Ireland or in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person in relation to such an act, notwithstanding Lord Colville's view that it should go.
  The new special search provisions for use in a great emergency appear to be of potential value in making effective the new measures to deal with financial assistance for acts of terrorism. I am glad that the Bill contains these measures, because there is no doubt that the huge financial resources that have been available to the terrorist organisations have sustained them as effectively as the outside intervention of other Governments. Many of these resources are traceable and I hope that these provisions will enjoy universal support.
  246
  The Colville report did not go deeply into the proposals contained in part III of the Bill, but they appear to follow fairly closely in principle and in operation those already introduced in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
  Undoubtedly, the most controversial departure from the Colville recommendations is the Home Secretary's decision to retain the provisions relating to exclusion in part II of the Bill. The exclusion power is the most draconian contained in the legislation. Lord Colville reports the firm view of the Scottish and English Associaton of Chief Police Officers and all senior police officers to whom he spoke, who believe that it is essential to retain the exclusion powers. They believe that, without that power, effective surveillance of Irish terrorists could not be maintained. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West believes that that evidence is lacking, but I believe that it has been provided by the police officers—there can be no more authoritative evidence than that.
  In an earlier part of his report Lord Colville made the general observation that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984
  "is basically a deterrent, something very hard to prove or disprove."
  I believe that that observation is right. I believe that the exclusion provisions, although the most exceptional and unattractive provisions of the 1984 Act, are the most difficult to dispense with. Therefore, I cannot take issue with the Home Secretary's judgment about their necessity at this stage.
  It has been satisfactory that the provisions of the 1984 Act have, hitherto, not been held to be inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. It is intrinsically important that, even in the extremely dangerous circumstances of Northern Ireland, this country has striven to adhere to the standards set for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in that convention. It has been a shield against charges of inhumanity and it has helped to sustain our cause in other countries. Therefore, the decision of the European Court on Human Rights on the Brogan case is one to which the Government must respond with great care.
  The Democrats urge upon the Government the overwhelmingly strong case for seeking to reconcile the detention procedures with the requirements of article 5(3) of the convention that an arrested or detained person
  "be brought promptly before a judge."
  If the Government seek, instead, to derogate from the convention under article 15, following the example of the Labour Government in 1978, they risk bringing this necessary legislation into obloquy. It will also greatly increase our difficulties in sustaining support abroad. I believe that the Government should provide arrangements to bring those arrested or detained under the provisions of the Act before a judge. In an earlier speech the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a number of suggestions as to how that might best be done. I hope that those parts of his speech will be closely considered by the Government before the Minister makes a statement in the House about the judgment of the European Court. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that that statement should be made in this House before this Bill goes into Committee, but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it would have been reasonable to expect the Government to come up with a practical response to the judgment of the European Court

  247
  before this debate. There is no doubt that many practical considerations must be borne in mind, but the principle of seeking to adhere to the operation of the convention should not be in any doubt.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made one of the most powerful speeches of this debate. He speaks with personal experience of the horrors of terrorism in Northern Ireland, which few in the House can share. For that we thank God. He asks us to judge this Bill by considering whether it will create peace or whether it will defeat terrorism, but those are the wrong questions. The Bill, of itself, cannot do either.
  The provisions of the Bill may assist to remove the sense of powerlessness that many in Northern Ireland feel against the ever-present threat to life, limb, happiness, family unity, safe travel and the security normally enjoyed by others in the realm.
  The Bill may—it is impossible to demonstrate—make it easier to prevent the commission of acts that, were we to rely upon the normal provisions of the law, would be carried out. Then, it would be too late to do anything but offer our sympathies in this House to those who have suffered and have been bereaved. Because the Bill seeks to ward off such atrocities and because law enforcement officers believe that it will have a material role in achieving that aim, we accept its unattractive provisions, which we can regard only as temporary.
  Parliament must review the provisions annually and reconsider their effectiveness and the manner in which they are carried out. Given the provisions in the Bill, the Democrats accept the Government's view that it is a necessary part of their armoury to defeat terrorism in this country.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as other hon. Members wish to catch your eye.
  I applaud and endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), not least because he drew the House's attention to the remarkable and disgraceful remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who said that the IRA does not constitute a threat to our national security. I hope that those words receive due attention and condemnation.
  Ms. Short: That point has already been made by a number of Conservative Back Benchers. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that, to derogate from the convention, we must tell the world that the security of the United Kingdom is endangered by the IRA. That gives the IRA more status than my right hon. Friend and many of his hon. Friends believe is due to it. That is my right hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Hunter: I am well aware that that is the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I entirely reject it. The hon. Lady's intervention has given me the opportunity to do so once again.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the Government can never defeat terrorism, but I agree with the comments that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made about that. I believe that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has missed the essential point—that
  248
  this measure is not the sum total of the campaign against the IRA. It is one particular, important measure. Past anti-terrorism legislation has played a significant part in controlling the curse of terrorism.
  I believe that the Bill should be greatly welcomed. It is another stage in the intensification of the process against terrorism that started with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, and continued with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.
  We have listened to counter arguments from Opposition Members. I am inclined to give credence to their former colleague Lord Mason, who was recorded in The Times as saying:
  "There is no telling how many lives the legislation has saved."
  It is right and proper that the provisions of the 1984 Act should be re-enacted.
  We note Lord Colville's apprehension about part I of the Bill, which deals with proscribed organisations, but the Government rightly accepted his conclusion that it would be wrong to deproscribe.
  Lord Colville rejected the proposal for exclusion orders under part II, as did Sir Cyril Philips in an earlier appraisal of existing legislation. That was not the conclusion of Lord Jellicoe when he reviewed the legislation in 1983. He said that exclusion orders had
  "materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom."
  I was intrigued by the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) against exclusion orders, because without them surely there would be a greater flow of international terrorists into Britain. I was bewildered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reply to Lord Colville on that point. He wrote:
  "The power to exclude someone from all or part of the United Kingdom is one of the most important powers in the prevention of terrorism legislation…I believe it is right only to employ this power in cases where I am sure that excluding a person will prevent acts of terrorism."
  My right hon. Friend's letter is ambiguous. I understand that paragraph to mean that he is referring only to terrorists connected with Northern Ireland and that he is not thinking of applying it generally to terrorists of other countries. Perhaps that point could be clarified in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh gave credit for part III—which deals with financial assistance for terrorism—to a journalist. There can be only an indirect connection because the recommendation first came from the Hodgson committee and it was also included in Lord Colville's report. It is basically the application of the powers in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 to terrorism and terrorist organisations.
  Part IV, which deals with arrest, detention and control of entry, tackles a delicate and serious problem. However, when dealing with the exceptional circumstances of terrorism, exceptional powers must be taken. Although we note and respect the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, arguably it has overlooked the human right of the individual to look to the state for protection against terrorism.
  I support virtually everything in the Bill, but I have one misgiving—the Bill's response to the increasing phenomenon of international terrorism. International co-operation exists between the anarchist and Communist cells in Europe. The Red Brigade, the Red Army Faction,

  249
  Action Direct, INLA, the CCC in Belgium and the IRA meet, conspire and co-operate; they use the same weaponry and armaments.
  I have taken advice about the relevant clauses of the Bill and I understand that they do not preclude terrorists from other countries meeting in the United Kingdom to plot to carry out an act of terrorism in another country or to encourage others to do so—provided that they do not commit an act of terrorism or any triable offence in the United Kingdom. If that is correct, there is a serious loophole in the legislation that would allow the United Kingdom to be used as a base for the planning of terrorism in other countries by foreign terrorists.
  That loophole could also be used by another form of international terrorism—the liberation movements, many of which have the backing of the Soviet Union and are a manifestation and an adjunct of Soviet policy. When those liberation movements commit acts of terrorism they cease to be liberation movements and instead become terrorist organisations. Some of them have offices in London. It is questionable whether the Bill gives the Government the power to prevent acts of terrorism being planned in this country by so-called liberation movements.
  I welcome the Bill, although I have my doubts about whether it sufficiently tackles the phenomenon of international terrorism. I hope that some of the matters that I have raised will be discussed in greater detail in Committee.
  8.35 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: We have experienced the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act since 1974, and it does not prevent terrorism. It has led to the arrest and detention of literally thousands of people who subsequently have not been charged with any offence. Since 1977, 4,358 people have been detained, of whom 3,701 have not been charged with any offence. The details of the minority who were charged show them to have been charged with offences for which they could have been arrested and charged under other legislation.
  The very existence of the legislation and the way in which Irish people are harassed under it and the fear that when they travel to Ireland they might be stopped and detained causes an enormous sense of injustice, alienation and anger. I seriously believe that it enlarges the sense of grievance that the system is unfair and that there is some justification for paramilitary activity. It broadens the group of those willing to advance those arguments. There is a sense of injustice and alienation under the system.
  As I have said previously in the Chamber, I was working in the Home Office when the first Bill was introduced. Indeed, on the night that it was first debated I sat in the Civil Service Box under the Gallery. The last time I said that, Hansard deleted it from the report of my speech. I should be grateful if it would leave it in this time. I do not understand why we should not refer to the fact that civil servants sit in the Box under the Gallery.
  I remember that night well, because it followed the Birmingham pub bombings. I well remember those, too, because I was in Birmingham that weekend and one of the pubs bombed was used regularly by one of my brothers. When the radio reported the bombings we thought that he had been blown to bits. There was tragedy for others, but
  250
  luck for us because that did not happen to my brother. I well remember the way that the atmosphere in Birmingham turned and Irish people were blamed and attacked. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who wrote a book about the miscarriage of justice for the Birmingham Six, it was the worst mass murder in British history.
  The sense of anger both in this House and in the country led to an enormous demand for the restoration of capital punishment. The then Home Office Ministers feared that mood and a Bill was cobbled together, at short notice and in a short time, to appease that mood. I sat in the Box that night next to the man who had cobbled it together and we talked about it. He said that he had slung in as many ideas as he could come up with. That is the true origin of the legislation. The reasons for wanting to appease the mood and the reasons for the anger about the Birmingham pub bombings are understandable. Brian Walden, at that time the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, was asked by Home Office Ministers to make a fervent speech against capital punishment in that debate, as his speeches in this place were so famous. He made a fine speech that night, and in that case, too, the speech was set up, such was the degree of fear. That was the Bill's origin; that was why the Labour Government put it together. It was drafted at enormous speed to appease justified anger and to buy off a demand for the return of capital punishment.
  Then the legislation started to operate and we started to learn about its operation. Year after year the statistics came in showing hundreds of arrests—but no charges. The Labour party was big enough to learn from that and to realise that the Act was malfunctioning, was unnecessary and was generating injustice and a sense of injustice. My party was big enough to admit that the Act had failed and should be repealed. The Labour party is entitled to be proud of that. It is not honourable to go on doing something wrong merely because it was done before. That is dishonourable for any party or political person.
  Conservative Members say that if the prevention of terrorism legislation were not in place things that we do not know about would have happened and more terrorism would have taken place. That is what they assert: we can never know it. The horrible path down which that leads is the erosion of more and more civil liberties and the use of the emotions that people feel against terrorism to justify a continuing invasion of those liberties.
  I remember going to Turkey in 1983. There, members of trade unions and other political activists, such as people in the peace movement, had been arrested and beaten up in police stations. Confessions had been beaten out of them. I remember the sense of grievance and injustice in that society; and it is to those things that this sort of argument points. These arguments are dangerous. Conservative Members—and the Home Secretary tonight —continually tell us that there would be more terrorism without this legislation. That is a circular argument of which there is no proof.
  The paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland is a dreadful tragedy. I feel deeply about all the bombs and all the innocent people who are slaughtered because I feel strongly about the politics of Northern Ireland and the need for a peaceful settlement there. My father came from Northern Ireland and that was part of my route into politics. I believe that, especially now, the IRA's activities are absolutely counter-productive to achieving its declared

  251
  aim—the reunification of Ireland. Its members should stop their campaign, go for political activity and seek unity with the Unionist community in Northern Ireland—because all the people who live in Ireland must share. The IRA is wrong. I want a united Ireland because I want peace and justice in Ireland. But I also understand why mostly young men—and some young women—in Northern Ireland are willing to join paramilitary organisations. Their sense of grievance and injustice and their belief that Britain will not listen, so there is no political route to justice, makes them willing to engage in paramilitary violence.
  This violence comes from both sides of the community. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) showed that about 64 per cent. of the deaths are the responsibility of Republican organisations and 27 per cent. that of Loyalist paramilitary organisations. The hon. Gentleman would not allow me to intervene in his speech. I wanted to ask why he was willing to parade with members of Loyalist paramilitary organisations while denouncing violence. But it is all a tragedy that must be brought to an end.
  When I was in Northern Ireland a couple of months ago I found that people who would count themselves as firm Republicans were criticising the tactics, strategies and activities of the IRA more severely than ever before. That gave me great hope. Anyone who follows these matters and reads the literature knows that a debate has been growing up within Sinn Fein. I am sure that it was hastened by the SDLP talks with Sinn Fein; I honour the SDLP for having gone into those talks to determine whether the violence could be brought to an end. This growing debate has concerned whether Sinn Fein should stop what it calls the offensive use of force. I desperately want that to be encouraged. I want people in Northern Ireland who feel aggrieved and who want a united Ireland to work politically for that aim and to believe that it is possible.
  The sort of measures that the Government have brought in in recent months weaken the argument for political action. The broadcasting ban, the ending of the right to silence, and so on, make those who oppose political campaigning tell the others not to be silly, because the British Government will not allow them to be politically active. They will tell them to look at the new oath that must be taken and at all the other changes, concluding that the Brits understand only one thing: soldiers going home in coffins. That is a nasty argument, but it is the one used. Decent people put forward such arguments.
  If we want to stop violence and terrorism, we have to try to understand why people engage in it. We must win people over to politics within which there is space for them to express their views fairly. Legislation such as this leads to all sorts of young people being picked up, interrogated and unjustly detained, and that makes them angry and willing to support, vote for and, in some cases, join and be active in paramilitary organisations.
  The series of measures introduced in recent weeks by the Government is a package that has been cobbled together in the same way as was the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, which was brought forward to appease the public mood after the Birmingham pub bombings, after which the Prime Minister asked for political initiatives of any kind. It is highly likely that this package and the anger about it will lead to an escalation of violence in Northern Ireland. I fear and expect that
  252
  more people will die as a consequence of these measures. Most politicians rarely visit Northern Ireland and do not care a damn about the violence there—0as long as it is contained there. It is almost useful to be able to pontificate about terrorism and to denounce it. I regret to say that I sincerely believe that most politicians in the House do not care about Northern Ireland or about the dreadful fact that these measures are likely to lead to more violence there.
  The Home Secretary, who is unlike most other members of the Government, gave a fair presentation of the case for his Bill this evening. But it is usual Tory tactics to try to smear the Labour party. Tory Members continually smear those of us who honestly believe that this sort of legislation is counter-productive; so does the nasty press, which supports them and is owned by their friends. The argument runs that if we are against a measure entitled "The Prevention of Terrorism Act" we must be in favour of terrorism. That is a lie, but Tories deliberately use it all the time for political ends. Given all that, I cannot and will not back off and lend my support to these indefensible and counter-productive measures which are likely to lead to an increase in terrorism and paramilitary violence. I am unlikely to be swayed by the threat of this sort of smear argument.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a superb speech in which he put the case against the Bill extremely well. Indeed, his speech could not have been bettered, but I believe that my party's tactics tonight are extremely foolish and will send out a muddled message from the House about the Labour party's position on the prevention of terrorism. I, like others, am not in principle against action to take away the property of paramilitary organisations that has been improperly obtained. I am worried about the provisions in the Bill which say that someone has to prove that he did not come across property illicitly.
  Not long ago a woman whose husband's shop went bust came to my advice bureau. Her husband had engaged in some drug selling and was arrested and imprisoned. The authorities threatened to take away her house in which she lived with her children. I am not in favour of that sort of thing. I am perfectly willing to look at the principle, but we must also look at the details. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, putting the onus of proof on the person whose property is to be confiscated is wrong.
  The Labour party's decision on the Bill was caused by Tory smears and lies and I am afraid that the Labour party gave in to that. We should not give in on such serious matters because of smears and attacks made in the press, or we will end up going ever backwards and defending the indefensible. I deeply regret that my party gave in to that. I respect the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, but I shall vote against the Bill, as will many of my hon. Friends. The measure is counter-productive.
  Rev. William McCrea: Before the hon. Lady finishes her speech, perhaps she could address her mind to a problem that I face. I walked behind a policeman's coffin the other day. The brother of that policeman's widow was murdered a few years ago as well. The hon. Lady has said much about her worries about persons being harassed. Will she tell the House and my constituents what she would deliver to the widow and the

  253
  orphans? Other hon. Members are trying to raise other matters, but I am asking a straightforward question and I am sure that I will get a straightforward answer.
  Ms. Short: I apologise to hon. Members who are waiting to take part in the debate. If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) had been listening to my speech he would know my answer. Those deaths are tragedies and each one is a personal tragedy in whichever community it occurs. I desperately want to see peace for all the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill will escalate the violence and will not bring peace. That is my sincerely held view. As I say, I shall vote against Second Reading.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I admire the determination of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). We appreciate her point of view and her determination to put it forward, and we respect her conviction. However, like many of my hon. Friends, I disagree with what she said. She was correct to say that probably many people outside will interpret the stand taken by Labour Front-Bench Members as being the result of pressure from Conservatives. I would put it further. It is the result of public opinion and the real horrors of terrorism which, I accept, all hon. Members reject. The difference between the hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends and Conservative Members is that we feel that we have to give the police the tools to deal with terrorism. That is why the Bill is necessary.
  I am afraid that the Labour party shows a cavalier attitude to the safety of the British people and an inability ever to unite to formulate a coherent and strong anti-terrorist policy. Every Government must be prepared to have a policy to protect its citizens. Many Northern Ireland Members have spoken from the bottom of their hearts and have almost pleaded with the House to ensure that the security forces in Northern Ireland have the tools to do the job. We must give the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism. The fig leaf offered by the Opposition of partial agreement to the Bill is not enough.
  We have to look at the nature of terrorism. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) advised us that we could use the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deal with detentions so that the police could inquire into terrorist activities. We are not dealing with ordinary crime. There is a fundamental difference between criminals who commit offences for personal gain and terrorists who commit acts of violence to perpetuate a cause. The terrorist is blind to reason or compassion and sees the gun and the bomb as his only way to overcome constitutional law and achieve his ends. The ordinary criminal is out for personal gain and, as I say, the difference between the two is fundamental.
  We have to look at the people we are dealing with when we talk about interviewing terrorist suspects. Many terrorists, and especially those in the IRA, are trained in Northern Ireland and some of them have experience of camps in Syria and the Lebanon. They are trained by the PLO or by other Palestinian organisations. One of the fundamental parts of their training is the ability to resist interrogation by the security forces, police or military. We are dealing with an extraordinary type of person, and that requires extraordinary measures.
  254
  Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are not listening. Perhaps if they did they might learn something. They advocate the use of the normal courts to deal with persons charged with terrorist offences. They say that we should forget the Diplock courts and that if we do not have the evidence we should not use the exclusion orders which are a fundamental part of the Bill. The Opposition forget, but I am sure that my friends from Northern Ireland will remind them, that in Northern Ireland witnesses will not come to court to give evidence in the way that witnesses do in the rest of the United Kingdom in the normal course of judicial proceedings. That is because of intimidation and the threats of violence towards the families of witnesses. We are not dealing with normal judicial proceedings, and that is why extraordinary measures have to be used. The Bill is one such measure.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends who will take the Bill through Committee will have a major problem in dealing with the decision by the European Court of Human Rights. Before I deal with that, it is worth mentioning that in a way the decision of that court is typical of the problem facing the forces of law and order in dealing with terrorism in the United Kingdom. Four men applied for judgment, first by the European Commission and then by the European Court. Terence Brogan was suspected of killing two police officers. Dermot Coyle was responsible for bomb attacks, especially in Tyrone. William McFadden was suspected of murdering two soldiers. Michael Tracey was involved in several armed robbery offences.
  The fifth man who went with them was called Charles English. His case was withdrawn fron the European Court after he was killed when a rifle-launched grenade exploded prematurely. The newspaper of the Republican movement described him as an active service volunteer in the Derry brigade with 21 years' experience. The problem for the forces of law and order was that witnesses would not come forward to give evidence in such cases.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has two options. He could introduce judicial intervention to get round the problems posed by article 5(3), which sets out the need to get a suspect before a court as promptly as possible. My right hon. Friend should remember that, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, suspects being interviewed at length by the police were regularly taken before magistrates when requests for detention for further investigation were made. That procedure could be restored. My right hon. Friend will have my support if he introduces that or some alternative to derogation.
  We should remember that the British Government have twice asked for derogation from decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In 1971, the Conservative Government asked for a derogation on internment. In December 1978, the Labour Government asked for a derogation in relation to the powers that were included in the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978. That Act would not have got through the House had it not been for the support of the Conservative Opposition, because 35 Labour Members voted against it. Tonight many Labour Members will vote against this Bill. Their opposition is nothing recent. It goes back over 10 years.
  My right hon. Friend has no guidance from the European Commission or from the court. The Commission said that four days' detention without coming before a court is perfectly all right, but that five days is not. The case was taken to the full court. Although it agreed with the Commission, it gave no reasons for its

  255
  decision. So there is no guidance on how long the court believes a suspect may be held before being taken before a court. But my right hon. and hon. Friends will have my full support in dealing with the problems posed by article 5(3). We must provide protection for the British public.
  The powers of exclusion have also attracted much opposition. I endorse the Home Secretary's views. If a prisoner deliberately tells the inmates of that prison, whether it be the Maze or anywhere else, that on his release he intends to bomb and kill, what are the forces of law and order expected to do? Should they ignore that? Are they supposed to allow him free access into the country so that he may form part of a cell, bury himself in a city here and slowly plan a bombing campaign?
  Some hon. Members have said that no European country has similar legislation. In France, a convicted terrorist is required to reside in a special place for between two and 10 years. There is a similar restriction in Italy, with the added requirement of reporting to the police regularly. There is a great need for such protection. We should be able to know that terrorists, whether they be Libyans, Iranians, Iraqis or members of the IRA, can be excluded from Britain.
  The fact that we need such a Bill is borne out by the events concerning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose life was threatened by an IRA cell, by the 1981 bombing campaign in seaside resorts, which was foiled, by the Arab who tried to blow up an El Al jet at Heathrow airport and by the murders of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy and the Israeli ambassador.
  No one knows better than Conservative Members that extraordinary measures are needed to deal with an extraordinary problem. I am afraid that the official Opposition are offering nothing to the public tonight. We offer the police of this country the tools to combat terrorism. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends are pursuing the right course in bringing the Bill before the House.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Time is short and I will try to restrict my remarks so that someone else may speak.
  The prevention of terrorism legislation has been utterly useless. It has not prevented any terrorism. It has deepened the intensity of feeling in Ireland generally and in Northern Ireland in the minority community in particular. The legislation was born in the political climate of fear with a determination to wreak vengeance against someone.
  I was in the Chamber that night when the first Prevention of Terrorism Bill was introduced. To its shame, the original Bill was a Labour Bill and it pandered to the hysteria at the time. Some Labour Members were completely against it. Indeed, one or two Labour Members from the midlands were physically frightened to oppose the legislation because they had to go back to their constituencies. They were afraid to vote against it although many of us wanted to do that.
  Not only has this legislation failed to stem terrorism, it has increased it. Ordinary criminal law can handle those cases. It is well known in this place that the Government are now deeply committed to what the Labour Government realised was an error on their part. I share the
  256
  view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about what is happening in the Labour party.
  This appalling Bill is pregnant with injustice and vendetta. It first appeared in 1974 when, as I have said, many hon. Members were afraid to express their views about it, although some did. They were not simply afraid to do that in the party; they were afraid of the reaction in their constituencies. Some hon. Members were frightened about what their management committees might say—[Interruption.] It is rude to interrupt when I have only a few minutes to speak. I have argued against people like the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for years because they are responsible for all this.
  The lack of democracy in Northern Ireland spawned the IRA. The deadly enemy of terrorism is not security measures, although they are important. The deadly enemy is democracy. The lack of democracy in Northern Ireland was caused by people like the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and his colleagues and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his friends. They still want to return to that situation which spawned the IRA when they attacked the march against the lack of justice and democracy in Northern Ireland. Those people know that as well as I do. The powers of arrest and detention were described by the former right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, now Lord Jenkins, as draconian.
  I want to give my view about what my party has just done. I am at a total loss to understand how anyone could table a reasoned amendment—God knows what an unreasoned amendment might be—which justifies not voting against the Bill. Reasoned amendments like that to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill yesterday and the one tonight should really cause us to vote against the Bill. I will be voting for the reasoned amendment, as I have done over the past 14 or 15 years, and I will vote against Second Reading because the Bill is draconian and causes terror and misery to many honest Irish people. That misery is caused by the people who want to go back to Stormont and the old policies which caused all the trouble.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and others who have spoken briefly. I know that there is great passion among many hon. Members and they could have spoken for longer
  There is always great sadness in the House when we discuss matters similar to this. We remember atrocities, murders and mourning and we even remember murders at times of mourning, at funerals and on Remembrance day. Those of us who know Ulster—and it is a part of the world that I love—know how terrorism is a cancer that infects an otherwise beautiful country. It is a disease, but it surprises many people who visit Ulster that they do not find everywhere they look evidence of atrocities. However, they know, as we do, that those atrocities and the danger of terrorism is never far away. On top of death and destruction, the threat scares away investors and employers, reduces the already poor employment opportunities and decreases the ability of the country to recover economically.
  Yet Opposition Members have said that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has failed

  257
  because terrorism continues. That is madness. That is the type of argument that seeks to ban preventive medicine because disease has not been fully conquered, or ridicules home security because burglaries are still perpetrated, or bans prisons because they do not eradicate crime completely.
  Those whose madness stretches to their tragic and pointless suicides in the hunger strike or leads to their self-humiliation in the dirty protest cannot be stopped completely by anything. Their belief and passion are fuelled by actions against them and they believe that they are right. Those who are dedicated to their cause believe that they are right, but I do not include here those who exploit that cause through fraud, theft, protection rackets and the like for personal greed. Those who have that passion for their cause will, of course, react against this Bill and against anything that tries to stop them and keep them within the law. Is that a reason for us not to introduce such legislation?
  Our democracy allows for disparate views. What distances these people, and why we must do all that we can to counter them, is that they do not accept democracy and will not wait for a majority view in Northern Ireland, which might unite North and South. They will murder and maim to exercise a warped demonstration of their power—the power of the gunman over the unarmed and of the bomber over the school child, grandfather or farmer. Is that the way to gain respect or to win men's minds?
  At least the Bill is a genuine and decent attempt to try to prevent terrorism and has not been introduced by skulking in bushes or with the benefit of hundreds of yards of wire. It has been introduced not in a cowardly or secretive way but in the full glare of parliamentary publicity and in open debate. That is democracy at work and it is anathema to terrorists. I welcome the Bill and I accept that limitations on liberty, such as the exclusion order, have not been taken lightly. We consider infringements of human rights carefully, but I know that many hon. Members would rather consider the human rights of those who have been killed or maimed horribly in the streets, in shops, in pubs, discotheques and even in public places such as the London streets during Christmas shopping.
  The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the great majority of senior police officers are said by Lord Colville to support the continued use of exclusion powers. Without exclusion powers, they would not have the physical resources to provide surveillance for all suspected Irish terrorists who might arrive. The retention of powers is regrettable, but essential.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked about the inconvenience, anger and bitterness felt by those who are stopped when travelling, those who are searched and who feel fear. I was stopped and searched once, not long ago, and I felt fear. Yet I was on the side of the security forces. I can understand what people must feel if they harbour republican views in their hearts. But we are implementing this legislation not because we like it or out of a sense of strange or quirky
  258
  authoritarianism. We are implementing it because we have a responsibility for all the people of the United Kingdom, including the peaceful people in Ulster.
  There was a streak of remarkable honesty in the speech made by the hon. Member for Ladywood. There was a most impressive speech from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—one of the most impressive that I have heard from him. There was also a moving speech from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). A debate of this sort is capable of lifting people to heights that we sometimes do not recognise.
  This new Bill and its new powers will make a contribution towards peace and will at least stop us from apparent sterility in the battle against terrorism. I thoroughly approve of the financial assistance powers included in it. The onus of proof against those who are suspected of having collected money for terrorism is absolutely vital. It has been shown to work in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. When I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I recommended the measure and I am pleased that it has been such a success. If such measures help to stop the money flowing in from Noraid—with its misguided loyalty from those of Irish origins who wallow in the nostalgia of an Ireland long past, and for whom the details of death are dulled by distance—and if we can manage to stop other collections for terrorist purposes, we will have made a contribution in this battle.
  I end by saying that terrorists are not freedom fighters. They have, if they want, freedom to act within the law, as we all do. Terrorists are anti-freedom fighters. They are anti-democratic. I hope that the Bill will help to preserve the freedoms that we hold dear and that we wish to protect for all the people of the United Kingdom.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for making much shorter speeches than they had planned, which has allowed me to be the last Back Bencher to have five minutes in which to make his speech, thus discarding nine tenths of the speech that I had intended to make.
  As a west midlands Member, I can remember vividly the events of 21 November 1974—those horrendous events that precipitated the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. It is true that it was hastily conceived, but it was greatly demanded and supported. I feel no sense of guilt at having supported it.
  However, having heard the debate and listened and read a great deal over the years, I feel that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been nowhere near as central in the fight against terrorism or as positive as some Conservative Members have argued, nor, conversely, has it been as dangerous and superfluous as some of its critics have maintained. I have been reading carefully a book on the law and the prevention of terrorism by Clive Walker, which largely comes to the same conclusion.
  Terrorism will increase, new groups will emerge and the fight against terrorism will become even more difficult in the future. Those who, in the dim and distant days of the early 1970s, hoped that the legislation would need to be merely temporary have had their naivety ruthlessly exposed.

  259
  We will never defeat terrorism. However successful we are in fighting it nationally and internationally, it will be with us for decades, or for as long as the human race exists. In our fight against terrorism it is vital that we pursue democratic means and maintain international co-operation, despite the many stresses. Whatever the criticism of Belgium, I do not think that any Prime Minister should receive such a public dressing down as Mr. Martens received. When Queen Victoria said of Gladstone,
  "He addresses me as though I were a public meeting" perhaps she had a foretaste of things to come.
  Despite the crises and pressures, we must co-operate internationally because that is the only way to minimise terrorism. That is why we should comply with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot expect co-operation on some issues if we deny it on others. Other countries have complied. Spain had far more draconian laws regarding the powers of arrest than we have. Indeed, until last year it was possible to hold a suspect incommunicado for 10 days. That period is now five days, and the suspect must then appear before an examining magistrate. I believe that we should comply also.
  I spoke today to Professor Paul Wilkinson, who is probably the leading academic expert on terrorism in this country. He takes a sane view on the problems of dealing with terrorism and suggested a way in which we might comply, which I hope will be considered carefully. He proposes a prevention of terrorism tribunal, with three senior judges who have great experience in dealing with terrorism. That would introduce a judicial element into the process. The tribunal could advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary on reviewing legislation regarding the prevention of terrorism. It would provide a more regularised and systematic method of monitoring than we have at present. Above all, it would allow the police to go to the tribunal to request an increase in the number of days for which they could hold a suspect without formally charging him. That is possible, if the Home Secretary is prepared to be flexible.
  I endorse those clauses that deal with the financing of terrorism. I had hoped that James Adams' book on the financing of terrorism would be reflected in the Bill. Some of these organisations are similar to multinational corporations. There is robbery, extortion, gambling, drinking, ripping off the state and setting up companies such as taxi firms and security firms. It is wrong to argue that Noraid and Gaddafi are the paymasters of the IRA. Infinitely more money is generated by the methods that I have mentioned.
  The PLO is top of the league. Its assets are reputed to be in excess of $15 billion, with investments in property and impressive investment portfolios. It has property and farms and it is involved in all sorts of enterprises, which proves that the enterprise spirit has perhaps infected that organisation. We should hit them where it hurts. Clausewitz said that moneys are the sinews of war. If we use the experience of the USA and its experience in dealing with the mob and apply the techniques that are included in the Bill, despite its defects, we shall be more successful.
  In his book James Adams said:
  "As much effort should be devoted to tracing the sources of money—the bank accounts and the investments of terrorist organisations—as is spent on countering the bomber and the assassin."
  260
  The old Chinese proverb,
  "Kill one and frighten 10,000,"
  is regrettably valid. The costs of terrorism are high, but the costs of not getting the fight against terrorism right are even higher.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: There can be few more important debates than the one we are conducting today. It has been a thoroughly good debate. I have learnt a great deal from it. The Bill penetrates to the heart of our constitution—how we conduct and maintain our democratic system in the face of threats, bombs and bullets, which are the methods of the terrorists, whom all hon. Members despise.
  How, then, shall we be able to preserve our historic: and hard-won rights and freedoms while at the same time successfully confronting and overcoming those who would use violence as a political weapon? Many of these rights and liberties have become the hallmark of decent, civilised and democratic societies. They include the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and from detention without trial, the right to freedom of speech and assembly and free political activities under the law—the freedom under the law, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) reminded the House.
  These core freedoms and liberties of citizens are more important than any of the other matters that we discuss in this place. They are more vital than any of the other items in the Gracious Speech. Without them, we cease to be capable of controlling our political destiny. We shall be unable to speak freely, to organise ourselves politically or to advance our political arguments openly, and thereby persuade our people that we are worthy of their trust, hope and support.
  In all democracies the threat to those core freedoms often comes from the direction of a restrictive executive power that believes that liberty means licence, that free expression breeds disorder and, above all, that individual rights and liberties can be sacrificed for some greater good—some desirable goal that the nation must achieve at whatever cost, whatever price. Too often such Governments promise that the loss of rights and liberties will be only for the short term, for emergency periods only, or just as an interim measure until the national goal has been achieved. The lessons of history teach us that for power-hungry executives "temporary" becomes "permanent" and that Governments rarely willingly give back to Parliaments and people what they have taken away. Normally those rights and liberties have to be campaigned for with the utmost vigour if they are ever to be genuinely restored to the people.
  We on this side of the House view with dismay the Government's decision to give the prevention of terrorism provisions a permanent place on the statute book. That is clear from our reasoned amendment. First, it represents a further encroachment on the rights and liberties of all the people of our country. It is a further step down a tragic path to a less democratic and a less free society.
  Secondly, we see it as the sign of a Government who have, perhaps inadvertently, given in to terrorism. I do not say that in a petty or particularly partisan fashion because, by and large, the debate has tried to steer away from that level. Former Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have introduced and perpetuated preventive

  261
  measures to counter terrorism because they genuinely believed that they were the correct and appropriate responses at that time.
  Most of us still remember that ghastly night of the Birmingham pub bombings that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) described with such poignancy. We remember the outcry for action that was part of the aftermath and horror felt when so many innocent men and women were cruelly slain. Year after year we have seen similar cowardly attacks that have wrecked innocent lives.
  As I have said, we can understand why some Governments acted in that way. However, time goes on and the world has changed in many respects since the draconian powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 were passed through the House as a temporary measure. That was 14 years ago and surely it is now time for a proper re-evaluation.
  The Opposition believe that the time is right for a dramatic change in the way in which we combat and defeat terrorism. The way in which the Government now orchestrate their policies is profoundly counter-productive. I do not doubt that the Home Secretary genuinely believes—as do many Conservative Members—that passing the Bill through the House will do something to prevent terrorism. The Opposition do not agree. Time has not stood still, and we have argued that our knowledge of and capacity to combat terrorism has improved dramatically over those 14 years.
  At the time of the Birmingham pub bombings the police were relatively inexperienced compared to their proficiency today. It is now a very different ball game. Not only has the professionalism of the police and the armed forces in Northern Ireland improved, but criminal law has altered quite dramatically under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those two factors alone are crucial in the case for ridding ourselves of the prevention of terrorism provisions.
  Perhaps more significant than the practical differences is the fact that we have now learnt much more about the terrorist mind. Several hon. Members have referred to that. Most significantly, we have discovered that it is the repressive counter measures introduced by the Government and the reduction and curtailment of ordinary people's rights that the terrorist sees and celebrates as a sign of his success. The more repressive and draconian the measure and the legislative and Executive response, the better the terrorist likes it. That is the truth, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about wanting tough, resolute and determined measures. The Opposition want them too. However, we profoundly disagree about the way in which to achieve them. The oxygen of repressive legislation, not the oxygen of publicity, is what terrorists crave and that is what they get from the Government in increasingly large doses.
  We believe that it is time to stop feeding the terrorist habit, to cut off the supply of oxygen and steadily to return to the relative normality of combating terrorism vigorously using the weapons available under the normal criminal law—not a special law for terrorists, but that which applies to every man and woman in the land. To do
  262
  so would be a far more effective way of fighting terrorism and it would simultaneously arrest the increasing pressures on the rights and liberties of our people. We would have two for the price of one. Those pressures apply not just to the rights directly affected by the powers granted under such Bills. The rights affected are not merely the direct rights in Northern Ireland. The restriction of the rights and freedoms of some of our people cannot be isolated and contained in one part of the United Kingdom.
  Time and again restrictions have been introduced initially in Northern Ireland and then spread to the rest of the United Kingdom. The removal of the right to silence is a case in point. It was removed in the House almost by stealth at night a few weeks ago. A few days later the Home Secretary was reviewing and looking favourably on removing the right to silence in the rest of the United Kingdom. The right to trial by jury was replaced by the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. We heard on the radio only this morning that it finds favour with the Home Secretary in certain cases in British courts.
  Finally, the censorship of the media, so arrogantly imposed by the Government on Northern Ireland, has distinct parallels with the insidious developments in the media in the rest of the country. At times it would appear that Northern Ireland is used as a test bed for legislation that the Government hanker to apply more widely to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The Bill shows the Government at their very worst. It shows us a Government no longer able to think clearly about the problems they seek to confront, a Government reduced to what Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times last Sunday described as:
  "Blitzing the political agenda with an array of anti-IRA measures which seem wholly unjustified by any new public terror or threat thereof."
  Mr. Jenkins seems to understand, and the Government fail to comprehend, that so much of this activity may produce the opposite effects to those intended and desired. As Mr. Jenkins notes:
  "One last push against terrorism may be a good slogan … but hurling more money and more laws at the IRA graces it with a mantle of aspiring tyranny which it ill-deserves."
  We do not anticipate the Government changing their mind this evening. We do not anticipate a Pauline conversion. However, the Government have been given a very interesting opportunity. Before they use their majority to bludgeon the Bill through the House and through Committee, we appeal to them to seize the opportunity uniquely presented by two occurrences.
  First, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights gives them perfectly good justification for ditching a whole section of the Bill that the Opposition find so regrettable. The European Court of Human Rights has given the Home Secretary the opportunity to say, "We will obey and we will conform. We will not dodge, we will not fudge; we will change the British law." One section of the Bill would be removed and that would give us far greater respect and co-operation internationally.
  The Home Secretary knows that such a sign of international co-operation in Europe will do a great deal to mend the fences that have been torn down by the behaviour of the Prime Minister recently. We will get far greater respect if we conform to the European Court. That would also restore the fundamental right of our people not to be put into detention without being charged. The Government have failed to comply with the recommendations of two—not just one—independent assessors of the

  263
  working of the former Acts. The Home Secretary was partial in his quotations from Lord Colville's strong recommendation. Lord Colville is not exactly a radical figure. He is a former Conservative Minister of State. On exclusion powers, he found on two occasions that the right thing to say was
  "I review my recommendation made in the annual report on the Act for 1986 that part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988 or not replaced in the new Bill".
  The Home Secretary appears to be a liberal Home Secretary. In the salons and exclusive dining rooms of London he is regarded as one of the remaining civilised members of the Conservative Cabinet. But, for all the image that he may project, he is presiding over the whittling away of and damage to rights and civil rights in this country—the worst that has occurred under any Home Secretary this century.
  If the Government bow to the judgment of the European Court on the requirement that anyone arrested on suspicion of terrorist acts must be taken promptly before a court, and if they bow to their own independent assessor, Lord Colville, on the iniquitous power to exclude United Kingdom citizens from certain parts of their own country—part of the United Kingdom—what point would there be in the Bill with the heart ripped out of it? We would be able to cover the other aspects of the Bill in a quite different way.
  Opposition Members support powers to confiscate terrorist funds of those who are likely to provide help and sustenance to the IRA and other terrorist organisations, whether they be in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the world. We want to look closely at the fine detail of how the Government intend to proceed, because there are some real difficulties in the way in which that can be carried out.
  We also oppose the proposal to grant terrorists the very separate status that the Prime Minister has so many times said that she wishes to avoid giving members of the IRA, whether or not they are convicted members. We will oppose a separate status under a new system of remission on prison sentences. Such matters will be debated in Committee.
  Having been closely involved in it, Mr. Speaker, you will know that we are in the last three weeks of our celebration of the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
  Mr. Lawrence: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, will he give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way. I want to finish this part of my speech.
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way.
  We are in the last three weeks of the celebration of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which produced the Bill of Rights. We must remember that that event was directed against the executive tyranny of James II. Surely in this tercentenary year we cannot repudiate our long-cherished rights of citizens against star chambers and autocratic Governments. We hear much from the Government about individual freedom. They talk of lifting Government restrictions on liberty. However, such talk is always limited to economic life. We owe it to those who, for 300 years, have been committed to individual freedom and rights in political life to be true to that heritage. We, the first nation to recognise the basic rights of citizens—men and women
  264
  —must not after 300 years repudiate those fundamental principles. Our reasoned amendment gives Conservative Members the opportunity to vote against the Bill and to join Opposition Members in the Lobby this evening.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I have pages and pages of detailed notes about many of the technical aspects of the Bill, but I assure the House that I do not propose to read through them.
  None of us who has taken part in this debate has perhaps had as much time as we might have chosen, but at least that makes us concentrate on the essence of the question that the House is considering. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) were present, I should like to say to her that neither my right hon. Friend nor 1 have made any smear about the Labour party supporting terrorism. Our criticism, which is entirely valid, as this debate has shown, is that, although we have spent another day on the whole question of the prevention of terrorism legislation, we have not heard from Labour Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members any serious arguments to counter the points made by my right hon. Friend today and all Ministers who have ever spoken on this legislation over the past 14 years about the need for special legislation to deal with the special circumstances caused by the campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
  Last night the Opposition acted in three different ways on the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill. Some voted for a reasoned amendment, others voted against the Bill, and some abstained from voting on Second Reading. I have listened to almost everything said during this debate and it sounds as though much the same sort of performance will take place tonight. The reason is not that these matters have not been fully aired during our debates, but that Opposition Members seem to have been addressing the wrong question. They have argued that this or that part of the prevention of terrorism legislation has caused this or that difficulty in certain respects, but they have systematically failed to deploy any case against the overwhelming arguments in favour of having special provisions to deal with the unusual and unwelcome circumstances in Northern Ireland and of terrorism generally. I wish that that were not so and that we had a much more united House on this subject. To the world outside and to the men of violence, a much more unanimous approach would convey a stronger message, particularly as many Opposition Members supported legislation of this kind when they were in government.
  It is no good the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) or the hon. Member for Ladywood saying that the whole of the prevention of terrorism legislation was some sort of instantaneous response to the Birmingham pub bombing, that it was spatchcocked at the last minute and so, by implication, the Labour Government gave no serious thought to what it contained. Of course they did. They would not have re-enacted it in 1976 if they had not given serious thought to what it contained. Naturally some aspects of the original legislation may have been put together in a hurry, but I do not blame them for that. Under the pressure of public opinion and the practical need to do something to deal with the terrorist threat at that time they had to accept that legislation of an exceptional character had to be

  265
  introduced. They did that and they should be given credit for having done so. But after a year of so they reappraised the matter and brought forward a more considered Bill, which they tidied up, and that is the legislation that has been on the statute book in substantially similar terms ever since. They cannot get away from that.
  Mr. Lawrence: Unfortunately, I could not be present throughout the debate. Did my hon. Friend, who has valiantly been here throughout, hear any Opposition Front-Bench spokesman pledge to repeal the legislation, because I think that they have undertaken to do so in their manifesto?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall have to look in Hansard tomorrow to see whether any such passage appears in the speeches. The important point is not so much what the Opposition might do in office, but that, if they treat legislation in the way that they are treating this legislation, they will have no right ever to hold office again. It is an important test of a responsible Opposition that they should look at the central purpose of legislation before deciding to vote against it or to produce what is called a reasoned amendment.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) rehearsed in slightly different terms some comments that he has made from time to time about security measures not solving the problems of Northern Ireland. Of course, security measures alone will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but that is an entirely different argument from saying that we do not need security measures at all. If we were to abandon the sort of security measures that are represented by this legislation, there would be an immediate and uncontrollable situation which at present is substantially contained by the powers that are available to the Government.
  I want to emphasise something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said on a number of occasions: that our approach to the future of Northern Ireland and the situation there does not simply include security. Of course, security matters dominate the headlines. I am afraid that that is inevitable. But we should not overlook the fact that Northern Ireland's future depends on economic, social and political progress and on elected representatives taking a more direct part in Northern Ireland's political life. All those things we want to see, but to suggest that merely because security measures alone will not solve all those problems security measures by definition are not needed is a travesty.
  The British people, and the people of Northern Ireland in particular, owe the security forces a tremendous debt of gratitude. Every day, members of the RUC and the UDR, in addition to the regular British armed forces, put their lives at risk to protect the community, and the threat against them does not end when they go off duty. They face constant danger, and we ask them to risk their lives on our behalf so that the cycle of violence may be broken.
  I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the brave men and women of the Northern Ireland security forces, especially those who have died or been injured in the course of their work or the duties that they perform.
  The aim of the Bill is to give those to whom we entrust the rule of law in Northern Ireland the powers that they
  266
  need to defend society from the brutality of the terrorist. Nowhere is it more important for us to do that than in Northern Ireland.
  We should not doubt the scale and nature of the terrorist threat. There have been substantial finds since the beginning of this year. The RUC has so far recovered 500 weapons, nearly 90,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 9,000 lb. of explosives. In the south, the Garda has found nearly 300 weapons, 140,000 rounds of ammunition and 1,100 lb. of explosives. I pay tribute to the work of the Garda Commissioner and his force, as well as to the RUC, for their success this year in seizing terrorist munitions. These are good finds, but the serious threat remains. That is why we need to review the prevention of terrorism provisions. They are not permanent, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members during this debate.
  Mr. Maginnis rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I am short of time, so I shall not give way.
  The provisions will be renewable in whole or in part each year and any part which is not renewed will then fall. The need for regular scrutiny has been accepted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There has recently been a major review by Lord Colville, which has been much quoted in this debate and has been of great value.
  The effectiveness of such measures cannot be proved or disproved by statistics of either incidents or convictions. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) suggested that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had led to a significant increase in violence. If he wants to talk in statistics, I must tell him that in 1986, the year after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, in Northern Ireland there were 61 deaths from terrorism and 172 explosions. In 1984, the year before the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there were 64 deaths from terrorism and 193 explosions—higher by about 10 per cent.
  Mr. Maginnis rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I am quoting those figures only because I do not believe that the effectiveness of any measures or legislation—
  Mr. Maginnis: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote statistics, will he listen to someone who knows those statistics off by heart? Does he realise that the year before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not 1984, but 1985, and that there were 47 terrorist killings in that year? There had been a constant decrease in terrorist killings from 1981, when there were 101. In every year since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the death toll has risen—from 47 in 1985, to 59 in 1986. to 80 in 1987 and to 84 up to 15 November of this year. The hon. Gentleman should be accurate if he quotes statistics.
  Mr. Stewart: I said that the statistics for deaths from terrorism and for explosions in 1986, which was the year after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, were both lower than the figures for 1984, which was the year before the agreement was signed. I merely say that because it is a fact, and I believe that it shows that statistics cannot be used to demonstrate such trends. I say, too, that the exact number of incidents, convictions or explosions from year to year cannot in any sense represent the effectiveness of the prevention of terrorism legislation, because the most important, continuing factor in the level of terrorism is the capability and the determination of the terrorists together

  267
  with the level of resources acquired. We all know that in recent years the terrorists have received substantial supplies of arms and explosives from Libya and elsewhere, which is a major part of the threat faced by the security forces.
  Remission is a new element in the Bill, which especially relates to Northern Ireland. Under the current arrangements, a person serving a fixed sentence in Northern Ireland for a terrorist offence would, as a matter of course, be released earlier than if he had committed the same offence and received the same sentence elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In the light of experience of reinvolvement, we do not believe that that should be allowed to continue. The changes in remission are being made against a background of increasing terrorist violence. We have found that a significant proportion of people released from prison on remission have become reinvolved. However, I emphasise that, unless they commit a new scheduled offence after release, none of the existing prison population and no one awaiting trial in Northern Ireland will be affected by the new provisions, because the one third remission and the new rules of reactivated remission will apply only for scheduled offences committed after the Bill is enacted. As I have heard suggestions to the contrary, I should also add that the changes will have no effect on prisoners held at the Secretary of State's pleasure or on lifers. They apply only to determinate sentences, and so they should.
  The measures on finance that have been included in the Bill have been generally welcomed on both sides of the House. I am glad about that, because I believe that they have a particularly important part to play in cutting off resources to terrorists and so making it much more difficult for them to finance their campaigns of violence.
  There will be new offences set out in the Bill and new powers of investigation. We have improved our machinery for co-ordinating the various agencies that are involved. Such measures have worked well in the case of drug trafficking, and I am glad that we are able to extend them to apply more widely to terrorism and violence.
  Much of today's debate has focused on the question of exclusion. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked about the criteria for exclusion. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a person
  "is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or
  instigation of acts of terrorism"
  or is attempting to enter the country with the intention of becoming so involved. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not make an order unless he was convinced that the individual concerned had been actively involved in or preparing for terrorism, either because of conviction for terrorist offences or because of reliable intelligence.
  A great deal of interest, of course, has also been expressed about detention. I should tell the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that he confuses detention with trial. Detention is used as a preliminary to trial. People are not tried for offences under the prevention of terrorism legislation; they are detained with the intention of charges being made and brought forward under the ordinary criminal law. Throughout the debate the Labour party has failed to establish any means by which those who have been brought to justice as a result of the detention and arrest powers in the prevention of terrorism legislation could have been dealt with by using the ordinary process
  268
  of the law. The Labour party has simply not addressed itself to that question and therefore it is not surprising that it has not come up with a coherent attitude to the Bill.
  During the 21 months from the beginning of last year until the end of September this year the statistics show that, of those detained for less than 48 hours, 17·5 per cent. were eventually charged; of those detained for more than four days, 35 per cent., or double the proportion, were charged. That is a measure of the practical value of such provisions in the fight against terrorism.
  The question before the House is why the prevention of terrorism legislation is needed. We face a continuing large-scale campaign of systematically organised murder and violence. To do nothing to deal specifically with such crimes would be to neglect our duty to society. Whatever the Opposition may say about their intentions, the practical consequences of the Labour party's objections to the Bill would be to make a decisive shift away from the needs of the forces of law in favour of the men of violence.
  Not to have the powers contained in the Bill would enlarge the opportunities for terrorists, increase the risks to members of the public as well as to the police and the Army, put more lives in jeopardy, hamper the efforts of the security forces to tackle terrorism and make it more difficult for the communities of Northern Ireland to achieve the necessary economic and political progress to grow out of the tensions and troubles that have beset them for so long.
  For all those reasons I ask the House to give the Bill its overwhelming support.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 311.

  Division No. 9]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbett, Robin

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Donald

  Crowther, Stan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Doran, Frank

  Blair, Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Boateng, Paul

  Eadie, Alexander

  Boyes, Roland

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Flannery, Martin

  Buchan, Norman

  Flynn, Paul

  Buckley, George J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Clay, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cohen, Harry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  269

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Nellist, Dave

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Brien, William

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoyle, Doug

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hume, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  Janner, Greville

  Rooker, Jeff

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sillars, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Snape, Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAllion, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stott, Roger

  McCartney, Ian

  Strang, Gavin

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Straw, Jack

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Turner, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Vaz, Keith

  McKelvey, William

  Wall, Pat

  McLeish, Henry

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McWilliam, John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mallon, Seamus

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Martlew, Eric

  Wray, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Allason, Rupert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amos, Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Benyon, W.

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ashby, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Baldry, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bottomley, Peter

  270

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bowis, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Brazier, Julian

  Harris, David

  Bright, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hawkins, Christopher

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

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Burt, Alistair

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butcher, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butler, Chris

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butterfill, John

  Holt, Richard

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howard, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cartwright, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cash, William

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Churchill, Mr

  Irvine, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Irving, Charles

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jack, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cormack, Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Cran, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Critchely, Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Curry, David

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Latham, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Durant, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lightbown, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrea, Rev William

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mackay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gardiner, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christoper

  McNair-Wilson, P.New Forest)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Madel, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maginnis, Ken

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maples, John

  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

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grist, Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brain

  271

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speller, Tony

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mellor, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Squire, Robin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Molyneaux Rt Hon James

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stradling Thomas, sir John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Sumberg, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Summerson, Hugo

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Needham, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neubert, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thorne, Neil

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Page, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Portillo, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Price, Sir David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Raffan, Keith

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walden, George

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Renton, Tim

  Wallace, James

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Watts, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rost, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Ryder, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilshire, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Teller for the Noes:

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put fothwith, Pursuant to Standing Order No.60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 45.

  Division No. 10]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Allason, Rupert

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Amos, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  272

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gill, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Benyon, W.

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hannam, John

  Bowis, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Harris, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bright, Graham

  Hayward, Robert

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Howard, Michael

  Butler, Chris

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

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howe, Rt hon Sir Geoffrey

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cartwright, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Cash, William

  Irving, Charles

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Jack, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jackson, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Janman, Tim

  Churchill, Mr

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Key, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Kilfedder, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knapman, Roger

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Cran, James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knowles, Michael

  Curry, David

  Knox, David

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

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lang, Ian

  Devlin, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Livsey, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fearn, Ronald

  McCrea, Rev William

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCusker, Harold

  Forman, Nigel

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McLouglin, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  273

  Madel, David

  Redwood, John

  Maginnis, Ken

  Renton, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mans, Keith

  Reddick, Graham

  Maples, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Rost, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ryder, Richard

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mellor, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mills, Iain

  Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Shersby, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Speller, Tony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mudd, David

  Squire, Robin

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Needham, Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  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)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Portillo, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Price, Sir David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  274

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thurnham, Peter

  Watts, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wells, Bowen

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wheeler, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trippier, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wallace, James

  Teller for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Ward, John

  Mr. David Maclean

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Lamond, James

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Battle, John

  McAllion, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McCartney, Ian

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Madden, Max

  Boateng, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Bradley, Keith

  Mallon, Seamus

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Meale, Alan

  Buchan, Norman

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Clay, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cohen, Harry

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cryer, Bob

  Short, Clare

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Wall, Pat

  Galloway, George

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wray, Jimmy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Teller for the Noes:

  Hoyle, Doug

  Mr. Eddie McGrady and

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Hume, John

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

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

  (b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

  10.26 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I do not think that the money resolution should go through without comment. As I understand it, we have 45 minutes in which to examine the pros and cons of the money resolution and I have always understood that that is one of the jobs of the House. It is clear that many Conservative Members are not interested in this because they are chatting. The hon. Members who are chatting by the Bar do not seem to be interested in one of the basic functions of the House—the scrutiny of expenditure.
  The financial effects of the Bill are described on page V of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I should like to raise a few questions that, no doubt— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate kindly leave quietly?
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Buzz off.
  Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful. I would not use words like "buzz off", which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said most clearly, but I am grateful for your efforts, Mr. Speaker, and his. I realise that my hon. Friend wanted to be helpful in exercising some scrutiny.
  Everyone treats money resolutions as some sort of joke and the House passes through hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds on the nod. If we were discussing a Bill that concerned social security, Conservative Members would not take that view. They would try to screw every last penny from the poorest in the country. If they can do that with Department of Social Security legislation, they can look at all the other legislation that goes through the House. Although I suspect that this legislation does not involve large expenditure, the paragraph in the explanatory and financial memorandum is so vague that it behoves Ministers to provide some more detailed information.
  Page v of the introduction states, in connection with terrorist finances:
  "there are likely to be some additional investigation and prosecution costs for the police and the prosecution services; additional costs arising out of the provision of court services; extra legal aid; the costs of the receivers appointed to realise land subject to forfeiture orders; and possibly some limited expenditure on compensation."
  276
  The introduction then states that it is difficult to make such calculations. I cannot believe that the Home Office has not calculated an amount of money that would give some idea of the level of public expenditure.
  I wonder what sort of compensation is envisaged in the paragraphs dealing with finance—possibly some limited expenditure on compensation. We need to ask what sort of compensation it is because the legislation envisages that some land or property might be seized in error and compensation will therefore have to be paid. The House should know.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Will my hon. Friend advise me as to whether in the financial effects of the Bill, as determined on page v of the introduction to which he is referring, there is likely to be scope for compensation for those thousands of people who during the previous enactments of this legislation—when the provisions were annually re-enacted—were falsely and wrongly detained and who perhaps lost money from employment or from other arrangements such as holidays or other commitments? We know that 90 per cent. of the people who have been detained under the provisions of the previous enactments of the Bill have been wrongly and incorrectly detained. Is there scope in the money resolution for compensation for those who have been affected in that way?
  Mr Cryer: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I shall seek that information. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has heard the question and I dare say that he will make the position clear. The comment on limited expenditure on compensation is limited to the clauses dealing with terrorist finances and therefore—
  Mr. David Ashby rose—
  Mr. Cryer: Perhaps I can finish this comment before the hon. Gentleman interrupts me. I should have thought that if compensation is involved for what is in effect wrongful arrest, that would be a general term and, indeed, there is a paragraph on exclusion orders, to which I shall come. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply.
  Mr. Ashby: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that he does not think that it is right that money should be set aside for a fair hearing in a court and for legal aid for people who might be arrested under the prevention of terrorism legislation? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Is he denying such people justice?
  Mr. Cryer: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have been saying instead of blurting out figments of his imagination which have no connection with my comments. Of course, I am not denying anybody any justice. Indeed I shall come to a point about injustice shortly.
  What I am asking for is information about the expenditure. Since the Bill is being put forward by a Government who continually talk about the need for controlling, scrutinising and limiting public expenditure, it seems not unreasonable that I should use the opportunity specially provided by the Standing Orders of this House to raise some questions about expenditure.
  What is the section on compensation for? If people are dealt with unjustly, I want to them to be compensated properly. There is no question about that. What does the

  277
  compensation cover? Is it for mistaken forfeiture or is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has suggested, for what amounts to wrongful imprisonment? The compensation provisions do not seem to apply to the exclusion order provisions, as set out on page v in the second paragraph under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill." It says:
  "Police expenditure will continue to be incurred in connection with the control of travel into and out of any part of the United Kingdom, but the Bill is not expected to lead to any significant increase in that expenditure."
  We should like to know what is the present expenditure so that we can judge by how much it is likely to increase.
  The exclusion order provisions are among the most objectionable in the Bill. I wonder whether the expenditure can be justified. We ought to be told what justification there is. Sir Cyril Philips and Lord Colville specifically stated in their reviews that the Home Secretary should reconsider these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East pointed out, Lord Colville's views are not particularly radical, but he said that he was not convinced that the ends justify the means.
  What kind of expenditure do these exclusion order provisions involve? I remind the Minister of what has happened under them. A former constituent of mine was in a Belfast gaol for a criminal offence. The governor granted him home leave with his family in the Bradford metropolitan district so that he could adjust to life outside gaol as he was nearing the end of his prison sentence. That was an entirely proper and authorised procedure. He was met at Leeds-Bradford airport by armed special branch detectives and was immediately arrested and placed in Armley prison. He stayed there throughout the whole of his seven-day home leave, was served with an exclusion order at Leeds-Bradford airport when he boarded the return flight and went straight back to prison in Belfast. Such arbitrary action was entirely unjustified.
  Expenditure of that kind will be involved here. More than 90 per cent. of the people who are arrested and who are made subject to exclusion orders are not charged with a criminal offence. Exclusion orders are an outrage against justice. They mean that people in one part of the United Kingdom are excluded from another part—a part that is continually described as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
  The only time when that power was exercised was when people such as Willy Gallagher were excluded from Clydeside to prevent them from attending meetings and setting forth their views. It was during a most repressive time under a most repressive Government.
  I should like the Minister to tell the House whether this expenditure is justified. I know that he takes a keen interest in money resolutions.
  Mr. Nellist: Will my hon. Friend reflect on yet another example during the period to which he referred? During the miners' strike in 1984 and 1985 a large number of people were excluded from entering or leaving the Nottinghamshire coalfields. That was done without legislation being passed by this House, but the inspiration for it was the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that illustration.
  278
  The family to whom I referred had moved away from Northern Ireland so as to be out of the troubles. They did not want to be involved in the activities of the warring factions.
  Mr. William Ross: What exactly was this chap in prison for? He was obviously found guilty.
  Mr. Cryer: Yes, he was found guilty. He was serving a sentence for armed robbery, but he was not connected in any way with a political terrorist organisation. The governor had given him home leave as a matter of course when he was nearing the end of his sentence. Conservative Members cannot make a case about him being a dangerous terrorist because he was released shortly afterwards.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted away from the money resolution. I am sure that he will come back to it.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to make it clear that it was a non-political category and that the expenditure of money on the exclusion order was unjustified, even within the terms of the legislation. That is a good illustration of the way in which expenditure can be misapplied because of the terms of the legislation.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's comments. He has obviously scrutinised the financial implications of the Bill. Are there likely to be financial implications for the state if it is found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of holding people for long periods? That could involve expenditure on legal costs—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will not be tempted away from the money resolution. Commenting on the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would take him outside the resolution.
  Mr. Cryer: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your advice. However, you will have noticed that there is a reference to
  "some limited expenditure on compensation."
  I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that phrase includes expenditure on claims made by people because the Government have ignored the decision of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which would place the legislation outside the normal standard of conduct on human rights.
  The last paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill mentions
  "the fees of persons nominated by the Secretary of State to consider representations against exclusion orders, and in connection with the removal of persons subject to exclusion orders".
  You will no doubt recall vividly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that exclusion orders can be served when there is no charge, no court hearing and no right to know why they are served, and representations are made about a charge for which no evidence is given. That is an outrage against our civil liberties.
  I must make it clear that, although I am raising questions on the financial effects of the Bill, I am not making a case for acts of violence. I am opposed to acts of violence, whether they involve a British soldier serving his time in Northern Ireland who is subject to a terrible and

  279
  untimely death or spending £11 billion on Trident nuclear weapons for the purpose of mass extermination. I abhor and oppose them both. However, I will not go down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely using that as an illustration. I would be interested to know what the fees are for the people nominated by the Secretary of State. The last paragraph says:
  "A small amount of public expenditure will continue to be incurred in meeting the fees of persons nominated by the Secretary of State".
  Just for the record, it would be nice to know how much those people are paid. That will give us an idea of whether they are pillars of the establishment, earning perhaps several hundred pounds per occasion, or whether they are just humble folk, drafted in by the Government like members of a jury and paid a nominal fee to cover their expenses. For example, are the fees related to what might be received by somebody on invalidity benefit or unemployment benefit? Are they related to what the mass of ordinary folk can expect to receive from the state if they are in a position to receive money from the state. That would be interesting to know.
  I suspect that the people to whom fees are paid are pillars of the establishment and that they receive establishment-type fees, which are in the astronomical category, and which help to ensure that they do not come to a conclusion that is in any way outside the establishment view of the operation of this legislation.
  I hope that I have not detained the House for too long, but we cannot let such occasions go by without some scrutiny. Even some Conservative Members take that view. They have listened with interest to my comments. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke to the money resolution. I should have been deeply disappointed had he not done so, because I told my officials that he most certainly would. I was proved to be correct in that respect.
  I am always struck by the economical use that the hon. Gentleman makes of his time in this place. For example, let us consider this debate and the preceding one. He came into the Chamber to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary open the debate. That was a jolly wise thing to do. He left before the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke. That, too, was a jolly wise thing to do. He then came back rather late in the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I imagine that he considered that he had come back rather too soon. Then he heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. All in all, the hon. Member for Bradford, South makes economical—not to say sparing—use of his time in this place.
  I cannot be so complimentary about the substance of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the money resolution. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House of the nature of the money provisions in the Bill and the money resolution. The substantive provision of the Bill is clause 25, which authorises the payment out of moneys. Those substantive powers are amplified by the money resolution which, in turn, are clarified by the explanatory memorandum.
  280
  It might be helpful if I were to demonstrate the kind of payments that fall within the scope of the money resolution before I refer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
  Good examples of the kind of payments that have to be made and are authorised are payments to the advisers who have been appointed to receive representations against exclusion orders, costs of removing people who are the subject of exclusion orders, necessary expenditure incurred by the courts when dealing with the powers under part III of the Bill, and the compensation provisions that are dealt with in schedule 4 of the Bill.
  Mr. Nellist: I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's later remarks, but does he intend to give figures for those examples? He mentioned fees paid to people who are designated to hear representations against exclusion orders. That is one of the main matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. Hon. Members are staying here tonight to hear not just the examples, but the actual amounts of money to be spent on them.
  Mr. Hogg: I was coming to precisely that point.
  Let me now deal with the various questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. He began by criticising the compensatory payments provided for under schedule 4 of the Bill. That was a bit peculiar, because, as the House will know, the schedule 4 compensatory provisions are linked to part III of the Bill. It appears that the provisional wing of the Labour party, as represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, find themselves in difficulty on that point.
  As to what that is paid for, I strongly recommend to the hon. Gentleman as part of his evening reading that he studies paragraphs 7(1), 7(2) and 17(3) of schedule 4. He will find the answer spelt out in considerable detail and it will keep him going for at least 20 minutes. In broad terms, it deals with loss that can be properly be attributed to abuse in the conduct of prosecutions that give rise to the forfeiture proceedings under part III. I may have spared the hon. Gentleman some 20 minutes of homework.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asked whether the money resolution is retrospective in its effect. He knows perfectly well that both wings of the Labour party—the provisional and the official wings—are against retrospective legislation. Therefore, I feel certain that they would not wish to commend that course of action to us.
  Mr. Nellist: May I remind the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who, under Lord Soames, when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, passed through this House retrospective legislation to grant an amnesty to those who had committed murder in Rhodesia. Since that precedent was set, I am in favour, for example, of repaying the debts of those who have taken out social fund loans. If a case was made for retrospective compensation for someone who was badly dealt with in the years when this was a temporary measure reviewed every year, I would support retrospective legislation.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is establishing his credentials for the clay cross. That is not an award that I willingly dish out, but I shall certainly dish it out to him along with the rations, if that is what pleases him.

  281
  In reply to the other questions from the provisional wing, if improper use is made of the detention powers, there are the ordinary common law remedies which are called false imprisonment and give rise to a claim for damages. Schedule 4 deals only with the powers under part III.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South waxed fulsome about actions by the police in carrying out the exclusion orders and asked how much it costs. The costs are inevitably subsumed in the general cost of police expenditure, and it is simply not possible to disaggregate one from the other. But every penny spent on combating terrorism is money well spent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
  On the interesting question of the advisers, there are two of them. The hon. Gentleman asked how much they
  282
  cost. They are paid at a rate which is proportionate to their high professional standing and is analogous to that paid to those who serve in judicial roles on a part-time basis, such as recorders and assistant recorders.
  I have answered all the questions asked of me, and, as I see that the Whip wants me to sit down, I propose to do just that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

  (b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.

  Home Loss Payments
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to have the opportunity this evening to raise a constituency case, but first I should like to say how grateful I am that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has come to reply to this debate tonight. I am grateful, too, for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am immensely pleased to see on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
  The House, as is its wont and tradition, each day covers a wide range of national, international and sometimes regional issues; but it is always possible for a Back Bencher to seek an opportunity to present to the House the needs of an individual and his family when events outside the control of the individual and his family threaten his peace, security and calm. This, as the House knows, is one such case which deserves the attention of the House and a radical urgent response from my hon. Friend the Minister. The case presented is as follows.
  My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Michie, have resided at their home, 7 Rose Villas, Watling street, Dartford—a quiet cul-de-sac off the old Roman road of Watling street—for many years and their house has always been their home. Now retired, Mr. and Mrs. Michie planned to see out their days in their home. I repeat that it is not a house but a home.
  Some years ago, between 1984 and 1986, as a result of necessary road widening changes, part of the rear of No. 7, along with neighbouring properties, was taken over from Mr. and Mrs. Michie. As a result, the traffic noise and nuisance is now 70 ft nearer to the house than was originally the case. Authority required the land and authority took the land. Now authority requires their home as a consequential result of the construction of the new Dartford bridge.
  Mr. and Mrs. Michie, through no fault or decision of theirs, are to lose their home. The severing of emotional links and the effects of anxiety and stress can never really be quantified. But under section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 Mr. and Mrs. Michie will be entitled to a home loss payment. I am advised that such a payment is made in recognition of the inconvenience and personal distress undergone by people who have become closely and emotionally attached to a home and who are displaced from it at the behest of a public authority.
  On 27 November 1972, on Second Reading of the Land Compensation Bill, the then Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "Home loss payments are provided for in Clauses 23 to 25 and will be made as of right to occupiers who have been living in a dwelling as their main residence for at least seven years before the date of their displacement".
  He went on to say:
  "In England and Wales the amount of the payment will be seven times the rateable value if the displacement occurs before 1st April next year, and three times if it occurs thereafter. In Scotland it will be six times the rateable value. In all three countries the upper limit of the payment will be £1,500."—[Official Report, 27 November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 45.]
  284
  The House recognised that the problem existed and it tried to find a solution. But the range of payments for those who lose their homes through no fault of their own, fixed in 1972, is neither realistic nor fair in the circumstances of 1988. I believe that I am not alone in the House or in the other place in expressing that view.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, Mr. Michie, along with a neighbour, petitioned the House and another place in an attempt to have their views addressed. It took them a great deal of courage to take on Parliament, and their actions should be commended.
  In a debate on 10 May 1988, when considering the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, Lord Underhill said:
  "I hope that there will be some quick action regarding the home loss position. I do not know whether it can be made retrospective in this case. But one must also recognise that the compulsory acquisition leaves these two individuals in a sorry situation".
  The Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, went on to say:
  "As our response says, my right honourable friend. the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at the whole question of the home loss payments system, which has to change in accordance with the Local Government Finance Bill, which we debated yesterday."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 1988; Vol. 496 c. 1041-42]
  I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister may be a little reluctant to reveal how the formula for assessing the award under the home loss payment scheme might be dealt with following the abolition of the domestic rate. Of course, the formula for assessing the award currently—and this will exist for some time—is simply to apply a multiplication, by a factor of three, of the rateable value of the house concerned. Therefore, my constituents will expect to gain just over £300.
  Some time ago I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what the level of award would be today if since 1972 there had been regular updating. He gave me not the answer that I wanted, but the factor that should be used taking account of inflation in that time, which was 4·5. Consequently, the level of payment today should be within a scale of £700 to £7,000, which is quite different from a level rising from a minimum of £150 to a maximum of £300.
  In a letter to me on 11 November 1988, my hon. Friend said:
  "As you know, the Government, in its formal response to the Lords Select Committee Special Report on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, has already acknowledged that the value of the home loss payment has declined since its introduction in 1973."
  Of course, I recognise that, and I am glad that that statement has been made.
  Something needs to be done, and done quickly. because we in Kent are faced not with the case of just one family—and the case of one family is important to any hon. Member— but potentially many thousands of families, who, if a rail link is chosen to cross the county of Kent, will be affected by the loss of their homes, which will be taken from them by public authority.
  I need to know from my hon. Friend the Minister why he cannot advise the House that it is possible to adjust the level of award before the introduction of the community charge. Secondly, when will he announce the formula that will take effect after the introduction of the community charge? Thirdly, will he accept a plea from me—and,indeed, from many others—that, because of the peculiar position in which my constituents find themselves, this

  285
  should be made retrospective, because, after all, this problem has been with his Department and the Department of Transport for some time?
  I make one final plea for urgent action. In the main, hon. Members representing Kent constituencies are opposed to what may happen to our county if British Rail gets its way with the provision of a Channel tunnel fast-rail link. I am totally opposed to all four routes, but I must stress that my constituency is adamantly opposed to routes one and two. I shall not do as others have done and point to the other routes that might be acceptable. That is not the way that I go about things. However, I register my concern about the possibility of one route or another being chosen. In that context, the question of compensation must be cleared up and the home loss compensation scheme must be made clear, relevant and realistic.
  I hope that my plea on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Michie will not be in vain. They have suffered hard and long in pursuit of their case. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a personal friend as well as a parliamentary one, will do his best to ensure that matters are put right at the earliest opportunity.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for allowing me to participate in this debate on a subject of considerable interest to my constituents.
  In our part of Kent, my hon. Friend is well known for the considerable care and interest that he takes in his constituents. That has led him to raise the case of Mr. and Mrs. Michie, which clearly exemplifies the considerable difficulties that we face. We believe that, should routes one and two of British Rail's current proposals for a high-speed rail link cross our constituencies, considerable difficulties will arise. We are vehemently opposed to those proposals.
  In my constituency, hundreds of households face the prospect of demolition or being affected by the passage of such a high-speed train. The villages of Istead Rise and New Barn in my constituency would like to be reassured that the House and the Government have paid attention to updating the home loss payments scheme.
  Not much time is left and our constituents are extremely worried about their future environment and, above all, the value of their homes should they have to leave their villages.
  I warmly support my hon. Friend's plea and hope that the Minister will offer the prospect of early progress in this matter.
  11.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is one of the most important responsibilities of a Member of this House to promote fearlessly the cases of individual constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has a fine reputation for speaking up on behalf of his constituents. Tonight is another example of that put into practice.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and also on ensuring the attendance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, whose attendance
  286
  demonstrates his interest in the matter. My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) are also here to listen to this important debate. More hon. Members are present than one might expect at this time.
  This debate is about one individual couple, Mr. and Mrs. Michie, but it also has a wider application. Mr. and Mrs. Michie are unhappy about the amount of home loss payment that they will receive when their house is compulsorily purchased by the Department of Transport. That compulsory purchase is necessary for road widening in connection with the new Dartford-Thurrock crossing.
  It is correct to say that Mr. and Mrs. Michie are among the better-known constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. They certainly left a lasting impression upon the Select Committees in both Houses when they petitioned against the Bill authorising the construction of the crossing. My hon. Friend has also kept up steady pressure on their behalf through correspondence and questions in an effort to seek to resolve the issue of compensation.
  Before I deal with the details of the case, I shall outline a home owner's entitlement under the land compensation Acts when a home is subject to compulsory purchase. First, the law provides that the owner should receive the full market value of his or her property, disregarding the effects of the proposals that necessitate the compulsory purchase. The market value is assessed by the district valuer. If there is a dispute about the valuation, the owner may take the matter to the Lands Tribunal, which decides the matter.
  Secondly, the owner is reimbursed costs incurred because of the necessity of having to move to another property. For example, he may have to pay for altering carpets and curtains. The acquiring authority also meets legal and other fees incurred in connection with the move.
  An owner receives the full market value of his home, plus actual costs of disturbance. In addition, if he has lived in the house for at least five years he is entitled to receive a home loss payment. That payment is made in recognition of the personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who have been forced to move out of their homes. The payment is three times the rateable value of the property, subject to a minimum payment of £150 and a maximum payment of £1,500. It is the adequacy of that payment that my hon. Friend has raised tonight and that Mr. Michie raised in his petitions about the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill.
  The Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill received Royal Assent on 28 June. Construction of a new bridge across the Thames to relieve the traffic congestion, which has become a serious problem at the Dartford tunnels, has already started. The tunnels are a vital link on the London orbital motorway. I do not think that my hon. Friend's constituents question the necessity of that link; they are concerned about the amount of compensation to which they may be entitled.
  It is important to recognise that the bridge and tunnels will together provide a great improvement in traffic flow. On the Kent side of the river, the A282 passes through the town of Dartford. It was inevitable that, in the construction of the crossing, the widening of the road in that corridor would be necessary and that nearby properties would be affected. I am pleased to inform the House that, in fact, it will be necessary to acquire only nine

  287
  properties—far fewer than is often the case, and certainly far fewer than would need to be acquired if there were a new rail link for the Channel tunnel. However, that is obviously not much consolation to Mr. and Mrs. Michie.
  The properties and other land will be acquired using the established compulsory purchase powers under section 2 of the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act. Among the nine properties to be acquired are two pairs of semi-detached houses known as Rose Villas, and it is in one of those houses that Mr. and Mrs. Michie have made their home for many years.
  Shortly after the proposals for the approach road widening works were made public at exhibitions early in 1987, the occupiers of one of the properties at Rose Villas served a blight notice on the Department of Transport. The effect of a blight notice is to require the Department to buy any property that will be required for future road works and which, for that reason, cannot be sold on the open market. The blight notice was accepted and the occupants received compensation for the purchase of their property by the Department based on its open market value as assessed by the district valuer at that time. They were also reimbursed their expenses incurred in moving to a new property. They moved out in October 1987.
  Mr. Michie and his two other neighbours decided that they would petition against the Bill when it came before the House of Commons Select Committee at the end of October 1987. Mr. Michie presented their case in person. He made it clear to the Select Committee that he and his neighbours accepted that it was impracticable to change the proposed widening works so as not to affect Rose Villas, but said that they were concerned about the arrangements for the award of compensation.
  In its report in December 1987, the Select Committee recognised that there was an established system for the award of compensation in which it could not properly intervene, but it expressed the hope that the system would acknowledge and provide compensation for such disruption and anxiety as had been caused to Mr. Michie and his neighbours. In January 1988, one of Mr. Michie's co-petitioners decided to serve a blight notice on the Department of Transport to acquire his property at Rose Villas. That was accepted and the family finally moved out in August. Again, he received compensation under the established arrangements.
  Mr. Michie and his remaining fellow neighbour Mr. Waddington decided that they would petition against the Bill before the Select Committee in another place, which they did in April. Again, Mr. Michie and his neighbour made the same points as before. At the same time, Mr. Michie disputed the informal valuation of his house which the local district valuer had recently given at a meeting arranged by the Department of Transport.
  The Committee noted that under the Bill compensation would be payable in accordance with the land compensation code and that Mr. Michie would be entitled to a home loss payment under section 30. The Select Committee acknowledged that the amounts payable under the 1973 Act are relatively small and noted that they had not been increased since the Act was passed. My hon. Friend stressed that point. The Committee drew the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment to the apparent inadequacy of the maximum amounts payable under the home loss payment scheme. The Committee noted that under the terms of the Land Compensation Act 1973 the maximum figures payable
  288
  generally can be increased by an order made by the Secretary of State and subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
  The Committee recognised the disruption and distress which had been caused, but took the view that it could not intervene in the well established procedures for the award of compensation. The Committee expressed the hope that, when the district valuer came to a final valuation of the property of Mr. Michie and his fellow petitioner, full account would be taken of the current escalation in the price of property, particularly in the south-east. My hon. Friend did not make an issue of that.
  In its response to the Lords Select Committee, the Department of Transport noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had the system of home loss payments under active consideration in connection with the community charge proposals, but that the Government were not yet ready to announce their proposals. It recognised that the real value of home loss payments had declined since they were first introduced. My hon. Friend has elicited, through a question that I answered, that the extent of that loss of value amounts to about four and a half times the value that would have applied in 1973.
  Since the Act was passed, formal notices to treat for the acquisition of their properties have been served on Mr. Michie and Mr. Waddington and negotiations between the district valuer and the agent acting for Mr. Wacldington have reached a successful conclusion. The Waddingtons moved out of their house and received a home loss payment of about £390 as a result.
  Assuming that the outcome of the negotiations between Mr. Mitchie and the district valuer are satisfactory, it is likely that Mr. Michie will have his property possessed by the end of February next year. The home loss payments were introduced in 1973 as a solace for the distress and upset experienced by people who have formed an attachment to their homes and are displaced. They are paid over and above compensation for property and for disturbance.
  The statutory provisions for home loss, both as to who qualifies and to the sum payable, are very clear and there is no room for argument, but Mr. Mitchie has argued that the home loss payment is too small to recompense him for his loss. That is the main issue that my hon. Friend has asked me to deal with this evening. I cannot dispute that the level of home loss payments today is far lower than it was in 1973. There has been a substantial decline in real terms. My hon. Friend says that the levels are neither realistic nor fair. There is no such thing as a right level of home loss payment, however. It is an additional solace rather than a reimbursement of financial loss.
  The Government are actively considering this issue. I know it will be extremely frustrating for my hon. Friend to learn—although he may not be surprised to hear it—that I cannot announce the Government's final conclusions about this. It will be a little while yet before we can announce the changes we have in mind as a result of the abolition of domestic rates and the consequent abolition of domestic rateable values. My hon. Friend makes the fair point that it would be possible to adjust the rates before those changes come into effect. That point is well taken by the Government and is being considered. It would be wrong of me to say to my hon. Friend that that has been excluded by the Government as a possible interim solution.

  289
  My hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible to backdate any award as soon as the Government make an announcement about the proposed change. Although the power contained in section 30 of the 1973 Act enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to prescribe by order different multipliers and a different minimum or maximum payment from time to time, like most other order-making powers it cannot be applied retrospectively. It is a legal principle that subordinate legislation cannot be applied retrospectively unless express powers are given. Parliament is loth to give Ministers such a wide discretion except in exceptional cases, and the 1973 Act contains no such express power. Therefore, it would not be possible legally to make any order retrospective.
  290
  It is for the Government to reach a conclusion, and I know that my hon. Friend hopes that we will do that as soon as possible. I am sorry that I cannot announce anything now, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue in the way that he has and for drawing the attention of the House to an anomaly that must be resolved. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for pointing out that this matter has implications for other people whose properties are subject to compulsory purchase. That is another good reason for the Government to reach a conclusion at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South of 28 November,Official Report, column 108, what cases of human rights in China were discussed with the Chinese Foreign Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom in March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The question of human rights arose in the context of discussion on Tibet. Specific cases were not mentioned.

  Health Services Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the terms of reference of the desk review of health services in the dependent territories; when he expects it to be completed; and if the House will be informed of the action to be taken in consequence of the review.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The terms of reference of the desk review
  of health services in the Caribbean dependent territories are:

  1. Assemble existing information including the current health plans and any readily available related statistical information from each of the four territories, WHO/PAHO reports, and reports by ODA medical advisers during 1983 to 1988, and other relevant information from ODA files. ODA medical advisers will provide guidance on the material to be examined and will provide oral briefing on the situation in the territories;

  2. Write a preliminary report covering

  a. the evidence on the state of health of the population establishing and ranking the main health problems which need to be addressed and their main causes (nutrition, sanitation, health care services, etc);

  b. the extent to which these health problems are being addressed by current policies and programmes of health services, public and environmental health, and nutrition;

  c. the costs of providing the health and environmental services identified under b. and assessing their cost effectiveness and value for money; examining how the provision of these services is financed and identifying implications for quantity and quality of services supplied and demanded and for other factors relevant to the study;

  d. recommendations for future health and environmental services, and measures to improve nutrition, which optimally address the main health problems identified under a. These recommendations should cover:

  (i) appropriate levels of health care and other services;

  (ii) division of services between those provided on island and those provided off island;

  (iii) sources of finance for services;

  (iv) the means of delivering health and other services;

  (v) levels of staffing and equipment for on island services taking account of financial, medical, physical, institutional and manpower constraints in a manner which makes optimum use of the available resources; and where relevant to identify options where choices can be made.

  90

  e. recommendations for future ODA-funded assistance, with particular attention to manpower, training and advisory services; an analysis of alternatives and recommendations for the administration of ODA programmes with particular attention to professional monitoring and supervision to the extent that existing information so permits.

  3. Identify the main gaps in information;

  4. Prepare a work plan and timetable for gathering the missing information and completing the work required by i. to v., with attention to the order of priority between countries, specify the inputs required for this work from the main professional disciplines;

  5. Prepare an outline for the final report, covering the main chapter and section headings with notes on what is to he covered by each.

  This desk study was completed last August. It was the first step, preliminary to a field study, in each of the Caribbean dependencies, for which consultants are at present being engaged. Their report should be available by about next spring; I shall keep the right hon. Member informed.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about financial relations with Nigeria.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Nigerian Government's efforts to overcome the country's economic difficulties have been severely affected for some time by the fall in the oil price and its heavy debt burden. Foreign exchange earnings have fallen sharply. This has made it increasingly hard for Nigeria to meet its commitments and to rebuild its economy.

  Nigeria is now embarking on a series of important adjustment measures. It has reached agreement with the managing director of the IMF on a new standby arrangement and is negotiating for new loans from the World Bank.

  It will be seeking a further restructuring of its official debt in the Paris Club, to supplement the agreement already being negotiated with the commercial banks.

  In addition to this, it is clear that Nigeria will require further bilateral assistance in 1989. This will require a concerted effort on the part of the international financial community. I have therefore decided, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to offer a grant of US$100 million in 1989, on condition that the standby is approved and that other donors are prepared to make a substantial contribution.

  Over two thirds of the cost of the United Kingdom share will come from the reserve and the balance from the existing agreed aid programme.

  These arrangements demonstrate the strength of the United Kingdom's interest in the health of the Nigerian economy and our willingness to assist the Nigerian adjustment programme.

WALES

  Elderly Initiative
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated by his Department to the elderly initiative; and what projects have been financed by the elderly initiative in Wales, listing each project and the amount allocated thereto on a county basis.
  91
  Mr. Grist
  £2,625,000 during the first two years. The projects funded so far, together with the amounts allocated to date, are:

  £

  Clwyd

  Rhuddlan Elderly Mentally Ill Team

  141,158

  Special Project Workers: Community Care for Elderly People

  22,500

  Dyfed

  Integrated Care Relief Scheme, Llanelli

  27,878

  Care Cross Foundation Community House Project

  39,740

  Night Hospital for Elderly Mentally Ill

  47,286

  Gwent

  Bridges Community Centre Project

  76,190

  Practical Case Finding and Surveillance of Elderly People at Home

  6,736

  Demonstration model for the Discharge and Aftercare of Elderly Patients

  22,165

  Home from Home Short Term Fostering for the Elderly

  35,250

  The Way Home, Islwyn

  9,300

  Gwynedd

  Hybrid Domicilliary Care Worker

  38,250

  Mid Glamorgan

  Diabetic Liaison Nurse Merthyr and Cynon Valley

  9,000

  Community Services Elderly Support Team, Rhymney Valley

  92,760

  Social Care Worker Scheme for Elderly Mentally Infirm and their Carers, Ogwr

  125,408

  Powys

  Powys Initiative for the Care of the Elderly in Rural Wales

  58,542

  South Glamorgan

  Community Memory Project

  73,468

  Development Team for Elderly Mentally Infirm Services

  58,275

  Practical Case Finding and Surveillance of Elderly People at Home

  9,446

  Elderly Persons' Support Unit, Grand Avenue

  113,988

  Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme

  15,262

  Carers Information and Support Officer

  15,695

  Daybreak Homecare and Companion Service

  35,048

  Alzheimers Disease Society: Community Support Project

  22,860

  West Glamorgan

  Staying at Home Initiative

  515,448

  Good Care Campaign

  20,948

  Business Headquarters
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to encourage the presence of business headquarters in Wales in advance of the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since I became Secretary of State I have increased the Welsh Development Agency's provision by more than 50 per cent. so enabling WINvest to intensify its efforts in attracting new business, including headquarter operations, to Wales.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to increase the funding allocations to the health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We will be making an announcement about the resources available to the NHS in Wales in 1989–90 very shortly. An announcement of the allocations to individual health authorities will be made early in the new year.

  Free Food Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of foodstuffs distributed in the United Kingdom under the free food scheme is being made available to eligible applicants in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Designated organisations based in Wales have been authorised to withdraw 176 tonnes of butter and 332 tonnes of beef from intervention stores in 1988. These amounts represent 7·15 per cent. and 18·74 per cent., respectively, of the total withdrawals authorised in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to see that foodstuffs available free under the European Economic Community free food scheme are available to all eligible people in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Produce is being distributed within the rules of the scheme to eligible recipients in Wales by the organisations designated to carry out the distribution. Given the voluntary nature of the scheme it is not possible to ensure that foodstuffs are available to all eligible people.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will identify the distribution centres for free food in Wales; and how much of each product is being made available per centre.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Local distribution arrangements are a matter for the designated organisations to determine within the rules of the scheme.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those voluntary organisations participating in the free food scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced to the House on 21 April that 127 organisations had been designated to distribute surplus produce to the most needy. A list of those organisation was placed in the Library on that day.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bleaches
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he has plans to restrict the use of chlorine bleached pulp in disposable nappies;

  (2) whether he has plans to restrict the use of coffee filters treated with dioxin producing bleaches.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
  93
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 28 November, at column 96. I understand that the quantities of dioxin which may occur in these products are very small. I will consider the matter further when the expert advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the committee on toxicity at the Department of Health is available.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the present and projected levels of investment in manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, in the first three quarters of 1988 is provisionally estimated to have been £8,232 million in 1985 prices and seasonally adjusted. In his Autumn Statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast that the volume of manufacturing investment in 1988 would be 18 per cent. higher than in 1987 and would rise by a further 10 per cent. in 1989.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessments he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under occupational leases of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non-domestic buildings.

  Mr. Forth
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on VAT will have no effect on my Department's capital building programme since compensating adjustments have been made to the relevant expenditure provisions. At this stage, before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option to tax rents, it is not possible to offer meaningful estimates of the effects of the judgment on rental costs.

  Society of British Aerospace Manufacturers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the Society of British Aerospace Manufacturers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I last met the president and representatives of the Society of British Aerospace Manufacturers in September 1988 during the Farnborough air show.

  Elstree Film Studios
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assurances he has(a) sought and (b) received in relation to the continued use of Elstree film studios for film production following the recent deal for the disposal of the studio properties.

  Mr. Atkins
  No such assurances have been sought or received. It is the Government's view that the future use of the site is a matter for the new owners to determine, subject to any consents which may be required from the planning authorities.

  Design Initiative
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish a table showing the 94
  design initiatives which have benefited from the design initiative and the amount of money committed to each initiative.

  Mr. Forth
  Reasons of commercial confidentiality preclude giving details of the assistance offered to individual companies. However, since 13 January 1988 over 700 assisted design consultancies have been completed, over 700 are in progress and about 600 are subject to agreement of terms of reference before proceeding. The average contribution made by the Department towards the cost of completed consultancies is currently £2,387.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff are employed on the design initiative.

  Mr. Forth
  Administration of the design initiative is contracted out to the Design Council. Within the Department, policy on and management of the design initiative forms part of the duties of five full-time staff. DTI regional office staff both help promote and receive applications for enterprise initiative consultancies, including the design initiative.

  British Steel (Privatisation)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost of advertising(a) in the press, (b) on television, (c) on radio, (d) on posters and (e) by other means in relation to the privatisation of British Steel.

  Mr. Atkins
  The marketing costs of the British Steel flotation will be reported in due course in the usual way together with the other costs of the flotation.

  EC Research Council
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress was made at the meeting of the Research Council of European Community Ministers on 17 November, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I represented Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the Community's Council of Ministers (Research) in Brussels on 17 November.

  The Council agreed common positions on three programmes within the overall provisions of the Community's 1987–91 framework programme for R and D:

  ECLAIR, a programme covering agro-industrial technologies which is aimed at improving links between agriculture and industry with Community funding of 80 mecu (£53 million) over five years; SPES, a programme with Community funding of 6 mecu (£4 million) over four years, which is intended to promote European collaboration in economic science by improving the training, communications and mobility of economists within the Community and stimulate economics research networks at the European level; and the large facilities programme designed to facilitate wider access by European researchers to large-scale European scientific facilities.

  The programme will provide Community funding of 30 mecu (£20 million) over four years for contributions to the operating costs of selected facilities, and, if necessary, to the costs of adaptations or enhancements needed to increase access together with expenditure incurred by visiting scientists.
  95
  The Council discussed a presidency paper on the technological gap between the developed and less developed regions of the Community. There was agreement that although Community R and D policy should take account of the need to strengthen the cohesion of the Community, the need for European industrial competitiveness and technical excellence should be the priority for EC R and D programmes.

  The Council also received a Commission presentation on proposed Community involvement in European space development.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Maintenance
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is currently taking effectively to monitor the way that maintenance repair work is carried out on motorways so as to avoid unnecessary inconvenience being caused to motorists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We avoid unnecessary inconvenience by the programming of essential maintenance work so as to minimise traffic disruption, by giving wide publicity to motorway lane closures, and by special measures such as lane rental schemes and mobile lane closures.

  M69 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what temporary road signs were erected prior to and including 5 November informing motorists approaching the M69 of the total closure of the south-west-bound carriageway on 5 November.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Temporary road signs were displayed on all approaches to the M69/M1 junction on 5 and 6 November advising motorists of the closure and to follow the diversion route indicated by a circle symbol. No signs were displayed prior to 5 November.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advance warning or notice was given to motorists advising them of the intention to close the whole of the south-west-bound carriageway of the M69 on 5 November.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department issued a press notice on 1 November giving full details of the proposed closures between the M1 near Leicester and the A5 at Hinckley.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the policy of phasing motorway repair work was not followed on 5 November in respect of the south-west-bound carriageway of the M69 so that at least one lane was kept open to vehicular traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The main works were being carried out on the two-lane section of the M69 near its junction with the M1. There was insufficient space to allow the safe passage of vehicles and provide a safe working environment for the workmen in accordance with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. As the works were of short duration and there was a reasonable alternative route for the traffic volume involved, expensive contraflow traffic management could not be justified.
  96
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the whole of the south-west-bound carriageway of the M69 was closed on 5 November.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It was closed to enable the removal and replacement of a cracked running surface close to the M1 junction. During the closure other routine maintenance works were carried out along the full length of the motorway between Leicester and Hinckley.

  The resurfacing work required the removal and replacement of the wearing course to both traffic lanes close to the M1/M69 roundabout. Due to physical constraints it was not possible to use the hard shoulder as a running lane. The joint report by the Department of Transport and County Surveyors Society provides notes for guidance about the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as they affect personnel required to undertake work on motorways and trunk roads (revised 1985). It requires that a safety zone is provided between the works and live traffic. On motorways this is normally 1·2 m wide.

  On the two-lane section of the M69 it was not possible to carry out resurfacing works and provide a safety zone and therefore the decision was taken to close the motorway under a temporary traffic regulation order. The alternative of installing contraflow traffic management was not very practicable and would have been very expensive. Traffic flows on M69 are not as high as on other motorways, such as the M1, and therefore delays caused by diverting the traffic were not expected to be serious. The opportunity was taken to make the most of the closure by carrying out other works such as safety fence repairs, joint sealing, replacement of road studs and replacement of vehicle counting loops. Because there is limited access at junction 2 (A5070 at Hinckley) it was also necessary to close the section of motorway between junction 2 and junction 1 (A5 at Hinckley).

  Manchester Airport (Singapore Flights)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the availability of adequate capacity for north-western travellers wishing to fly to Singapore and about being able to fly direct from Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received a number of representations this year about the level of capacity being mounted on the route between Manchester and Singapore.

  United Kingdom and Singapore aviation officials will be meeting early next year to review the possibilities for liberalising air services arrangements between our two countries. This will include arrangements on the Manchester-Singapore route.

  M20
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to make an examination of the capacity of the M20 to the west of Ashford to determine if it has sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate future growth beyond the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This will be done in the context of the current regular review of the national trunk road programme.
  97
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed starting date for the contracts to be placed late this year and in the spring of next year for the construction of the M20 between Hollingbourne and Ashford; and how long this will take.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The first contract is expected to start in January, the second about one month after the contract is let next spring. The contract periods are 27 and 24 months, respectively.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of the driver and vehicle licensing centre facilities at Swansea for the preparation of Scottish poll tax forms; and if he will give details of what consultations were undertaken with the driver and vehicle licensing centre unions and of who provided the manpower to operate the machinery and to load and transport the forms.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The supplier of DVLC's paper handling equipment asked to use one of the machines for 10 days to process community charge forms. The request was agreed as the machine was not needed for DVLC work at the time. The forms were processed by company staff, so that there was no reason to consult the DVLC trade unions.

  Maritime Law
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to change maritime law to provide for adequate compensation to structures damaged by ships.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under an international convention agreed in 1976, which came into operation under United Kingdom law on 1 December 1986, shipowners can limit their liability in respect of damage caused by ships. The International Maritime Organisation is to review the limits in the 1976 convention, and as part of that review we will be pressing for a significant increase in the present limits. Parliament decided on the liability regime to be applied to pilots and pilotage authorities as recently as 1987 with the passage of the Pilotage Act 1987.

  M4 (Barrier Replacement)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current progress on the programme of barrier replacement on the M4; and what information he has on the standard and quality of the original installations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In Wiltshire, the support posts for 10·6 km of safety barrier have already been replaced. A further 5·2 km is programmed for this financial year, and 3·4 km for next year. The remaining 26·8 km will be dealt with in subsequent years.

  Inspections have shown the original safety fence nowhere to be below the standard current at the time it was installed.

  Ports
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures the Government intend to introduce to ensure fair competition between British and foreign ports in 1992.
  98
  Mr. Portillo
  We are pursuing the need for open and fair financial relations between public authorities and port undertakings within the European Community. The completion of the single European market will not worsen the competitive position of our ports.

  Railways (Deaths)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year from 1979 to date, including the total so far this year, the number of deaths that have occurred on the railways in Yorkshire in(a) accidents, (b) suicides and (c) trespassing; and, of that total, how many were railway staff.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on a county basis is not readily available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year from 1979 to date the number of deaths that occurred on the United Kingdom railways in(a) accidents, (b) suicides and (c) trespassing incidents; how many have occurred to date in 1988; of the above totals, how many were railway staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table gives the information requested in respect of railways in Great Britain. Details of accidents on Northern Ireland railways are not reported to the Department of Transport.

  Deaths occurring on the railways of Great Britain—1979 to 1988:

  Accidents (Staff included in total in total shown in brackect)

  Suicides

  Trespassers

  1979

  107 (43)

  180

  134

  1980

  69 (32)

  220

  140

  1981

  76 (27)

  222

  147

  1982

  57 (27)

  166

  130

  1983

  69 (28)

  212

  146

  1984

  76 (25)

  193

  146

  1985

  74 (25)

  168

  150

  1986

  72 (16)

  163

  162

  1987

  104 (16)

  173

  144

  1988

  55 (16)

  97

  1185

  1 Some may transfer to the suicides category when a coroner's verdict is received.

  M25 (Traffic Growth)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the steps he is taking, apart from the construction of a Dartford bridge crossing and the current widening of the western sector of the M25, to ensure that there is sufficient capacity on the M25 and other orbital roads around London to cater for expected traffic growth over the next decade.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The construction of the new Dartford-Thurrock bridge and the widening of the south-western sector of the M25 will relieve those sections of the motorway where congestion regularly occurs. A study into ways of widening the length between junctions 15 and 16 is under way.

  Consultants are due to report on their review of the whole motorway early next year. Improvements to other London orbital routes are included in the national road programme.
  99
  A study is to begin shortly into orbital movements in the south-west quadrant of London.

  Lancaster Canal
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the current cost of restoring navigation to the northern stretch of the Lancaster canal between Tewitfield and Kendal by constructing the creeps in the M6 motorway bridges as referred to during the Second Reading debate of the British Waterways Bill on 22 February 1965,Official Report, volume 707, columns 106 to 134, together with any other necessary expenses.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Several million pounds in construction and traffic disruption costs.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations he has had with British Nuclear Fuels Limited concerning the proposal to fly plutonium to and from Prestwick airport; and what action he is taking;

  (2) what representations he has received from British Nuclear Fuels Limited concerning the proposal to fly plutonium fuel to and from Prestwick airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No decision has yet been made on whether to return reprocessed plutonium to Japan by air.

  BNFL is developing a suitable container. When it is satisfied that this will meet all the regulatory provisions, the design will be submitted to the Department for assessment and approval.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Ex-President Marcos (Assets)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request the United Kingdom banks to open private safe deposit boxes in order to facilitate the identification of assets fraudulently obtained by ex-President Marcos and his family.

  Mr. Lilley
  Well-established procedures are available to the courts to enable United Kingdom banks to provide assistance in appropriate circumstances.

  Indirect Taxes (Harmonisation)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he estimates the harmonisation of indirect taxes, as proposed by the European Economic Community Commissioners, would have on(a) the poorest and (b) the richest 10 per cent. of households.

  Mr. Lilley
  Insufficient detailed information is available for assessing reliably the effect of these proposals on expenditure patterns across income groups.

  The Government have made it clear that they do not consider tax approximation to be necessary for the completion of the single market.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current ratio of public expenditure to gross domestic product: and if he will make a statement.
  100
  Mr. Major
  The Autumn Statement gave a forecast of 39¾ per cent. for the ratio of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) to gross domestic product in 1988–89. This ratio has declined from a peak of nearly 47 per cent. in 1982–83 and is now at its lowest level since 1966–67. It is expected to decline further to just under 39 per cent. in 1991–92.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the difference between his forecast for cash-limited vote expenditure for the first half of 1988–89 and the outturn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  Table 1.8 of the Winter Supplementary Estimates (HC 690) shows Departments' estimates of outturn for cash-limited vote expenditure in the first six months of 1988–89. The table also shows Departments' forecasts of expenditure in the first six months, prepared earlier in the year.

  "Government Purchasing"
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made in implementing the report, "Government Purchasing", of December 1984.

  Mr. Brooke
  A report by the central unit on purchasing on progress in 1987–88 is published today. It records that in 1987–88 central Government Departments (excluding the Ministry of Defence) reported value-for-money improvements in their purchasing totalling £252 million, equivalent to just under 4 per cent. of total purchasing expenditure and an increase of £84 million on the previous year. For 1988–89 Departments have set targets for value-for-money improvements totalling £337 million, equivalent to 5 per cent. of expenditure and an increase on 1987–88 of £85 million. Taking into account that in 1985–86, the first full year after the purchasing initiative was launched, Departments reported value-for-money improvements of only £70 million, these successive increases in the savings reported by Departments are encouraging. Nevertheless, the report emphasises the need for continuing action by Departments to further improve their organisation, systems and staffing for purchasing and supply, so that efficient procurement becomes a standard part of good management practice. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage wider share ownership through employee share ownership plans.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government remain firmly committed to supporting employee share ownership, as our record of legislation in nine out of the last 10 Budgets testifies. We shall continue to examine sympathetically the wide variety of proposals made for new initiatives or improvements in this area, to see how far they are capable of building on the impressive progress already achieved.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage from income tax will be
  101
  paid by the top (a) 1 per cent. and (b) 5 per cent. of incomes in the current financial year compared to 1978–79; and what are the corresponding figures for income before tax;

  (2) what percentage of the revenue from income tax will be paid by the top (a) 1 per cent. and (b) 5 per cent. of incomes in the current financial year compared to 1978–79; and what are the corresponding figures for income before tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 28 November 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 28 July at columns 488-92.

  Inflation and Exchange Rates
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is, for each year since 1978, the average(a) rate of inflation in Japan, West Germany, the United States of America and the United Kingdom and (b) the average rate of exchange in £ sterling of the yen, the mark and the dollar.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: "OECD Economic Outlook", June 1988, (table R11), gives the average annual inflation rates on a non-standardised basis for all the countries in question. Economic Trends, monthly, gives annual averages of the sterling exchange rate against the yen, mark, and the dollar.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant Maintained Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether grant maintained schools will be allocated the same amount of money per pupil as locally financially managed schools within the same authority;

  (2) whether a grant maintained school will have its annual year-on-year budget altered in line with other schools which have local financial management in the same local education authority.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department's circular 10/88 made clear that the maintenance grant for a grant-maintained school would be based on the funding which my right hon. Friend is satisfied fairly represents what the LEA would have been likely to have provided for the school had it continued to maintain it, including expenditure on services provided centrally by the LEA. Once formula funding is in operation for the authority as part of an approved scheme of local management, the formula will be applied to grant-maintained schools in the area in the same way as to LEA-maintained schools. The amounts will reflect the authority's decisions on funding of its schools, but will also include an allowance for centrally provided services which in the case of LEA-maintained schools will be excluded from the delegated budget determined by the formula.

  Capital Building Projects
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria will be used to assess applications for capital building projects in(a) grant
  102
  maintained schools and (b) local education authority schools under local financial management within the same authority.

  Mr. Butcher
  Applications for capital building projects in grant-maintained schools will be judged in the light of the total resources available for capital building in all maintained schools; my right hon. Friend has made clear his intention to treat grant-maintained schools no more favourably than LEA-maintained schools. Initially this will be done on a case by case basis, but once numbers are large enough a national bidding system is expected to be introduced similar to that which now operates for voluntary-aided schools. Local authorities' allocations for prescribed expenditure are unhypothecated—that is, authorities are free to spend them on whatever projects they wish. The size of an authority's allocation in respect of county and controlled schools depends on the extents to which its overall plans coincide with my right hon. Friend's priorities which are currently:

  i. committed expenditure up to a level previously indicated to the authority.

  ii. basic need for additional school places in areas of population growth;

  iii. the removal of surplus places as school rolls fall;

  iv. the improvement or replacement of existing school buildings.

  Allocations for major projects at aided and special arrangement schools relate to specific schemes and are determined according to the same priorities.

  Retraining
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to encourage mid-career retraining for those who wish to become teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Courses of initial teacher training are available for all potential entrants to the profession—regardless of age and previous experience. We have encouraged the development of new courses to meet a range of needs, including those of people who want to switch to teaching in mid career. This year nearly 6,000 people aged 26 and over entered courses of initial teacher training—30 per cent. of the total. One of the main aims of our teacher recruitment activity through the teaching as a career unit (TASC) is to attract more older people from other careers into teaching.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to promote the education of children, teachers and parents as to the dangers of solvent abuse.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department currently funds annual expenditure by local education authorities of £4·1 million for the in-service training of teachers in drugs issues (including solvent misuse) and for the employment of drugs education co-ordinators in every local authority in England. The Department is also funding research at Newcastle university into the role of parents and families in the treatment and rehabilitation of young people with substance misuse problems.

  Teachers
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many teachers have been
  103
  recruited from the following countries, within the last year, to fill vacancies in schools in London; (a) Ireland, (b) Australia, (c) Canada, (d) New Zealand and (e) South Africa; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many applications for qualified teacher status were considered under paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 5 to the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982 No. 106) between 1 October 1987 and 30 September 1988 in respect of teachers who had trained in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa; and how many were accepted.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 25 November 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. Between 1 October 1987 and 30 September 1988 applications for qualified teacher status from teachers with qualifications gained in the countries referred to by the hon. Member were received as follows:

  Country

  Total Number application

  Number accepted

  Number rejected

  Republic of Ireland

  327

  13

  314

  Australia

  585

  155

  430

  Canada

  52

  4

  48

  New Zealand

  359

  230

  129

  South Africa

  120

  33

  87

  Violence in Schools
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is currently conducting any studies on violence in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  An independent committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, under the chairmanship of Lord Elton, is currently considering what action might be taken to secure an orderly atmosphere in schools. Problems of violence form a part of the committee's remit. It aims to report around the end of this year.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Material Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantities of nuclear material produced from uranium have been exported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In the five-year period ending 31 March 1988 some 3,000 tonnes of uranium in the form of natural uranium hexafluoride has been sent to the USSR for enrichment. The material exported was the property of the United Kingdom generating boards and various overseas utilities. It is all returned as product (enriched uranium) or tails (depleted uranium) to either the United Kingdom, or, in the case of overseas customers, a destination of their choice. All the material is subject to international safeguards.

  Berkeley Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the tonnage of fuel(a) loaded into and (b) withdrawn from, reactor 1 at Berkeley power station between 4 April and 17 July; and what was the average burn-up per tonne of irradiated fuel withdrawn at this time.
  104
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have asked the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Coal and Electricity Industries (Privatisation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will shelve plans to proceed with the privatisation of the coal and electricity industries until the environmental problems of sulphur and carbon dioxide emissions have been satisfactorily dealt with and legislation is in place which will avoid further environmental consequences such as the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Privatisation will make no difference to the Government's commitment to improving the environment. Environmental controls apply to private sector companies as they do to those in the public sector and will be strongly enforced when the electricity industry is privatised.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what international safeguard arrangements exist to cover the shipping of spent nuclear fuel and other material from(a) Torness, (b) Hunterston, (c) Dounreay and (d) Chapelcross, to reprocessing plants.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All nuclear material from Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay is subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the United Kingdom—Euratom—IAEA safeguards agreement. Nuclear fuel irradiated in Chapelcross is not subject to safeguards.

  Nuclear Reactor Safety
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what international safeguard arrangements exist to cover the nuclear reactors at Torness and spent nuclear fuel from the Torness reactors; and what facility attachments and particular safeguard provisions exist for Torness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nuclear material in the reactors at Torness, and spent nuclear fuel from the reactors, is subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the United Kingdom—Euratom—IAEA safeguards agreement. The particular safeguard provisions for Torness are not yet in force with Euratom. There is no facility attachment in place for Torness since the IAEA has not designated the facility for routine inspection.

  Mining Industry (Statistics)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many men are employed in the mining industry, categorised in terms of(a) British Coal employees and (b) other contract companies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that British Coal employed 86,760 men on colliery books on 12 November 1988. The other information requested is not available.

  Heysham II
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, on a year-by-year basis, the construction costs of Heysham 11 nuclear power station.
  105
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Power Stations (Costs)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the operating costs for nuclear and fossil fuelled power stations in England and Wales for 1983 to 1987 on a year-by-year basis and in the same form as set out in the Central Electricity Generating Board's statistical year book for 1982–83.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  Procurement
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the expenditure incurred by the procurement division of his Department is split(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement on the Defence Estimates 1988, Cmnd. 344-1, volume 1, page 37 paragraph 402, and page 49 figure II.

  Army Scholarship Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the total cost in grants and tuition paid in respect of(a) boys and (b) girls receiving both grants and tuition in each year from 1979 to the present in respect of the Army scholarship scheme for children aged 15 and 16 years;

  (2) if he will list the schools in respect of which tuition fees were paid and from whose headteachers, endorsements of candidatures were received and the numbers of (a) boys and (b) girls from each school who have received awards under the Army scholarship scheme for pupils aged 15 and 16 years in each of the years from 1979 to the present.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the form requested. While references are obtained from headteachers, eligibility for the award of any Army scholarship does not rest on the headteacher's endorsement alone. Applicants are required to pass a test set by the Army, an interview and obtain good grades in seven GCSEs (or equivalents) including mathematics, English language and either a science or modern language. Girls have been eligible to apply for an award only since 1986.

  Currently there are 91 scholars, including 10 girls. Since September 1983 a flat rate grant of £750 a year has been made to parents of scholars, irrespective of the school which the scholar attends.

  Educational Allowances
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum paid to(a) officers and (b) other ranks in education allowances in the year 1986–87; what were the numbers of individuals receiving allowances in categories (a) and (b) above; and what is the average grossed up value of an allowance in each category.
  106
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total Sum Paid In Educational Allowances

  Numbers of Individuals In Receipt of Allowances

  Average Allowances Per Child

  £ million

  £1 per annum

  (a) Officers

  58·840

  8,071

  4,701

  (b) Other Ranks

  34·761

  6,357

  3,964

  Note 1: This is the average allowance paid per child and takes into account the higher allowance paid for third and subsequent children and is inclusive of grossing up for income tax.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate cost of a holiday visit passages paid in respect of children of defence service personnel in receipt of education allowances, for the latest year available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information available does not allow the costs of school children's visits to be identified separately from the costs of other types of travel.

  Burghfield Arms Factory
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the explosion on 2 December at Burghfield arms factory; and if he will skate its proximity to the materials held for the polaris warheads.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A minor explosion occurred at AWE Burghfield in the early hours of 2 December during routine burning of surplus conventional explosive. There was no personal injury and no danger to the work force or public at any time and, to the best of our knowledge, no damage was caused outside the establishment. It is not our policy to disclose the nature or location of nuclear weapons; however no radioactive material was involved in this incident.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will announce the total sum available for payments from the discretionary part of the social fund in 1989–90.

  Mr. Needham
  The total sum available for payments in Northern Ireland for 1989–90 will be the same as for 1988–89. The budget for community care grants will be £7·2 million and the gross budget for loans will be £13·9 million.

  Emission Controls (Crown Immunity)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will be seeking Crown immunity from prosecution for the institutions which are the responsibility of his Department when the anticipated new controls on emissions come into operation.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 November 1988]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 November 1988 at column 178.
  107
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he proposes to finance the additional funds required for those nurses who will be regraded after appeal.

  Mr. Needham
  The funds allocated to boards which include £32 million as the assessed cost of the clinical grading review, are intended to cover all pay costs arising in the current financial year, including any costs arising from successful appeals about pay or grading.

  Housing Associations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much new capital expenditure has been authorised to be undertaken by housing associations in Northern Ireland in each of August, September and October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  £

  August

  456,325

  September

  894,224

  October

  660,222

  The total of approximately £2·01 million compares with £2·34 million in the same period last year.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums remained unspent in the budgeted expenditure for housing associations in Northern Ireland at 31 October.

  Mr. Needham
  Of the £31·47 million available for capital expenditure by housing associations in Northern Ireland in 1988–89, £12·7 million was unspent at 31 October.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women's Issues
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the minutes of the meetings of the ministerial group on women's issues, from May 1986 to date; and whether he will place a copy of the equal opportunities proofing system and proofing checklist in the library.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not the practice to publish the internal record of meetings of Ministers. A press release was made following the last meeting of the group. On the second part of her question, I refer the hon. Member to the reply to her question on 7 November at columns 10-11.

  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Hurd
  I last met the Commissioner on 20 October at a lunch at New Scotland yard organised by the community involvement branch. It was an informal occasion, during which we discussed the work of the branch, and a number of other policing issues.

  Prisoners (Condoms)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from medical organisations on prisoners' access to condoms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received one letter from the British Medical Association on this subject.

  Homosexuality and Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refused an application for a research project, proposed by the prison department's AIDS advisory committee, into homosexuality and drug use in prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Because we considered that the methodology proposed was unlikely to lead to reliable results.

  AIDS (Prisons)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to assess the risks of contracting HIV in prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The risk in prison, as elsewhere, is determined by personal behaviour. This is stressed in the educational material available to prisoners. No research to assess the rate of HIV infection, or spread of infection, in the prison population is currently being undertaken by the Department; but prisoners will, where appropriate, be included in future approved research programmes based on anonymous blood testing. A central record is kept for statistical and monitoring purposes of prisoners identified as HIV antibody positive in the course of the careful screening undertaken by Medical Officers.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the World Health Organisation's recommendation that consideration should be given to allow prisoners access to condoms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have, as the World Health Organisation recommended, considered whether condoms should be made available to prisoners, but have concluded that we would not be justified in changing our policy that prisoners should not be allowed access to condoms.

  Prisoners (Health Education)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what health education material is in preparation for prisoners; and when this will be available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An AIDS resource pack comprising a video film, a user's guide and a companion leaflet is in an advanced state of development. A second leaflet for more general use is also in preparation. It is expected that these will be ready for use very early next year to supplement the material which is already available.

  Personal Freedom
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to require all organisations, which maintain the names of people on lists
  109
  without their knowledge and circulate the lists for a fee to others for employment and other purposes, to register with his Department; if he will investigate the procedure and role of such organisations; and if he will take steps to seek to ban those which interfere with personal freedom.

  Mr. Renton
  The Data Protection Act 1984 provides that data users holding personal data processed automatically shall register the fact and, interalia, the purpose for which the data are held and to whom they may be disclosed. My right hon. Friend has no plans to extend the registration requirement to manual files.

  Prison Officers (London Weighting)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the number of prison officers who have been transferred from London prisons to other prisons outside London who are still in receipt of London weighting under the mark-time proposals of the fresh start arrangements; how many are currently serving in Her Majesty's prison, Ashwell; and what is the total cost to public funds on an annual basis of this arrangement;

  (2) what is the number of prison officers who have been transferred from London prisons to other prisons outside London who are not still receiving London weighting under the mark-time proposals because their previous prison in London had not accepted fresh start; how many are currently serving in Her Majesty's prison, Ashwell; and what would be the total cost to public funds of extending the London weighting to those currently denied it.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  To provide the information in the form requested would require disproportionate cost because of the large number of variable factors in individual cases and the calculations involved in mark-time pay. Between July 1987 and November 1988, 187 prison officers were transferred from London prisons to other prisons outside London and retained London weighting on a mark-time basis. Of these four are serving at Her Majesty's prison, Ashwell.

  In the same period, 145 prison officers were transferred from London prisons to prisons outside London and did not receive London weighting under the mark-time rules because the London prison from which they were transferred had not moved to fresh start pay. Of these four are in post at Her Majesty's prison, Ashwell.

  Derbyshire County Council
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much section 11 grant, under the Local Government Act 1966, Derbyshire county council received in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available; and on what schemes this money was spent.

  Mr. John Patten
  The amount of grant paid to Derbyshire county council under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, in respect of each of the last five years is shown in the table. The grant represents 75 per cent. of the eligible expenditure by the authority on posts addressing the special needs of ethnic minorities of Commonwealth origin.110

  £

  Posts

  1983–84

  Education

  592,859

  161

  Social Workers

  11,171

  8

  Other Staff

  55,911

  10

  Grant paid on formula basis in respect of:

  (a) Children in care

  24,791

  (b) Day Nurseries

  39,204

  Total

  723,936

  (Payment of section 11 grant on a formula basis ceased at the end of 1983–84)

  1984–85

  Education

  714,537

  163

  Social Workers

  40,362

  9

  Other Staff

  73,181

  10

  Total

  828,080

  1985–86

  Education

  735,429

  168

  Social Workers

  39,684

  8

  Other Staff

  95,577

  15

  Total

  870,690

  1986–87

  Education

  876,520

  163·5

  Social Workers

  76,028

  18

  Other Staff

  114,737

  17

  Total

  1,067,285

  1987–88

  Education

  967,533

  116·5

  Social Workers

  96,833

  18

  Other Staff

  151,188

  17

  Total

  1,215,554

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has to the effect of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 on the supply of such substances to children; and what measures are being taken by his Department to inform shopkeepers as to the law and to educate the public as to the dangers of solvent abuse;

  (2) what information he has as to the action being taken by the police to enforce the provisions of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1987 there were 11 successful prosecutions under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.

  As regards publicity and prevention, the lead is taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to whom my hon. Friend has addressed a similar question.

  New Prison (Merseyside)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to measure public reaction to any proposals for the construction of a new prison in the Field lane area of Merseyside.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any proposal to build a prison in the Field lane area would be subject to the normal planning procedures which require local publicity and the assessment by the planning authority of local opinion.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following his White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s," it is his intention to require applicants for Channel 3 franchises to make specific commitments about the production and broadcasting of religious programmes.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has of the market for(a) video rental and (b) pre-recorded video tapes referred to in paragraph 2.4 of his White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s," Cm. 517.

  Mr. Renton
  According to a study on subscription television commissioned by the Home Office from Communications Studies and Planning International Limited, published in May 1987, a total of between £550 million and £600 million was spent on video software in 1986. Two thirds of the expenditure was on pre-recorded software, while the remainder was spent on blank cassettes. This is the equivalent of each household with a VCR buying or renting about one cassette a week. The study estimated that the market for pre-recorded VCR software would expand from £470 million in 1987 to £625 million in 1990. The equivalent estimates for expenditure on VCR rentals were £667 million in 1987 and £772 million in 1990.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with manufacturers about the development of technology for pay-per-view subscription referred to in paragraph 2.4 of his White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s," Cm. 517; and whether those manufacturers are British.

  Mr. Renton
  The subject of pay-per-view technology is one of a number of issues which has been discussed in the Government's day-to-day contact with the electronics industry. The choice of manufacturers for reception equipment is one for the broadcasters themselves to make.

  A variety of subscription and pay-per-view payment methods are being developed in Europe and the United States. Some satellite television services are expected to be subscription based, and British Satellite Broadcasting plans to introduce a pay-per-view system.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has commissioned any research into the production costs of(a) news, (b) current affairs, (c) dramas, (d) documentaries, (e) children's programmes, (f) religious programmes and (g) educational programmes in (i) BBC, (ii) ITV, (iii) independent production and (iv) other countries.

  Mr. Renton
  The study of subscription television prepared for the Home Office by Booz Allen and Hamilton and published in May 1987 contains information about production costs. Such information is also available to the Home Office from other sources.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those owning a television pay for(a) a colour licence and (b) a black and white licence.
  112
  Mr. Renton
  It is estimated that about 92 per cent. of television owners obtain a television licence. About 82 per cent. pay for a colour licence, and about 10 per cent. pay for a black and white licence.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) detected and (b) prosecuted for not having a television licence in each of the last 10 years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Renton
  The available data which have been supplied by the national television licence records office are given in the following table. Corresponding information on costs is not available.

  Detections and prosecutions for TV licence evasion in the United Kingdom

  thousands

  Year ending 31 March

  Detected

  Prosecuted

  1978–79

  73·8

  55·4

  1979–80

  78·7

  49·9

  1980–81

  93·3

  65·8

  1981–82

  101·7

  70·5

  1982–83

  125·3

  85·4

  1983–84

  152·8

  97·4

  1984–85

  149·0

  110·0

  1985–86

  235·4

  123·1

  1986–87

  258·4

  174·5

  1987–88

  288·9

  158·2

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates will be(a) the cost and (b) the staffing implications of transferring responsibility for the collection of the British Broadcasting Corporation licence fee on to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Mr. Renton
  There should be no increase in the cost of collecting licence revenue, and the BBC will clearly have a strong incentive to reduce costs so far as is practicable consistent with the maximisation of licence revenue. It is likely that the transfer of responsibility will save in the order of two central Government staff posts.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed in collecting the BBC licence fee.

  Mr. Renton
  About 1,300, excluding Post Office counter staff who issue television licences and sell television licence savings stamps as part of their general duties.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present administrative cost of collecting the BBC licence fee.

  Mr. Renton
  A total of £59·6 million for the year 1987–88.

  Animal Procedures Committee (Report)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the first annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee; and when he intends to lay copies of the report before Parliament.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have now laid before Parliament copies of the report, which is published today by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as House of Commons Paper 36.

  This report reflects the significant contribution which the Animal Procedures Committee has made in the first

  113
  year of operation of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I am sure that it will continue its work for the protection of animals used in experimental or other scientific procedures.

  I particularly welcome the report's conclusion that "the emerging system of control will match the high expectations of Parliament and the public".

  Pub Bombings
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in considering representations about the case of the four persons convicted of offences arising from the bombing of public houses in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974.

  Mr. Hurd
  In April I received a report from the Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset police on the results of inquiries made into certain matters raised with me since my statement of 20 January 1987 at columns 735-38. Since then, and in particular during October and November, I have received further representations about the case, both from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and from firms of solicitors acting for the four persons convicted, some of which purport to disclose new evidence. I have been asked to take these further matters into account in reaching my decision on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, in the exercise of my power under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. I have agreed to do so. My decision should obviously be based on the fullest available information. Further inquiries are now being carried out by the police into some of the new matters which have been raised and I intend to reach a decision in January.

THE ARTS

  Tax
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since he last made an announcement on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 12 July, at column 101, I am pleased to announce that two items have been accepted in lieu of tax; a flower painting by Jacob Marrel and a print by William Blake, Frontispiece to the Book of Ahania. The tax liability satisfied was £61,369 and £19,658, respectively. The Blake print will go to the Fitzwilliam museum but a decision over the allocation of the Maud painting has not yet been taken.

SCOTLAND

  YTS
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are enough training places available under YTS for 16 to 17-year-olds in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. There were 13,000 unfilled YTS places in Scotland on 5 December 1988.

  "Curriculum and Assessment"
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total
  114
  number of responses he has received to the document, "Curriculum and Assessment", indicating the source in each case; and if he will make such responses available through publication.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Over 1,000 responses were received from a wide range of sources. All the responses were available for public inspection at West Register house, Edinburgh, between 4 October and 5 December.

  Special Schools
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special schools in each region and division recorded no head teacher in the schools census of 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of education authority special schools and the numbers with no head teacher at September 1987 are as follows:

  (1)

  (2) Total

  (3) Number without a head teacher

  Borders

  1

  1

  Central

  ll

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  0

  Fife

  12

  1

  Grampian

  19

  0

  Highland

  7

  1

  Lothian

  22

  1

  Strathclyde

  118

  37

  Tayside

  8

  2

  Orkney

  1

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  Scotland

  200

  46

  Argyll and Bute

  4

  1

  Ayr

  25

  13

  Dunbarton

  16

  5

  Glasgow (City)

  45

  12

  Lanark

  18

  3

  Renfrew

  10

  3

  In some cases recorded in column (3) above the post of head teacher will have been vacant at the time of the census; in others there will be no such post because of small size or because oversight is provided by an associated mainstream school. Responsibility for determining the complement of head teachers and for filling vacancies rests with regional and islands authorities.

  TVE1
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those schools in each region and division which are currently involved in TVE1 schemes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The schools within each region and division of Strathclyde currently participating in TVE1 are as follows:

  Region/Division

  Schools involved in TVE1 Schemes

  Borders

  All schools

  Central

  Bannockburn High School

  Graeme High School

  St. Mungo's Academy

  St. Modan's High School

  Lornshill Academy

  115

  Region/Division

  Schools involved in TVE1 Schemes

  Dumfries and Galloway

  All Schools

  Fife

  Glenwood High School

  Glenrothes High School

  Auchmuty High School

  Bell Baxter High School

  Kirkcaldy High School

  Beath High School

  Lochgelly High School

  Woodmill High School

  Buchhaven High School

  Grampian

  Buckie High School

  Elgin Academy

  Elgin High School

  Forrest Academy

  Milnes High School

  Highland

  Farr Secondary School

  Golspie High School

  Thurso High School

  Wick High School

  Lothian

  Tynecastle High School

  St. Augustine's High School

  Armadale Academy

  Blackburn Academy

  St. Kentigern's Academy

  St. Mary's Academy

  Whitburn Academy

  Craigmount High School

  Queensferry High School

  Royal High School

  Boroughmuir High School

  Firrhill High School

  James Gillespie High School

  St. Thomas of Aquins High School

  Cairnpark Special School

  Graysmill Special School

  Ainslie Park High School

  Forrester High School

  Wester Hailes Education Centre

  Bathgate Academy

  Craighroyston High School

  Drummond High School

  Leith Academy

  Trinity Academy

  Canonmills Special School

  Pilrig Park Special School

  St. David's High School

  Newbattle High School

  Lasswade High School

  Dalkeith High School

  Greenhill High School

  Orkney

  All Schools

  Shetland

  Anderson High School

  Brae Junior High School

  Sandwick Junior High School

  Scalloway Junior High School

  Strathclyde Argyll and Bute

  Campbeltown Grammar School

  Lochgilphead High School

  Oban High School

  Islay High School

  Ayr

  Grange Academy

  James Hamilpton Academy

  Kilmarnock Academy

  Part Special School

  St. Joseph's Academy

  Dumbarton

  Dumbarton Academy

  116

  Region/Division

  Schools involved in TVE1 Schemes

  Auchentoshan Special School

  St. Patrick's High School

  Notre Dame High School

  Vale of Leven Academy

  Glasgow

  Lochend Secondary School

  St. Leonard's Secondary School

  Westwood Secondary School

  Lanark

  Airdrie Academy

  Caldervale High School

  St. Margaret's High School

  Renfrew

  Gourock High School

  Port Glasgow High School

  St. Stephen's High School

  Greenock Academy

  Grovepark High School

  Eastwood High School

  Woodfarm High School

  Renfrew High School

  The Mary Russell Special School

  Hunterhill Tutorial Centre Special School

  Kersland Special School

  Greenock High School

  St. Columba's High School

  Lilybank Special School

  Cowdenknowes High School

  Notre Dame High School

  Mearns Castle High School

  St. Ninian's High School

  Linwood High School

  Clippens Special School

  Isobel Mair Special School

  Gateside Special School

  Tayside

  Craigie High School

  Linlathen High School

  St. Saviour's High School

  Whitfield High School

  Western Isles

  Lews Castle Day School

  Nicolson Institute

  Forestry
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from landowners, foresters and individuals engaged in wood processing industries about the Government's forestry policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: In the past two months, my right hon. and learned Friend has received nine letters from organisations and individuals about various aspects of the Government's forestry policy, including the support arrangements and the prospects for forestry. He has taken the opportunity to emphasise the Government's commitment to the continuing expansion of forestry.

PRIME MINISTER

  Right Hon and Learned Member for Richmond, Yorks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister why and in what particular respects experience of the Home Office was a factor in the nomination of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as a European Commissioner.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 1 December 1988, at column 345.

  Barnsley
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Barnsley, Dorset.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Iceland. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  President Gorbachev (Visit)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will request President Gorbachev, during his forthcoming visit, to return to the national treasuries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the gold reserves deposited by those countries with the Bank of England for safe keeping when still independent, which national reserves were handed over to the country which had invaded them by the United Kingdom Government in 1969.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The gold of the former central banks of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia held in the Bank of England was not transferred to the USSR but its value was taken into account in the practical settlement of claims arising from the incorporation of these states into the USSR, under the Anglo-Soviet claims agreement of 5 January 1968. The proceeds of the subsequent sale of gold were used to meet the compensation claims of British property holders and investors whose assets had been seized or became worthless. The Anglo-Soviet claims agreement did not, of course, affect our continued non-recognition de jure of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Grain
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost to the European Economic Community for export restitution and other costs of the export of grain for the latest year for which figures are available.
  118
  Mr. Ryder
  In the 1987 calendar year the European Community's expenditure on exports of whole and processed cereals other than rice, including food aid but excluding monetary compensatory amounts, was 3,673 million ecu (£2,642 million).

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the total loss of hedgerows in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 December to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) at columns 1859-60.

  Export Refund System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Economic Community revisions to the export refund system have become operative since 1 January; and what effect this has had in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  A new integrated Community customs tariff known as the combined nomenclature and based upon the international standard harmonised system came into force on 1 January. At the same time use for customs' purposes of the Community single administrative document started.

  The effect of these two changes was to require traders and official bodies to modify databases and systems based on customs tariff nomenclature and to provide and use data in a different format. While the changes applied to all international trade, food and agriculture were particularly affected since a number of nomenclature-based systems, including the export refund system, are utilised under the CAP.

  Free Food Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total cost of the European Economic Community free food scheme in the United Kingdom in terms of(a) the cost of foodstuffs, (b) the administration and distribution costs incurred by the voluntary sector and (c) any other costs.

  Mr. Ryder
  A total of £10·4 million was allocated to the United Kingdom to operate the free food scheme in 1988. The figure of 2½ per cent. has been set aside to cover distribution costs and to reimburse the administration costs of designated organisations. The remainder has been released or will have been made available by the end of the year to designated organisations in the form of butter and beef. Other costs such as packing and canning will be met by payment in kind arrangements.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will estimate the number of people receiving food stuffs under the European Economic Community free food scheme;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of people eligible in the United Kingdom to receive foodstuffs under the free food scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have estimated that about 6 million people in the United Kingdom are eligible to
  119
  receive food under the scheme. The designated organisations are responsible for the distribution arrangements, and they estimated early this year that about 1½million people would benefit.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of each of the surplus European Economic Community food products is being made available for distribution in Britain as part of the free food scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the United Kingdom the designated organisations have been authorised to withdraw 2,463 tonnes of butter and 1,772 tonnes of beef.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the criteria for eligibility to the European Economic Community free food scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Community legislation enables food from intervention stocks to be distributed to the most deprived persons in the Community. The Government

  Belgium

  Luxem-bourg

  Nether-lands

  France

  Spain

  Portugal

  Greece

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Denmark

  Germany

  Ireland

  By issue of voucher

  x

  —

  —

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  x

  Through soup kitchen

  —

  —

  x

  —

  x

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  x

  Through hospitals, orphanages, old people's homes etc.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Via charity networks

  —

  x

  —

  x

  x

  —

  —

  x

  x

  x

  x

  —

  Attempts to define the "most needy"

  x

  x

  —

  —

  x

  —

  —

  —

  x

  —

  x

  x

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has concerning the incidence of BSE in other European Economic Community countries or other countries with trade in animal production with Britain;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that animal products entering the United Kingdom for human consumption do not originate from BSE infected animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  BSE has not been reported in other member states of the European Community or any other country with which the United Kingdom trades.

  Dairy Quotas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom dairy farmers who participated in the milk non-marketing scheme or the dairy herd conversion scheme subsequently made an application for quotas to his Department between 31 March 1984 and 31 July 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  For the vast majority of producers, the dairy produce quotas regulations provided for applications for quota to be made between 24 July and 28 August 1984. In England and Wales, well over 20,000 valid applications were received. It would be disproportionately expensive to estimate the number of these which were received from farmers who had participated in the non-marketing or dairy herd conversion schemes.
  120
  have defined such persons as those in receipt of income support or family credit, and those of no fixed abode or living in welfare hostels.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those voluntary organisations participating in the free food scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are 127 organisations designated to operate the scheme in the United Kingdom. A list of the organisations was deposited in the Library of the House on 21 April 1988.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to in what respect the British scheme of free food distribution differs from that in other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  No detailed up-to-date information is available but according to information gathered in March 1988, the various member states intended to operate the scheme as shown in the attached table.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the use of bovine somatotropin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a considerable number of letters from individuals and organisations expressing concern about the current field tests of bovine somatotropin.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take to increase public awareness of the importance of sound food hygiene and handling practices.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department in collaboration with the Department of Health, the Health Education Authority, The Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the public health laboratory service, has been preparing a major nationwide public food hygiene education campaign to be launched early in 1989. We commissioned a consumer survey in January 1988 which demonstrated a general lack of awareness of elementary food hygiene precautions in the home. As a result of this survey we decided to test an education leaflet in a pilot launch at five locations (Shrewsbury, Hull, Taunton, Maidstone and the London Borough of Wandsworth) between July and October 1988. The results have now been evaluated and, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, I shall be launching a nationwide campaign early next year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Young Share Fishermen
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to restore the payment of unemployment benefit to share fishermen between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are prevented from working by adverse weather or sea conditions.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to make special arrangements for this group.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will strengthen the requirements for potential unemployment pay beneficiaries to seek work.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on the Loyal Address on 24 November at column 245. We propose to introduce a requirement that those claiming unemployment benefits must take active steps to find work.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has regarding the proportion of unemployment benefit disqualification cases in which disqualification was imposed for the maximum period(a) when the maximum was six weeks, (b when it was 13 weeks and (c)> since it was increased to 26 weeks.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no information available on the proportion of cases in which the maximum unemployment benefit disqualification period was imposed when that maximum was six weeks.

  A very limited survey undertaken after the change in October 1986 showed that a maximum period of disqualification—13 weeks—was imposed in about 75 per cent. of cases. A copy of this survey was placed in the Library on 4 March 1988.

  The effect of the increase in the maximum period to 26 weeks in April 1988 is being monitored and results should be available next year. An early examination by the chief

  Family Type

  Family credit ceilings (£pw)

  Housing benefit ceiling (£pw)

  Rates

  Rent

  Gross earnings

  Net earnings

  Gross earnings

  Net earnings

  Gross earnings

  Net earnings

  Single parent, one child under 11

  130

  105·49

  56

  53·20

  55

  52·25

  Single parent, two children under 11

  143

  114·07

  55

  52·25

  54

  51·30

  Single parent, three children under 11

  156

  122·65

  52

  49·40

  51

  48·45

  Married couple, one child under 11

  130

  105·49

  95

  84·29

  93

  82·93

  Married couple, two children under 11

  143

  114·07

  93

  82·93

  90

  80·89

  Married couple, three children under 11

  156

  122·65

  80

  74·09

  78

  72·54

  Notes: Average local authority rent and rate figures for 1988 are:
  For one child family: rent £18·60 per week; rates £7·70 per week
  For two child family: rent £19·90 per week; rates £8·20 per week

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers receiving housing benefit in each local authority.
  122
  adjudication officer of a small sample of decisions indicates that the maximum period of disqualification is now imposed in about 50 per cent. of cases.

  Students
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards the future provision of(a) free dental treatment, (b) free prescriptions, (c) free eye checks and (d) assistance with the community charge, for students in full-time education in receipt of loans under Her Majesty's Government's recent proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 3.27 of the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520). People receiving full-time education under 19 will continue to be exempt from dental and prescription charges and entitled to free NHS sight tests. Others on a low income will be able to get free prescriptions and full or partial help with the cost of dental treatment and sight tests depending on their circumstances. Students who are shown in the community charge register as undertaking a full-time course of education will continue to be liable to pay only one fifth of the personal community charge for which they would otherwise be liable.

  Family Credit and Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a table showing the cut-off points in net and gross terms for families with children claiming family credit and housing benefit based on average rent and rates for families with one, two and three children aged under 11 years, broken down into one and two parent families;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the cut-off points in net and gross terms for families with children claiming family credit for families with one, two and three children aged under 11 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is set out in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  The closing date for submission of statistical returns by local authorities was 16 November 1988. Some returns are still awaited and those received to date are being validated. The information will be made available when checking of all local authority returns is complete.
  123
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the cut in housing benefit experienced by hospital patients after six weeks in hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The downrating of housing benefit after six weeks in hospital was introduced as part of the reforms in April to achieve common rules for the treatment of patients in the main social security benefits. The system ensures that, after downrating, all claimants will have sufficient income to meet their eligible housing costs over and above the basic income support level.

  We have undertaken to continue monitoring the effects of the reforms.

  Benefits
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the budget for publicity and associated costs to increase the take-up of benefits, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Total Social Security expenditure on publicity and associated costs for each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  1·9

  1980–81

  1·7

  1981–82

  1·6

  1982–83

  2·6

  1983–84

  2·5

  1984–85

  4·3

  1985–86

  4·5

  1986–87

  12·6

  1987–88

  12·4

  1988–89

  112·8

  1 Projected expenditure.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimated savings will be made by his Department by the proposed withdrawal of students' rights to income support, unemployment and housing benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to annex E of the White Paper "Top-up Loans For Students" (Cm. 520) which estimates the saving at £65 million in the academic year 1990–91.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons, aged between the years of two and five, are in receipt of attendance allowance; and if he will provide figures for the number of claimants aged two, three, four and five for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. The information which is available is in the table.124

  Attendance allowance

  Number

  Estimated number of allowances in payment for children aged 2 to 5 years at 31 March 1987

  19,800

  Number of claims decided in the year to September 1988 for children aged 2 to 4 years

  8,666

  5 to 9 years

  4,637

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time from the lodging of an appeal against the refusal of attendance allowance to the appeal decision, for the years 1985 to 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The available information, which relates to applications for review made where a claim has been disallowed, where a lower-rate rather than a higher-rate allowance has been awarded or where the claimant believes the attendance allowance board should issue a certificate of attendance needs for a longer period, is in the table.

  Attendance allowance: Average processing times of applications for review of attendance allowance board decisions 1985–1988

  Year

  Average processing time (weeks)

  1988

  19·0

  1987

  18·5

  1986

  14·0

  1985

  13·0

  Family Credit
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average lapse of time between applications being made for family credit and the determination thereof.

  Mr. Scott
  Just under 23 working days in respect of all cases cleared during November. Of this, less than seven working days was for work within the family credit branch. The other 16 days were taken up by waiting for responses to inquiries.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local offices of the Department of Social Security have no staff or officials trained to answer questions from applicants for family credit; and if he will make it his intention to ensure that there is at least one in each local office.

  Mr. Scott
  All local offices have staff trained to answer inquiries about social security benefits, including family credit.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the change in the real-terms value of the pensioners' Christmas bonus for each year since 1972.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 21 July at columns 839-40.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give, on the same basis as the tax/benefit tables, the total income support of an employed married man with children aged four and six, in December 1987, whose income was(a) £70 per week, (b) £120 per week and (c) £140 per week.

  (2) if he will state, on the same basis as the tax/benefit model tables, the total income support of an employed married man with children aged three, eight and eleven, in December 1987, whose income was (a) £70 per week, (b) £120 per week and (c) 140 per week.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the April 1987 tax benefit model tables, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Tax/Benefit Model Tables
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how soon he expects to publish tax/benefit model tables for 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  We expect to publish these tables shortly.

HEALTH

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific progress has been made during the last three years by his Department in establishing methods for stockpiling medical supplies in the event of a nuclear war.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have reviewed peacetime storage arrangements to make greater use of direct supply systems, and introduced large regional distribution systems backed by more local satellite stores. New control systems are being introduced which would facilitate rapid exchange and borrowing between health authorities, the NHS and industry, where required. This is preferable to tying up

  Number of prescriptions (million)

  of which: dispensed by dispensing doctors (million)

  Total number of perscriptions per population

  Net ingredient cost (NIC) (£ million)

  of which: dispensed by dispensing doctors (£ million)

  NIC per thousand population (£)

  1985

  Northern

  24·0

  1·1

  7,780

  98·0

  3·9

  31,772

  Yorkshire

  27·5

  2·4

  7,641

  105·4

  8·8

  29,284

  Trent

  33·7

  2·8

  7,296

  128·8

  10·5

  27,851

  East Anglia

  13·3

  3·7

  6,754

  54·1

  13·8

  27,543

  North West Thames

  22·8

  0·5

  6,537

  92·0

  1·8

  26,413

  North East Thames

  25·9

  1·1

  6,912

  98·2

  3·7

  26,168

  South East Thames

  25·1

  1·1

  6,980

  99·2

  3·9

  27,535

  South West Thames

  19·0

  0·6

  6,421

  78·0

  2·3

  26,323

  Wessex

  19·0

  1·5

  6,671

  78·8

  5·5

  27,621

  Oxford

  14·6

  1·6

  5,990

  61·0

  6·2

  25,036

  South Western

  22·8

  2·6

  7,250

  91·0

  9·6

  28,874

  West Midlands

  38·5

  1·8

  7,426

  146·7

  6·8

  28,301

  Mersey

  19·8

  0·3

  8,173

  72·4

  11·0

  29,864

  North Western

  33·8

  0·3

  8,460

  125·6

  1·1

  31,450

  Total

  339·9

  21·3

  7,215

  1,329·1

  79·1

  28,211

  1986

  Northern

  24·2

  1·1

  7,864

  105·5

  4·3

  34,250

  Yorkshire

  28·3

  2·5

  7,862

  115·2

  9·7

  31,992

  Trent

  34·3

  2·9

  7,404

  141·2

  11·6

  30,473

  East Anglia

  13·5

  3·8

  6,760

  59·3

  15·2

  29,757

  126
  resources in large contingency stocks for emergency use. Further, more detailed planning is still in progress, and guidance will be issued once that work is completed.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding available to the North Western regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health authorities summarised accounts show that gross revenue expenditure in the North Western regional health authority has increased from £383 million in 1978–79 to some £1,003 million in 1987–88, an increase of 162 per cent. in cash and 28 per cent. in real terms. The region has received further increases this year totalling over 9 per cent. in cash or 3 per cent. in real terms.

  We shall be announcing allocations for 1989–90 shortly.

  Community Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed primary care authorities in the light of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding his Department's proposals to set up primary care authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 29 November at column 198.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the last three financial years(a) the number and value of prescriptions in each National Health Service region and express these figures on a per thousand of population basis and (b) the number and value of prescriptions by the source of the prescription in each National Health Service region.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested can be provided only for calendar years and is set out in the following table:
  127

  Number of prescription (million)

  of which: dispensed by dispensing doctors (million)

  Total number of prescriptions per population

  Net ingredient Cost (NIC) (£ million)

  of which: dispensed by dispensing doctors (£ million)

  NIC per thousand population (£)

  North West Thames

  22·7

  0·5

  6,511

  99·4

  2·0

  28,493

  North East Thames

  26·1

  1·1

  6,927

  107·0

  4·6

  28,460

  South East Thames

  25·5

  1·1

  7,042

  108·6

  4·3

  30,009

  South West Thames

  19·1

  0·7

  6,458

  85·2

  2·6

  28,735

  Wessex

  19·4

  1·5

  6,753

  86·6

  6·0

  30,124

  Oxford

  14·9

  1·7

  5,998

  67·0

  6·8

  27,055

  South Western

  23·4

  2·7

  7,375

  100·4

  10·7

  31,600

  West Midlands

  39·2

  1·9

  7,569

  161·1

  1·6

  31,098

  Mersey

  19·9

  0·3

  8,248

  79·4

  1·2

  32,902

  North Western

  34·2

  0·3

  8,563

  137·2

  1·2

  34,376

  Total

  344·4

  21·9

  7,289

  1,453·1

  87·1

  30,751

  1987

  Northern

  25·2

  1·1

  8,202

  117·9

  4·9

  38,312

  Yorkshire

  29·1

  2·6

  8,085

  129·1

  10·9

  35,810

  Trent

  35·9

  3·1

  7,730

  159·5

  13·3

  34,318

  East Anglia

  14·2

  4·0

  7,028

  67·0

  17·1

  33,261

  North West Thames

  23·4

  0·5

  6,711

  110·8

  2·5

  31,759

  North East Thames

  26·9

  1·1

  7,139

  120·3

  4·7

  31,900

  South East Thames

  26·4

  1·2

  7,265

  121·7

  4·9

  33,490

  South West Thames

  19·6

  0·7

  6,612

  94·9

  2·9

  32,061

  Wessex

  20·2

  1·5

  6,948

  97·7

  6·8

  33,634

  Oxford

  15·4

  1·8

  6,175

  75·5

  7·7

  30,180

  South Western

  24·3

  2·9

  7,591

  113·6

  12·3

  35,424

  West Midlands

  41·1

  2·0

  7,912

  182·7

  8·8

  35,154

  Mersey

  21·0

  0·3

  8,701

  89·9

  1·3

  37,315

  North Western

  35·7

  0·3

  8,939

  155·6

  1·4

  38,990

  Total

  358·5

  23·2

  7,562

  1,636·1

  99·5

  34,514

  Note: These figures relate to prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors within the family practitioner service but do not include items personally administered by prescribing doctors. The vast majority of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacies are written by prescribing general medical practitioners but they also include a small number of prescriptions written by dentists, hospital doctors for outpatients, service doctors and doctors on board ship. Prescribing by hospital doctors (except as specified above) is not included as this information is not available centrally.

  Nurses (Grading)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the percentages of nurses in each grade at the theatre department at North Tees general hospital; and what are the comparable surgical gradings at other similar establishments in the region.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  My hon. Friend may wish to consider requesting the information from the health authorities concerned.

  Private Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what contractual constraints exist to prevent National Health Service financial officers who negotiate contracts with private companies from subsequently joining these firms;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to prevent by contract Health Service employees from leaving the service and taking immediate employment with private concerns with whom they were previously negotiating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for health authorities locally to determine such aspects in individual contracts of employment. We have no current plans to alter that position.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently on National Health Service waiting lists for general surgery(a) in the Crewe and Nantwich district health authority and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest figures show that, at 31 March 1988, there were 1,157 patients on the inpatient waiting list for general surgery in Crewe district health authority. The corresponding figure for England was 133,079.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the in-patient waiting list figures in March for the Trent regional health authority; and what were the figures for the previous year and 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting lists, Trent regional health authority

  Total of all cases

  March 1979

  72,864

  March 1987

  57,111

  1 March 1988

  54,894

  1 on a comparable basis with previous statistics.

  Cook-chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of National Health Service establishments currently using cook-chill catering; and if he will name each of the hospitals concerned.
  129
  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information on those hospitals which provide cook-chill catering is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total public sector National Health Service investment in cook-chill catering to date;

  (2) what is the total private sector National Health Service investment in cook-chill catering to date.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that we do not hold this information centrally.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much nurses' pay has increased in real terms since 1979; and what was the comparable increase in the period from 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average pay of nurses and midwives has increased by 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979 compared with a fall of 21 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.

  Cyclists and Motor Cyclists (Casualties)
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number and proportion of admissions to casualty units in London are(a) cyclists and (b) motor cyclists.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Unleaded Petrol (Vehicle Conversion)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has had any discussions for all district health authorities concerning the conversion of their vehicles to the use of lead-free petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Departmental officials have had preliminary discussions with appropriate staff in the National Health Service.

  Lead-free petrol offers benefits in terms of running costs, better health and a cleaner environment. We will shortly be inviting health authorities to follow the example already set by Mersey regional health authority and introduce a programme for progressively switching over to running on lead-free petrol. Steps are being taken to secure favourable terms for conversion and purchase from major manufacturers and distributors and we shall be issuing an information pack to all authorities early in the new year.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those medical journals which are scanned by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and by his Department for reports on adverse reactions to medicines.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: Officials of the Department monitor reports of adverse drug reactions in the published literature by regularly scanning over 200 medical and scientific journals as well as using secondary abstracting sources to monitor other international publications. Regular searches of published literature are also carried out for reports relating to specific drugs. The Department also receives reports of
  130
  adverse reactions in international scientific journals from pharmaceutical companies, from overseas regulatory authorities and from the World Health Organisation.

  A wide range of sources of published information is available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. It is not possible to produce a definitive list.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines indicating(a) their professional background, (b) whether their appointments are full-time or part-time and (c) their remuneration in each case.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 November 1988, c. 149-50]: The entry for Professor M. J. S. Langman, BSc, MD, FRCP should read "—Professor of Medicine, University of Birmingham."

  Midwives
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives in the Mersey regional health authority have been graded as D, E, F, G, H or I; how many Of these midwives have appealed against their grade; and if he will list the number of years experience of each midwife at each grade.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The numbers of midwives in the Mersey regional health authority transferred to each new clinical grade are given in the table. We do not hold centrally information on the number of appeals and on the length of service of individual midwives.

  Clinical grades of midwives in Mersey regional health authority

  Grade

  Number in each grade (whole time equivalents)

  D

  44

  E

  320

  F

  201

  G

  390

  H

  16

  I

  48

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information can be taken into account by the appeal machinery considering appeals for midwives in respect of their allocated grades other than shown on the assessment forms as submitted.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Appeals panels can take account of any information which they consider relevant.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to licence mobile cancer screening units; and if he will list those regulations which currently govern their operation.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 25 November 1988]: The Department has asked health authorities to establish a breast cancer screening programme. It is for health authorities to decide whether this service would be provided most effectively by static centres, mobile units or a combination of the two. We do not propose to distinguish between these two types of NHS unit by requiring mobile units to be specially licensed.
  131
  The statutory regulations which govern the operation of mobile screening units are:
  Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
  The Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1333)
  The Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No. 778)

  The Department's NHS procurement directorate has also issued guidance notes for health authorities on equipment requirements for breast cancer screening which includes comprehensive guidance on mobile breast cancer screening units including the constructional requirements of the trailer and its equipment.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to combat the problems of solvent abuse among young people.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have taken a number of steps to make solvent-based products harder to obtain by young people for the purpose of misuse; to educate young people about the dangers of misuse; and to help parents and those who work with young people to respond to the problem. Recent initiatives taken by the Department include funding a series of training seminars for residential care workers; contributing to the issue of advice to retailers, and the production of a video for parents; and funding an information officer post at the National Children's bureau.

  Hospital Buildings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest information he has as to the average age of hospital buildings.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are now collecting information about the age of hospital buildings as a part of the Körner requirement. This information should be available to health authorities from May 1989.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department plans to introduce a campaign aimed at reducing unwanted teenage pregnancies.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are currently funding three local projects on family planning and pregnancy counselling specifically aimed at young people under 25 in three health districts. The projects began last year, are being centrally evaluated, and will continue until March next year. We hope to use the projects to identify principles of good practice which can be commended to the Health Service as a whole.

  Nurses
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give the latest estimates of the nurses who return to nursing each year;

  (2) what schemes his Department is currently operating to encourage nurses to return to nursing.

  Mr. Mellor
  We estimate that in the last year about 7,200 nurses and midwives returned to practice in the NHS in England.

  Employing authorities locally are best placed to judge the opportunity and need for return to nursing campaigns.
  132
  At national level we have helped by part-funding the Department of Health/Nursing Times "Recruit and Retain" campaign which has covered good practice on return to nursing and by analysing the professional register to identify inactive nurses by place of residence so that properly targeted local campaigns can be run. Next year, we plan to produce publicity and other material for use locally and are currently conducting a survey to identify the most useful types of material.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those district health authorities and Scottish health authorities which charge for a refresher course for those nurses wishing to return to nursing and those authorities which run free courses.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information for England. This is a matter for individual health authorities.

  Information for Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eye tests were paid for by the National Health Service in England and Wales for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of sight tests has been as follows:

  Millions

  1979

  8·6

  1980

  8·8

  1981

  8·9

  1982

  9·2

  1983

  9·6

  1984

  10·3

  1985

  10·8

  1986

  11·1

  1987

  11·7

  Dental Checks
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental checks were paid for by the National Health Service in England and Wales for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is set out in the table, by calendar year up to 1985 and by financial year thereafter.

  General dental services England and Wales

  Dental examinations

  Year

  Number

  1979

  26,025,290

  1980

  27,428,770

  1981

  27,881,370

  1982

  28,838,890

  1983

  29,336,490

  1984

  29,798,070

  1985

  30,120,720

  1986–87

  30,606,430

  1987–88

  30,651,820

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it was decided to stop collecting available bed figures broken down by specialty.
  133
  Mrs. Currie
  This decision was announced in April 1984 by health circular HC(84)10, which set out the agreement between Ministers and regional chairmen on the implementation of the first report of the steering group on Health Services information (Körner).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the available bed figures for 1987 will be published;

  (2) if he will make it his practice in future to publish available bed figures within six months of their collection.

  Mrs. Currie
  We publish information about beds in the National Health Service as soon as thorough validation on returns from all authorities has been completed. The available figures for 1987–88 will be published during January.

EMPLOYMENT

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom are currently self-employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In June 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there were 2,985,000 self-employed people in the United Kingdom.

  VAT
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of new registrations for value added tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987, the latest year for which figures have been published, the number of VAT-registered businesses in the United Kingdom increased by 45,000, or nearly 900 a week on average. The indications are that the rate of increase during 1988 has been faster.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce child care facilities for participants in Government training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Assistance with child care costs of up to £50 per week per child is already available to help all lone parents participating in employment training, the new programme for unemployed adults.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in the numbers of those employed in service industries in the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  Between June 1983 and June 1988, there was a net increase of 2,205,000 in employment in the service industries in Great Britain.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the south-west of England.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1988 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the south-west region was 123,100, a fall of 36,600 over the last 12 months.
  134
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current unemployment levels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fowler
  In October 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,160,200, the lowest for more than seven years. Unemployment has now fallen by 973,000 since July 1986, the longest and largest sustained fall on record.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of employment.

  Mr. Fowler
  Between March 1983 and June 1988 the work force in employment in Great Britain increased by 2,177,000 to 25,174,000, the highest level on record. Employment has now been on a rising trend for more than five years.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current trend of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 214,800, a fall of 41,400 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the London region.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988, the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the London region was 267,100, a fall of 66,700 over the last 12 months. We know from the surveys carried out during the summer that there are also around 150,000 vacancies in London.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 21 years are currently unemployed in Eccles.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures are not available for the requested age group. However, in October 1988 the number of unemployed claimants aged under 20 in the Eccles parliamentary constituency was 335.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local employment offices have unemployment under 4 per cent.; and in which standard planning regions these offices are located.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. The smallest area for which unemployment rates are calculated are travel-to-work areas. In October 1988, 27 of these had rates of unemployment of less than 4 per cent., expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed (south-east 19 travel-to-work areas, East Anglia, four, north two, south-west one and east midlands one).

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the United Kingdom and other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Lee
  Increases in the level of employment in the United Kingdom compare most favourably with those in the European Community. Since 1983 our level of civilian employment has grown by well over 2 million. Between
  135
  1983 and 1987 the increase in employment in the United Kingdom was greater than that for any other European Community member and was in fact approximately equal to that in the rest of the Community combined. Comparisons of the percentage of working age population in employment show that the United Kingdom is well ahead of our major European partners and second only to Denmark in the whole Community.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the east midlands region was 134,800, a fall of 30,900 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of long-term unemployed in June 1983 and September 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures are analysed by duration quarterly. In October 1988 the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for one year or more in the United Kingdom was 885,504, compared with 1,050,487 in July 1983, a fall of 64,983 over the period. This comparison is slightly affected by changes in the coverage of the count as well as seasonal influences.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to revise the basis for collecting unemployment statistics.

  Mr. Lee
  No.

  Mr. Kenneth Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in Lancashire.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the county of Lancashire was 48,347, or 9 per cent. of employees in employment plus the unemployed.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the north of England.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the northern region was 165,700, a fall of 25,000 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently in employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1983 and June 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2,178,000 to 25,739,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces, and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how many, and as a percentage of those registered as unemployed, the unemployment figures have fallen for Lincolnshire over the past three years.
  136
  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the county of Lincolnshire was 17,775 compared with 26,964 in October 1985, a fall of 9,189 or 34 per cent. over the three-year period. The figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change in the coverage from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations for young people aged under 18.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of(a) men and (b) women, over the age of 50 years who are at present unemployed in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 13 October 1988, there were 39,695 male and 14,178 female unemployed claimants, aged 50 or over, in Greater London.

  ACAS
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to meet the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service before 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Ministers of the Department meet the chairman of ACAS from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is making very good progress indeed and interest amongst long-term unemployed people remains high. By 25 November there were already 91,500 people training with training managers.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if any individual trade unions have expressed an interest in co-operating with employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A number of trade unions and many individual trade unionists are helping to make employment training successful. I welcome this positive co-operation in helping longer-term unemployed people back into work.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of places taken up on the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 25 November there were 91,500 people training on employment training.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the trades union council to discuss adult training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries the Training
  137
  Commission has received from the public about the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Agency has received a large number of inquiries about employment training. There has been considerable interest in the programme by unemployed people, and by 25 November 91,500 people were already training with training managers.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the loan guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The loan guarantee scheme is currently due to run to 31 March 1989. An announcement about the future of the scheme will be made as soon as possible.

  Industry (Productivity)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's report on productivity in British industry up to July.

  Mr. Cope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British Venture Capital Association to discuss investment in small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  I met Mr. John Nash, chairman of the British Venture Capital Association, when I opened the British Venture Capital Association financial forum on 1 December.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to improve the skills of entrepreneurs running small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" published by my right hon. Friend describes new arrangements for delivering training, including that for entrepreneurs, and for the small firms service. This will lead to closer co-ordination of counselling and training for small firms. They are closely related activities and both will benefit.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the new registrations for value added tax by small businesses in 1980 and 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  The figures for numbers of VAT-registered businesses, new registrations and deregistrations are as follows:

  Business registrations, deregistrations and stocks in the United Kingdom: 1980–87

  Thousand

  1980

  Stock at start of year

  1,289

  Registrations

  158

  Deregistrations

  142

  138

  1980

  Net change

  16

  Stock at end of year

  1,305

  Note: The pattern of registrations and deregistrations may have been affected by disturbances in the regular processing of register amendments because of industrial action in 1979.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small firms were registered for value added tax on 31 December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  It is estimated that approximately 1,513,000 businesses were registered for VAT on 31 December 1987, and that some 96 per cent. of these firms are small.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the director-general of the Institute of Directors to discuss the development of small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the director-general of the Institute of Directors frequently.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to encourage employers to recruit older workers into jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend and I have emphasised through public media the need for employers to recognise fully the potential contribution of older workers, particularly in view of the declining numbers of young people, and we will continue to do so. Jobcentres, where appropriate, raise with employers the need for age restrictions in vacancies they notify. We will keep under review how best to put the message across.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enterprise agencies are currently operating in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We know of 427 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 387 are approved under provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (previously under provisions of the Finance Act 1982), which allow business sector sponsors tax relief on their contributions to such bodies.

  Long-term Unemployment (London)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of his Department's survey on long-term unemployed in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have not received any representations following the publication of the surveys of vacancies and longer-term unemployed people in London. The surveys reveal that although there are nearly 300,000 people unemployed in the capital there are also 150,000 vacancies and there is scope for a substantial reduction in unemployment.
  139
  At least a third of the vacancies on offer require no special qualifications or experience. But in any case many of London's longer-term unemployed have academic or vocational qualifications, including nearly one in 10 who have degrees. Many of them also have experience in management or skilled jobs. They therefore already have the background which employers are seeking.

  A quarter of the longer-term unemployed people interviewed had not looked for work in the last week. Furthermore, many of those who said they were actively looking for a job did not do so using the methods which employers use to fill vacancies.

  Some unemployed people in London clearly need the opportunity to retrain in up-to-date skills, and we now have employment training for them. But others need to look more intensively for the available jobs for which they are already well suited. The surveys also underline the importance of the measures the Government are taking to ensure that benefit is drawn only by those who are genuinely unemployed.

  Trade Union Officials
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of hours taken off work by trade union officials for union business in 1987–88.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Statistics on this subject are not collected. These matters are determined between employers and union officials within the legal framework provided.

  Portsmouth
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to visit Portsmouth in the near future.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have no plans to visit Portsmouth in the immediate future.

  Young People (Working Hours)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has conducted research into the possible effects on the physical and mental health of 16-year-olds of working hours considerably in excess of 48 per week without properly regulated rest periods.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department has not conducted any such research as there is no medical evidence to suggest that young people are less capable of working extended hours than adults.

  Tourism (Far East and Japan)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to encourage visitors to the United Kingdom from the far east and Japan.

  Mr. Lee
  The far east and Japan are increasingly important tourism markets, and the British Tourist Authority has developed a number of marketing initiatives specifically to increase visitor numbers from these areas. There were some 320,000 visitors to the United Kingdom from the region in the first six months of 1988, an increase of 24 per cent. over the same period in 1987.

  Self-employment (Report)
  Mr. Richard Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of the Training Commission's report on the self-employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Women
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he takes to ensure that current Government policies will enable women in sufficient numbers to join the work force in the next decade.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has taken, and will continue to take, steps to enable women to join the work force through deregulatory measures which free women to compete equally with men for jobs; and positive action to help women obtain the necessary training for employment.

  Nearly 1·5 million more women joined the labour force in the five years to March 1988.

  In addition, all Government policies are now equal opportunity-proofed so that their effect on women can be assessed. My own Department has equal opportunity-proofed new policies and programmes since 1985.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the increase of employment of women following the publication of the Training Commission report 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government place great importance on the contribution that women can make to meeting skill needs in the Labour market. In developing its training programmes the Government has listened carefully to the advice it has received from numerous organisations with an interest in the economic development of women.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of disabled people of working age are employed; and what action he is taking to increase job opportunities for disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest information relating to disability and employment is that provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the recently published report on the financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households, based on a survey in 1985. The survey estimated that 31 per cent. of all people of working age, who met the definition of disability used in that survey, were in employment. However, the survey information published to date does not make it possible to establish the proportion of those not in employment who would have been available for work.

  For answer to the second part of the question I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to further improve the employment opportunities for the disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department maintains a comprehensive network of services to help people with disabilities find and
  141
  retain jobs through advice, assessment, rehabilitation and training; and in the case of people with severe disabilities, support in the form of sheltered employment. My officers are continuing to give all possible help through the application of these services and are doing so against a background of increasing employment opportunities. The range of services and help supported by my Department are the subject of an internal review, set up in March, work on which is now well advanced.

  Small Firms (Report)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations has he received following the publication of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Department of Employment and Training Commission report on small firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I am not aware of any representations following the representations following the report. The Public Accounts Committee took evidence on it on 14 November.

  Job Clubs
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of job clubs.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on Wednesday 30 November, at column 274.

  British Tourist Board (Annual Report)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in response to the publication of the 1987 British Tourist Board's annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations in response to the British Tourist Authority's annual report for 1987–88.

  Tourism
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's proportion of the world tourist market.

  Mr. Lee
  It is provisionally estimated that in 1987 receipts from international tourism in the United Kingdom accounted for about 7 per cent. of the world total.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has taken steps to assess the efficiency of the operation of the section 4 financial assistance for tourist projects of the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The efficiency and effectivemess of the section 4 scheme is being examined as part of the review of tourism policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 18 July.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the contribution of overseas tourists to invisible earnings in 1987.
  142
  Mr. Lee
  Overseas tourists contributed £6·2 billion (8 per cent.) to total invisible earnings of £80 billion in 1987.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourists visited the United Kingdom in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Overseas residents made an estimated 15·4 million visits to the United Kingdom in 1987.

  School Leavers (Statistics)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many summer 1988 school leavers have yet to find either employment or a place on the YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  This information is not available.

  Textile Operatives (Skill Levels)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he is making in improving the level of skill of textile operatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Textile employers have the responsibility for determining and meeting the skill and training needs of operatives in their industry. The training agency has a close working relationship with the textile industry training organisations and is supporting projects run by them to develop standards of competence and to improve the level of skill of textile operatives. It is also currently funding over 900 YTS places in textile manufacturing.

  I hope that employers will seize the opportunity which the Government's employment training programme affords them to improve recruitment and training in the industry.

  Training Commission.
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for the Training Commission.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House yesterday in which he announced the publication of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s"; and to the Employment Bill.

  Skill Shortages
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement about proposals to deal with skill shortages.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the chapter on training in the White Paper "Employment in the 1990s," published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday.

  TVEI
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Cope
  All education authorities in Great Britain are now participating in the technical and vocation initiative and 48 of them have begun to extend the
  143
  initiative to all their secondary schools and colleges. Students in some 1,400 schools and colleges are benefiting from the enriched curriculum provided by TVEI, and the education of virtually all 14 to 18-year-olds in Great Britain will become more relevant to working life as the extension programme develops within the overall framework of the Government's education policies.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are fully aware of views expressed about the drawbacks of the scheme. However, as was made clear in the previous parliamentary Session there are no current plans to change its operation.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide additional resources for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Yes. The gross supply provision for 1988–89 is £109 million and the previously planned provision for 1989–90 is £112 million. This will now be increased following the outcome of PES discussions, and consideration is being given as to the amount.

  YTS
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of two-year YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of October 1988 there were 435,200 young people training on YTS and, since the launch of YTS in 1983, 2 million young people have joined the scheme.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the level of safety for YTS trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the level of safety for YTS trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Health and safety remain of paramount importance in YTS. YTS is fully covered by health and safety legislation. There is a contractual requirement on all managing agents to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act both in work placements and off-the-job training. In addition, positive commitment to health and safety is one of 10 criteria a training organisation now has to satisfy before achieving approved training organisation status.

  We have in hand improved safety training packages both for young people and trainers.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds have accepted training places in YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of October 1988 YTS records show 435,000 young people in training on YTS. A total of 252,000 young people entered YTS for the first time between 1 April 1988 and 31 October 1988—the majority of these entrants were 16 and 17-year-olds.
  144
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report figures to show the categories of training and numbers of trainees on each, undertaken by females on YTS schemes (a) nationally and (b) in Durham, North-West constituency.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of October 1988 there were 169,500 females in training on YTS nationally. The occupational breakdown of these trainees is shown in the following table.

  Information is not available for trainees in Durham, North-West constituency. However information on the numbers of females in training by training occupation for the Training Agency Durham area is available, but not immediately to hand. I will write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Occupational breakdown of females on YTS schemes, 31 October 1988

  Occupations

  Number of females in training

  Administrative and clerical occupations

  56,500

  Creative and educational and recreational service occupations

  3,700

  Health, community and personal service occupations

  44,600

  Selling and storage occupations

  27,900

  Scientific occupations

  700

  Catering and food preparation and processing occupations

  8,400

  Agricultural and related occupations

  5,100

  Fishing occupations

  1

  Transport operating occupations

  500

  Construction and civil engineering occupations

  1,600

  Mining, oil extraction and quarrying occupations

  1

  Electrical and electronic engineering occupations

  700

  Mechanical engineering and metal production and processing occupations

  1,400

  Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  800

  Non-metal processing occupations

  900

  Printing occupations

  700

  Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  10,200

  Security service occupations

  1

  Others

  5,700

  TOTAL

  169,500

  1 Less than 50 trainees.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the vacancy factor on YTS schemes(a) nationally, (b) in the northern region and (c) in the Durham, North-West constituency.

  Mr. Cope
  At 31 October there were around 120,000 YTS places unfilled nationally, about 7,000 in the northern region and 395 in the local authority districts of Derwentside and Wear valley. It is not possible to provide separate figures for the constituency of north-west Durham.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and proportion of YTS trainees who are of black or Asian origin.

  Mr. Cope
  Of the 396,100 young people in training on YTS at 31 March 1988, the latest available date, the number of young people who identified themselves as of black or Asian origin was 10,966 (2·8 per cent.). Number and participant rates for ethnic minority trainees on employment training is not yet available.
  145
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and proportion of YTS trainees who are female.

  Mr. Cope
  Of the 435,200 young people in training on YTS at 31 October, 169,500 (39 per cent.) were female.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of YTS participants in(a) the northern region, (b) Durham,

  Percentage of YTS leavers in full-time employment — northern region, County Durham and Great Britain figures

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Northern region

  Total number of leavers

  n/a

  127,000

  130,000

  125,000

  123,000

  Percentage of leavers in full-time employment

  n/a

  242

  240

  242

  246

  County Durham

  Total number of leavers

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  3

  3

  Percentage of leavers in full-time employment

  n/a

  n/a

  241

  243

  247

  Great Britain

  Total number of leavers

  128,000

  368,000

  418,000

  356,000

  324,000

  Percentage of leavers in full-time employment

  249

  255

  253

  256

  257

  1Estimated.

  2 Information extracted from 100 per cent. follow-up survey.

  3 Information not readily available.

  Note: County Durham figures relate to the Training Agency's Darlington Area, the best available approximation.

  EC (Labour Statistics)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts to discuss the levels of unemployment in the Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The next meeting of the Council of Employment Ministers will be on 16 December. The main agenda items are in the area of health and safety at work. We will, of course, be taking every opportunity to raise employment issues and the contribution that the single market can make to employment growth.

  Training Opportunities
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will undertake a survey of the training opportunities for those who enter employment at the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will undertake a survey of the training opportunities for those who enter employment at the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Cope
  This Department already collects information from a variety of sources on the training opportunities for young people who enter employment at 16. The principal sources at national level are the surveys undertaken through the youth cohort study and specifically commissioned research into vocational training standards in particular occupations.

  The best local source of information is from the local authority careers service.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the number of apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement.
  146
  North-West constituency and (c) nationally moved into full-time employment at the conclusion of their training for each of the last available five years.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. Results for leavers from the northern region, the county of Durham and Great Britain, where available, are shown in the attached table. A substantial number of the remainder go into full-time education or training (16 per cent. in the northern region 1987–88).

  Mr. Cope
  It is for employers primarily to ensure the level of apprenticeship training that their industry needs. The Government encourage them to adopt cost-effective practices, in particular training to standards instead of wasteful timeserving, and also make a substantial contribution to support apprenticeship training through YTS.

  The extension of YTS to a two-year scheme has increased the opportunities for all 16 and 17-year-old school leavers to benefit from the structured training and work experience previously only available to those undertaking formal apprenticeships.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements his Department is making for applications to the European social fund as part of the reformed European structural funds; and what action he proposes to take in regard to consultations with local authorities in drawing up the plans to be submitted to Brussels by 30 June 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  The European Commission is currently consulting member states about how best to implement the objectives of the reformed structural funds, including the European social fund. In the light of these consultations my Department is considering the arrangements which will need to be made and guidance will be issued as soon as possible to all the parties concerned, including local authorities.

  Women (Technical Training Courses)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to increase the number of women school leavers who enter technical training courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government give priority to ensuring that school-leavers have equal opportunities to enter
  147
  technician training or other training courses in Technical or Information technology subjects. The training agency policies reflect this, including YTS special women-only courses, reserved place schemes, Local action plans and new initial training arrangements to help young women to enter training which is unconventional to their gender.

  The technical and vocational education initiative which is not being extended across all education authorities will also enable girls aged 14 to 18 to experience technology, and encourage them to obtain skills and qualifications of more direct relevance to working life, while still at school or college.

  Short-stay and Tourist Breaks
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage English cities to promote short-stay and tourist breaks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  As part of the Government's action for cities campaign, my Department is supporting the English Tourist Board's inner city initiative, whose aim is to encourage the development of inner-city tourism potential. The board has also supported the great English city breaks promotion, which has so far led to the sale of 75,700 bed-nights in the 14 cities involved.

  Strikes (Lost Days)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work days were lost through strikes in October 1978 and October 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in October 1978 was 1,857,000. The most recently available figure relates to September 1988, for which it is provisionally estimated that 1,210,000 working days were lost; the October 1988 figure will be published on Thursday 15 December in the labour market statistics press notice.

  Tourism and Hospitality Projects
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current capital investment in new tourism and hospitality projects.

  Mr. Lee
  The English Tourist Board's tourism investment report shows total investment in construction projects with a capital value of over £500,000 for the period January to June 1988 amounted to £1,984 million. This represents an increase of 60 per cent. over the same period in 1987.

  Manufacturing (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in 1979 in manufacturing industry in the north west; and what is the comparable figure for the latest date available.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1979 there were 970,000 employees in employment in manufacturing industry in the north-west region. In September 1988 the latest date for which regional figures are available, there were 601,000.

  Job Vacancies (London)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of job vacancies in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988 the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the Greater London region, seasonally adjusted, was 29,000. This figure does not include all vacancies in the economy. A survey conducted in June 1988 showed that there were around 150,000 vacancies in total in Greater London, around four and a half times the level of vacancies recorded at the jobcentres at that time.

  Redundancy Fund
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to enable employees of an insolvent business to obtain payments from the redundancy fund without first obtaining a certificate from the receiver or liquidator; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has it in mind to amend the provisions so as to clarify the circumstances in which the Department may pay an employee direct without being obliged to seek first a statement of the amount due from the relevant officer. The proposal will be included in the forthcoming Employment Bill.

  Restart Interviews
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information has been sought by Peat Marwick McClintock, as advisers to the Department of Environment on housing action trusts in Lambeth, about facts disclosed in job restart interviews.

  Mr. Lee
  Peat Marwick McClintock sought general statistical information from the employment service about unemployed people living in proposed housing action trust areas. No individual details disclosed at restart interviews have been retained by the consultants.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been interviewed for the restart scheme at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  Between 1 July 1986 and 28 October 1988, 4,814,000 restart interviews have taken place.

  Youth Training Allowance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider increasing the youth training allowance.

  Mr. Cope
  The weekly allowance for first-year YTS trainees was increased to £29·50 in July 1988. There are no plans at present to further increase YTS allowances.

  Tourism (Review)
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made on his tourism review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The review team has seen a wide range of people in the tourism industry and received many written representations. I expect to receive its report at the end of the year.

  National Community Service
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a programme of national community service.

  Mr. Cope
  We have no plans to introduce a programme of national community service. Community benefit is taken into account, where appropriate, in the choice of training projects under employment training.

  Training Commission
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Training Commission; and what subjects they discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers of this Department meet the chairman regularly to discuss the performance of the Training Agency's (formerly Training Commission) functions.

  Regional Cost of Living (Survey)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations following the publication of the Reward group's September survey on cost of living in the regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations.

  Disabled Workers
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to improve the job opportunities for registered disabled workers, following the recent report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).

  The recently published information in the report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, on the financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households, does not provide sufficiently precise information about the employment needs of people with disabilities. My Department has recently commissioned a survey to provide such information, the results of which will be available in the second half of next year.

  Mr. Martin Davies (Compensation Claim)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the case of Mr. Martin Davies, of 14 March way, Coventry, and his claims for compensation against the Training Commission, then the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Lee
  No. A full investigation into Mr. Davies's case was held by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in 1980. I am not aware of any developments since then which would warrant a further review of Mr. Davies's claims.

  Youth Statistics
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number and proportion of 150
  16 and 17-year-olds in (a) northern region and (b) Durham, North-West constituency who are currently (i) in full-time employment, (ii) on recognised training schemes and (iii) unemployed.

  Mr. Cope
  The number of young people in training on YTS in the northern region on 31 October, the latest available date, was 33,200 and in Derwentside and Wear valley (the nearest approximation to north-west Durham constituency) 952. Comparable information at that date for 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time employment is not available.

  There are now hardly any under 18-year-olds recorded as unemployed.

  Industry-linked Schemes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the numbers of school students currently participating in school industry-linked compact schemes.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department is currently assisting partnerships of employers and education authorities in 30 inner-city areas to develop plans to establish compacts in 1989. Applications for operational funding are due to be submitted early in the new year. Until then it will not be possible to provide any estimate of the numbers of young people who will be participating.

  Household Income
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average weekly household income for(a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) the northern region and (c) Durham, North-West constituency for each of the last available five years.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on average weekly household income is available from the family expenditure survey, but estimates are not available below regional level. Also, because of the relatively small sample size, estimates for some regions, including the northern region, are based on two years' data.

  The figures for 1984–85 and 1985–86 are as follows:

  Gross normal average weekly household income

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  United Kingdom

  207·06

  225·37

  Northern Region

  170·78

  187·72

  Because of the introduction of the housing benefit scheme in November 1982, figures for earlier years are not available on a comparable basis.

  West Midlands
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In October 1988 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the west midlands region was 212,200, a fall of 61,400 over the last 12 months.

  Training Programme
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the estimated number of people
  151
  who have been transferred from the community programme to the employment training programme in (a) Great Britain, (b) Scotland, (c) the Lothian region and (d) Edinburgh.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 5 December]: No community programme participants have been transferred to employment training. However, most community programme participants are eligible to join employment training and many have chosen to take up the worthwhile training opportunities that are available.

  Young People (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in Derbyshire are currently employed, unemployed and on YTS schemes.

  Mr. Cope
  The number of young people in training on YTS in Derbyshire on 2 December 1988, the latest available date, was 8,280. Comparable information at that date for the number of young people in full-time employment is not available.

  With the guarantee of the offer of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds who apply for one and who are not in full-time education or employment, there are now hardly any under 18-year-olds recorded as unemployed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Charitable Housing Associations
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has consulted the Charity Commission about the vires of charitable housing associations entering into mixed funding schemes and taking over council housing under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is in regular contact with the Charity Commission. The precise form in which the objects of charitable housing associations are expressed varies, and the compatibility of any particular proposed action with those objects will depend on all the circumstances of the case.

  Council Houses (Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much cash received by district councils from the sale of council housing is at present frozen(a) in total and (b) within each district council of Devon.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, a local authority may in any year use 20 per cent. of its accumulated and in-year receipts from the sale of council houses for prescribed expenditure as defined by schedule 12 to the Act and regulations made under it. It may also at its discretion use receipts to redeem debt or to finance expenditure which is not prescribed expenditure but which is properly chargeable to capital account.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much has been allocated by the Housing Corporation to individual Merseyside housing 152
  associations for adaptations to properties tenanted by disabled people; if he will list the associations' bids; and what were the comparable figures for 1987–88;

  (2) how much the Housing Corporation has allocated throughout the United Kingdom for adaptations for the disabled; and what were the comparable figures for 1987–88.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held by the Department. The Housing Corporation is responsible for allocating its capital programme for grants and loans to individual housing associations and types of scheme within the broad framework agreed annually with Ministers. I have therefore asked the chairman of the corporation to provide the information requested to the hon. Member direct.

  House of Commons (Lighting)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of illumination was recorded from the pre-1941 lighting in the Chamber of the House; and what are the current levels.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no information pre-1941.

  For details of the current levels I refer the hon. Member to the answer to his question of 1 December at column 362.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the effects on PRC house reinstatements of the move to disallow for tax relief interest payments on mortgages required for loans to carry out reinstatements.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have received very few representations urging the removal of mortgage tax relief on loans where designated PRC houses are being reinstated. Decisions on changes to the tax system are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Housing Subsidies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost to the Treasury of housing subsidies to local authorities in each of the last nine years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The annual cost of housing subsidies from 1979–80 onwards can be found in successive White Papers beginning with "The Government's Expenditure Plans, 1985–86 to 1987–88".

  Housing Co-operatives (Review)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how far the review of housing co-operatives has progressed; whether in this review, he is taking special notice of the needs of ethnic minorities; and whether he will be initiating legislation to give recognition to co-operative tenure.

  Mr. Trippier
  The co-ops review is making good progress. Its remit is to look at all aspects of co-op promotion and support, and it is currently addressing the many issues raised in the written responses received from co-ops and other interested parties, including those mentioned by the hon. Member.

  English House Conditions Survey
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the reasons for the delay in the publication of the 1986 English house conditions survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report was produced as soon as the analysis was complete.

  Vacant Council Houses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if his figure for national council house vacancies included the number of houses vacant due to major repairs and modernisation;

  (2) how he calculates the length of time council house vacancies exist; and how average figures for this are calculated.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authorities report the number of council-owned dwellings empty at 1 April in their annual housing investment programme returns. They also provide a breakdown of this total according to the length of time that the dwellings have been empty (six months or less, over six months up to one year, over one year up to two years, and over two years) and the reasons why, including the number which are awaiting or undergoing major works of repair or modernisation.

  The Department is currently undertaking a more detailed survey of empty local authority dwellings at 1 October 1988, which will also include information about the types of dwellings which are empty, and the average time dwellings let between 1 April and 30 September 1988 were empty.

  Council of Environment Ministers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions he has personally attended the European Economic Community Council of Environment Ministers.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have delegated the leadership of the United Kingdom delegation to this Council to the Minister responsible for the environment, currently my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside and previously my noble Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Water, and the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Planning. They have all performed with outstanding success.

  Planning Application, Torquay
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether English Heritage has been informed of the planning application for housing development at Steps Cross Field, Torquay (SX9167).

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. This is not a matter before the Secretary of State but I understand that Devon county council notified English Heritage of this application.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under
  154
  occupational leases, of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non domestic buildings.

  Mr. Ridley
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on VAT will have no effect on my Department's capital building programme, since compensating adjustments have been made to the relevant expenditure provisions. At this stage, before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option to tax rents, it is not possible to offer meaningful estimates of the effects of the judgment on rental costs.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen Mckay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to bring in regulations to provide for his Department or any other Government Department to deliver to each household an estimate of the amount of poll tax to be paid by that household.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. But there will of course be regulations to enable the charging authority to provide each person liable to pay the community charge with details of the amount due and the payment arrangements.

  Calderdale (Homelessness)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to take to avoid further homelessness in Calderdale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 1 December 1988]: A review of legislation relating to the subject of homelessness is under way. It is not possible to say when the review will be complete, but efforts are being made to bring it to a speedy conclusion. The Secretary of State has no plans to make a statement at present.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what circumstances a local authority withholds any moneys approved by him under the urban programme; and what action he will take to ensure that moneys approved by him under the urban programme are paid within a reasonable period.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 28 November 1988]: Urban programme grant from my Department reimburses a local authority for expenditure it has incurred on approved urban programme projects. It is therefore the authority's decision whether to fund a new urban programme project, once it has been approved by my Department. I would normally expect a local authority to continue to pay urban programme moneys for an ongoing approved project provided it was satisfied that the moneys are being properly spent.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State far the Environment if he will set out the number of appeals against right-to-buy valuations made in each London borough during the current financial year, indicating the numbers upheld by the district valuer.
  155
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The latest available information (at 1 December 1988) is as follows:

  Appeals made to the district valuer

  Valuations provided to date by the district valuer

  Original valuations upheld

  Barking and Dagenham

  53

  24

  6

  Barnet

  39

  18

  12

  Bexley

  3

  Nil

  Nil

  Brent

  27

  19

  5

  Camden

  197

  167

  19

  Croydon

  29

  18

  8

  Ealing

  1

  1

  1

  Enfield

  4

  4

  1

  Greenwich

  216

  169

  2

  Hackney

  30

  12

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  26

  24

  6

  Haringey

  22

  20

  4

  Harrow

  4

  3

  3

  Havering

  31

  12

  3

  Hillingdon

  17

  14

  6

  Hounslow

  54

  44

  10

  Islington

  190

  169

  95

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8

  7

  4

  Kingston

  3

  2

  1

  Lambeth

  34

  21

  3

  Lewisham

  42

  21

  3

  Merton

  10

  11

  9

  Newham

  15

  12

  8

  Redbridge

  12

  6

  Nil

  Richmond

  42

  28

  19

  Southwark

  86

  77

  1

  Sutton

  16

  15

  Nil

  Tower Hamlets

  140

  120

  42

  Waltham Forest

  37

  26

  4

  Wandsworth

  61

  43

  22

  Westminister

  64

  35

  18

  City of London

  7

  6

  Nil

  Note: The figures for Lewisham include those for Bromley.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is to happen to sewage agency agreements between local authorities and present water authorities following privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Paragraph 15 of schedule 23 to the Water Bill provides that existing sewerage agency agreements between water authorities and local authorities will continue to have effect after the privatisation of the water authorities. The agreements will be terminable by either party giving reasonable notice to the other. However, sewerage undertakers will not be able to give notice which expires before 1 April 1992. If agencies are terminated then local authority staff engaged on the sewerage work will be protected by the termination provisions in existing agreements.

  CFCs
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to change the arrangements for recovering CFCs from scrap refrigeration equipment: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Department of Trade and Industry are discussing with representatives of the refrigeration and rigid foam industries and of the CFC manufacturers possibilities for recovery of CFCs from scrap refrigeration equipment and their subsequent recycling or destruction with a view to developing advice on the matter. There are at present a number of economic, technical and logistical problems to overcome.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Salmonella in Eggs and Poultry
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to safeguard the production of poultry and eggs in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to current concerns about infection of eggs by salmonella species. We must keep this problem in perspective. The number of outbreaks in 1988 is very small in relation to the number of eggs which are eaten every day. Nevertheless, I know that the poultry industry accepts its responsibility to consumers to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of salmonella organisms present in or on food. This task is being tackled energetically by the industry in co-operation with the government departments involved.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that she is aware that the retailer/producer does not have to be licensed at present. I believe that that is in line with Common Market legislation so that people with a few hens producing a few eggs are not involved. There is substantial activity in this country under that heading, with such people producing perhaps 1,000 turkeys for Christmas dinner or 100 eggs a day. What do the Government propose to do about the unlicensed retailers/producers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, under the zoonoses order salmonella isolates have to be reported to the state veterinary service, which is doing excellent work in investigating every salmonella enteritidis incident and advising the producer concerned how he can best deal with the incidents on his farm. Representatives of MAFF and industry have drawn up a voluntary code of practice for poultry health scheme members for the control of salmonella in breeding flocks. That code will be distributed today. We have urged the industry's leaders to ensure that its members act on this matter without delay.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the chance of catching a salmonella infection from eggs has been put in the range of 1:200 million or 1:300 million? Does she recall that when we had a debate in the House on agricultural research and development on 10th November she said that there was no intention to cut funding for work related to
476
food safety and particularly with regard to salmonella in poultry? Will she be good enough to reconcile that statement with the fact that the unit at the Institute for Food Research in Bristol, which is nearest to finding a system to prevent salmonella in eggs and poultry, is to be shut next March as a result of government cuts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's question, about 9 billion eggs a year are consumed. There have been 46 reported outbreaks of salmonella; 46 reports are 46 too many. However, I still say that we should keep the matter in perspective. With regard to research, MAFF commissions over £1 million of research each year into the microbiological safety of food, including salmonella. I have a great deal more information about which I can write to the noble Lord should he wish. With regard to the closure of the salmonella project at Bristol, it has been decided that the work on the manipulation of microbial flora of the gut of young chickens should cease from April 1989 as the work is at the stage where it is ready for the industry to develop. A commercial company has expressed interest in taking that work further. Government financial support for the work will not be lost; it will be diverted to other important microbiological research. The redeployment of the staff involved is being considered by their employers; namely, the AFRC.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be better if the Government stopped eating their eggs curried!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is safe for my noble and learned friend to eat eggs provided they are properly cooked—no matter what recipe he uses.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in the matter of advice to the public on food safety, although I recognise that the primary responsibility rests with the Department of Health, does not the noble Baroness agree that her ministry has a major interest as well? Does not some of the confusion which arises from time to time, not merely about salmonella and eggs but about other commodities, stem from the fact that the liaison between the Department of Health and her ministry is perhaps not as close as it might be? As a consequence, when statements are made by one ministry, they may not have the same degree of emphasis as statements made by another ministry.
To guard against this in future and in order to help both the consumer and the producer, will the noble Baroness invite both her Minister and the Secretary of State for Health to consider the possibility of making joint statements in the names of both Ministers whenever food safety is involved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wish to assure the noble Lord that my ministry and the Department of Health are working extremely closely together. The Parliamentary Secretary of MAFF was sitting beside the Secretary of State for Health yesterday in the House of Commons in order to reinforce that fact. I have every confidence that the two

477
departments will continue to work hand in glove on this matter.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Government have been cutting back their financial contribution to poultry products research? The Bristol Poultry Breeders' Association has made them aware of that fact. We are very concerned. The industry expressed its concern to the ministry and said that the quality of poultry and poultry products would suffer. Has this not happened? Therefore are not Her Majesty's Government partly responsible for the rise in salmonella poisoning in this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must tell your Lordships that work on salmonella and chickens and eggs generally is strategic research and will continue.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware, and will she not confirm, that the whole story has been blown up out of all proportion by her colleague, Mrs. Edwina Currie? What I want to know is what the heck we are going to do with a woman like that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought of various cute replies to the noble Lord's question, but I think I shall duck this one!
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, on Channel 4 last night it was stated that an ingredient of chicken feed is dead chicken. Is that true? Does the Minister think that that is desirable or right? Also, since producers of free-range eggs are not licensed, is she satisfied that a great many producers of free-range eggs feed their chickens with uncooked domestic kitchen scraps which may be hatching the salmonella?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to chickens being fed bits of chicken, the recycling of animal protein in the protein processing plants is covered by the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Orders. The rendering involved utilises high temperatures which will kill salmonella organisms.
With regard to salmonella entering the eggs in the poultry production chain via feed in general, which would cover the noble Lady's other point, it is possible that home produced or imported feedstuffs can be contaminated with salmonella. Producers should demand that feedstuffs should be prepared in a way which minimises the risks of salmonella contamination. There are various orders which require that protein derived from animals and intended for inclusion in the feedstuffs should be free of salmonella.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in her initial reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, the noble Baroness said that this problem was being tackled energetically. Can she tell the House precisely what that means? By whom is it being tackled energetically and what action is being taken?
478
In relation to another part of the noble Lord's question, can the noble Baroness say how many unlicensed hatcheries there are in this country and whether the Government propose to give them authority to sell chicks as before?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the last part of the noble Lord's question, representatives of the egg industry and MAFF have produced a preliminary draft code of practice for egg producers. It is hoped to finalise the code later this week. The MAFF veterinary investigation service will initiate a winter advisory campaign for the control of salmonellosis by commercial poultry and egg producers, and that includes producers who are not members of the poultry health scheme.
We are carrying out a whole lot of scientific studies; we have produced a code of practice. It will he highly advisable that egg producers should follow the code of practice in their own interests. We shall be taking whatever other steps are necessary in the light of circumstances as they are revealed. Our veterinary service is doing a splendid job whenever a case is reported to it, as is the Public Health Laboratory in the Department of Health.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in order to complete the statistical picture before we leave the subject, is the Minister able to say from figures in the Government's possession how many people in this country were struck by meteorites last year?
Baroness Trumpington: Well, my Lords, I know that I am meant to answer for the Government, but off the top of my head, none.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness has described the relationship between the two relevant ministries as a hand in glove relationship. Is that appropriate in the circumstances?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is better than a chicken and egg situation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, how will the code of guidance that the Minister mentioned be monitored?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I understand it, codes of practice in themselves cannot be enforced in court. But if one of our inspectors found that a producer was acting against the code of practice that, as I understand it, could be brought into evidence in a court case.
Lord Somers: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether any scientific tests have been carried out to prove that there is a greater source of danger from battery produced eggs than from free range eggs?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.

Broadcasting: Legislation
2.52 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to bring forward legislation in the current session concerning broadcasting.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. But we intend to bring forward major broadcasting legislation in the course of this Parliament.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people thought that legislation was going to come in this Session? However, the delay has some advantage in that viewers will have an opportunity of seeing whether or not satellite television is worthwhile. But the delay has a more serious effect on the many small companies which had gathered money and talent in hoping to have a community licence. Can anything be done to allow some of those community licences to be granted and to avoid having to wait until next year for legislation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend says that there are many people who thought that legislation would be introduced in this Parliament. I would say to him that that is one of the dangers inherent in any form of speculation. With regard to his second point, my right honourable friend announced on 2nd November the approval of the IBA scheme for 20 community radio stations. So something is being achieved in this area at the moment, but it will be better when there is legislation.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I hope the Minister can help me and explain why the Government changed their mind about bringing forward a separate radio Bill during this Parliament, but not of course this Session. Is not the Minister aware that the White Paper is swamped by television, and that only two pages out of 45 are devoted to radio? Something like 30 million people a day get great pleasure out of listening to the radio. Should not the Government think again about separating the radio issue? All the concentration, discussion and criticism have fastened on television with very little mention of radio.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that question is an interesting one. Had she listened, as I am sure she does, to the words of wisdom of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, she would have heard that he thought there was already too much legislation this Session. It is for that reason that it was decided that the chances are when legislation is produced, if it is produced—I shall not say whether it will be produced, or when—it might include the subjects in which the noble Baroness is interested.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if my words were words of wisdom, why do the Government not observe them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was the noble Baroness who I thought should absorb the words of wisdom of her noble friend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in case the Minister has misunderstood my question, perhaps I should say that I had in mind in the end two smaller Bills rather than one very large Bill. The same amount of legislation would be involved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Baroness has ever tried putting water through two two-inch pipes or one four-inch pipe, she will know that the one four-inch pipe contains more water.

The Mappa Mundi
2.58 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to retain the Mappa Mundi in Britain.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yesterday in another place my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts expressed his concern and his wish that a solution involving both the private and public sectors be achieved which would be acceptable to all the interested parties. He wishes me to reaffirm his belief that it should be possible to find such a solution, one that will keep the map in Britain, and he will be working with all the parties to that end.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. But does she not agree that it is a flagrant breach of trust to offer a map, which is part of the national heritage in general and that of Hereford in particular, for sale at public auction? Will the Government act swiftly in this matter by raising the money in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, to make sure that the sale does not take place? In the long run is not the solution to this problem to recognise that our cathedrals are national treasures which should be supported by the nation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is still early days. Time is needed to work out a solution to this whole problem. On the question of treating cathedrals as a national responsibility, your Lordships will recall that it was in response to the Churches' own preference in 1977 to give priority to parish churches, but to exclude cathedrals from the Government's general programme of church repair grants. But if the Church of England now feels that circumstances have changed so radically that the present policy is out of date, English Heritage will be happy to talk to it. But I should warn your Lordships that such a change might lead to a reordering of priorities within the historic churches repair grants budget.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that he would welcome the Government reviewing with the Church the relations between Church and state so that important ecclesiastical treasures throughout the country can get the support of the central Exchequer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the same answer that I have just given applies to this question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, should not the Government avoid being too intrusive in this matter? Surely this is a matter where the Church itself should decide how to dispose of its possessions in order to carry out its obligations to cathedrals and to the Church? If we move along this road, someone will suggest that we nationalise the cathedrals. That is something we do not want.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister in another place stands ready to act as an honest broker in all the discussions which take place between the various bodies which have become involved in this proposed sale. As I said before, there is time to work out a solution because many discussions will be taking place in the near future.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is highly desirable not only that the map should remain in this country, but that it should remain at Hereford with which it has long historical associations, and where it is far more likely to be seen and to arouse interest than if it went into some general collection?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that the map is held by Hereford Cathedral as the custodian of the map, although the cathedral is not the actual owner of the map. If the cathedral can think of other ways of preserving the map—as I hope it will—as part of Hereford's treasures, then naturally it will remain at Hereford.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, if the cathedral is the custodian and not the owner, how is it able to sell the map?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is one of the national treasures. It is my understanding that the strict interpretation is that the cathedral is the custodian of the map.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, every piece of property in this country has an owner of some kind. If Hereford Cathedral chapter is not the owner but the custodian, who in fact is the legal owner of this object?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the nation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to say that I honestly do not know. I took advice from the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, before I entered the Chamber. It was he who informed me that the cathedral was the custodian of the map.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify that point. The point is that the dean and chapter are the custodians of the map in a moral sense. That does not mean that they do not own the map, but it is rather different from merely owning it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is before the General Synod of the Church of England at the moment draft legislation which, if it eventually receives Royal Assent, will make it impossible for a dean and chapter to act unilaterally without obtaining further advice and agreement?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of that fact. That is a matter for the Church authorities. Perhaps I may return to the previous question. Information has now reached me that the dean and chapter own the map.
Baroness Birk: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Baroness Birk: You have already asked a question.
My Lords, in order to keep the map in this country, and recognising that the resources of the National Memorial Heritage Fund and other heritage bodies are not infinite, would the Government be prepared to give a crumb of that contingency fund, from which they were prepared to pay £100 million for the Thyssen collection, in order to solve the future of the map? In the event of an appeal being lauched, would the Government be prepared to encourage that initiative by matching it pound for pound?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that I must go back to the original point. We are still holding discussions with the various bodies involved and it is very much up to the dean to decide whether or not to sell the map. Once those discussions have taken place that kind of question can be examined.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that a few weeks ago very few people in this country knew of the existence of the Mappa Mundi? Will she also agree that after this welcome golden shower of publicity the dean and chapter may be well advised to show enterprise and responsibility by placing the map on public show, charging the public and using the income for the conservation of the cathedral? If they have any doubts about the tourist value, perhaps the dean and chapter will consult the English Tourist Board.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. There must be very good opportunities for marketing such a treasure by putting it on display. However, that is essentially a matter for the dean.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in answering the right reverend Prelate my noble friend said that she knew the Synod was to recommend that a dean and chapter should obtain advice before disposing of articles such as the map. Can she say from whom it is suggested that they should take that advice?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I think that is a matter for the Church itself.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that what emerges from these exchanges is that Her Majesty's Government have no policy whatsoever towards the future of British cathedrals and their contents, which are national treasures? is she aware that that would be the responsibility of successive governments? Will she convey that to her right honourable friend and make sure that there is a policy which can be defined to the nation within an appreciable time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord absolutely and fundamentally. However, when I answered an earlier question I pointed out that if the Church of England considers that circumstances have changed since the cathedrals were excluded from the Government's general programme of general church repair grants, etc., English Heritage will be delighted to discuss the matter. Those bodies—English Heritage and National Heritage—were formed in order to do that very work. However, I warned that their purses are not infinite and therefore it could lead to a reordering of priorities within the historic churches repair grants budget.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that what has emerged from these exchanges is a very welcome determination from herself to do everything that she can to save the map for the nation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am confident that a solution will be found.

Nature Conservancy Council: Report
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report from the Nature Conservancy Council on its review of its holdings and what will be the status of that report.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council expects to submit a report on its review of national nature reserves by the end of the year. It will be a report to the Government. The results of the review will be announced in due course.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he tell the House who will be consulted about the findings of that report? For example, will the conservation bodies be consulted, and who else is likely to be consulted? Can he also tell us what we are to deduce from the fact that even in advance of the publication of the report the Nature Conservancy Council is to experience a cut in its funding for next year? I am aware that there is a £1.2 million increase in the amount of money paid, but £500,000 of that is earmarked for Abernethy and, allowing for inflation, the remaining money represents a cut in real terms of 5 per cent. in the budget. Is there any connection between what may happen as a result of the report and that cut in the council's money?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we shall certainly consult interested parties before any final decisions are taken. With regard to the finance that the Government have put into the Nature Conservancy Council, I think that it is very important to put the matter in perspective. In 1979–80 the amount of money which the Government placed was some £8 million, and next year it will be in excess of £40 million. That is an increase of 150 per cent. in real terms after inflation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister can continue to hide behind 10 year-old statistics. I asked a question about next year's funding. Can he answer that question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, an increase of 150 per cent. in real terms after inflation is a very substantial increase over a decade. I am not avoiding the question. We shall increase expenditure next year, and we have increased it enormously in the past decade.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I apologise, but—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry, but this is a fact and the Minister is avoiding it. There is to be a cut in real terms for next year of 5 per cent. One cannot escape that fact.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have at no point denied that expenditure next year will increase from £38.5 million to just over £40 million. I have reminded the noble Baroness of the very important fact that expenditure in real terms over those 10 years has risen by 150 per cent. and have put the matter into perspective.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister has given an assurance that other conservation bodies will be consulted about the activities of the Nature Conservancy Council. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that other bodies which are affected by the decisions of the Nature Conservancy Council, such as the forestry industry, will be consulted before statements are made on behalf of the council?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I should hope very much that my first supplementary reply, which indicated that we shall consult all interested parties before final decisions are taken, would include forestry interests.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister enlighten the House as to what mandate the Secretary of State for the Environment thinks he has to hand over national nature reserves to non-public bodies except following a revision of scientific opinion as to their scientific value?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that of 234 national nature reserves only 63 are owned outright by the Nature Conservancy Council. The remainder are for the most part owned by private individuals.
Baroness White: My Lords, that does not answer my question in the least. A number of nature reserves are owned by the Nature Conservancy Council. Anyone who has read the report which came out a little over a week ago, under the name of Mr. Wilkinson, who is the very admirable chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, will recognise that the council itself is deeply disturbed at what it understands to be the intention of the Government; namely, to deprive the council of its authority and ownership of such nature reserves as it owns and to hand over those nature reserves to other bodies which would have to finance and manage them. It may be desirable in certain instances—
A noble Lord: Too long!
Baroness White: I am, my Lords, trying to get an answer that really answers the question. What mandate has the Secretary of State for the Environment to hand over public property of that kind to non-public bodies without giving a scientific reason for the basis of his decision?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the review will consider whether any of the reserves owned by the Nature Conservancy Council could be transferred to private owners or voluntary bodies. However, it is very important to remember that the proviso would be that there were adequate safeguards for conservation in those circumstances.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the new director of the council has a permanent appointment?
Lord Hesketh: No, my Lords. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness David: My Lords, following the question—
Baroness White: My Lords, is it not the case that the new director is in fact only seconded from the Department of the Environment?
Baroness David: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lady White, can the Minister say whether it is the policy, or indeed the wish, of the Secretary of State to prevent the Nature Conservancy Council acquiring any new national nature reserves at any time? There is at least one, at Caenlochan—a very important reserve—that is up for sale at the moment. Can the Minister please respond to that question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is certainly not the intention of the department to prevent any further increase in the number of national nature reserves. In fact, one has been created every two weeks since we started. At the moment there is only a temporary hold on new nature reserves. In exceptional circumstances that could be overruled as well if there were important circumstances which required the immediate implementation of such a nature reserve.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Ackner, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birdwood, L.

Birk, B.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Chitnis, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Dainton, L.

David, B.

Davidson, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkland, V.

Ferrers, E.

Gallacher, L.

Gibson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Greenway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hampton, L.

Havers, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hilihead, L.

Kimball, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. ( L. Chancellor)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Nicol, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Peston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Pym, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sandys, L.

Seebohm, L.

Serota, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

487

Walston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Young, B.

—(The Chairman of Committees.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Ackner, L.

Airedale, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Belstead, L.(L. Privy Seal)

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Caithness, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

David, B.

Denham, L.

Elton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Havers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Jacques, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (L. Chancellor)

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Renton, L.

Serota, B.

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

—(The Chairman of Committees.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will be acutely aware, as are the Government, of the sharply increased public concern over the care, protection and upbringing of children which has been generated by recent events. We are therefore glad that two major reviews of the law governing children have recently been completed. As a result the legislative response to current and deeply felt worries can be provided in a wide and carefully
488
considered reform of both the public and private law of children and family services.
The Bill in my view represents the most comprehensive and far reaching reform of child law which has come before Parliament in living memory. It brings together the public and private law concerning the care, protection and upbringing of children and the provision of services to them and their families.
Public child care law is a subject of fundamental importance, with two main aspects: first, the responsibility which Parliament gives the executive, mainly the local authority, to intervene in private family life on behalf of the community in order to help the children; and secondly, the court processes for adjudication in respect of such intervention.
Almost a hundred years ago the Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act, 1889 put on a statutory basis for the first time a series of offences against children. During the century since then parts of our present framework have been constructed and developed but usually in a rather uncoordinated way. All those provisions of the main Acts which are still extant are reflected in the Bill with the exception of adoption, which is a specialised subject. Necessarily there will be some Acts concerning children, such as legislation relating to employment of children and specialised disablement provisions, with which we deal by reference, but by far the greater part of statute law will be here in a form which is simpler, more accessible to those who work with it and more comprehensible. I am glad that by this Bill we shall be able to repeal in full no fewer than seven post-war Acts, limit others to purely criminal provisions and others largely to adult provisions.
In the report Children In Care, published in 1984, the Social Services Committee in another place said that there should be a thoroughgoing review of the body of statute law, regulations and judicial decisions relating to children. The Government responded with some speed. The result, only 18 months later, was the Review of Child Care Law. This was a detailed report to Ministers and a consultation document on proposals and options for codification and amendment of child care law. It formed the basis for the well-received White Paper The Law on Child Care and Family Services published in January 1987. Throughout the development of our proposals we have consulted widely with legal, social work, child care and other interests.
The concern of recent years about the present legal framework for children has been fuelled by the tragic and, to many, incomprehensible phenomenon of child abuse. Some 100 children, some of them known to local authority social services departments and some actually in their care, die each year at the hands of a parent, step-parent or connected adult. At any one time about 40,000 children in England alone are on child protection registers. We were shocked too by the events in Cleveland, and helped by the very careful and thorough report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss we must ensure that over-zealous handling of such cases does not recur. But equally the reports on the deaths of Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile,

489
Tyra Henry and others show the importance of ensuring that children at risk are properly protected. This points to the need to have in place a legal framework that gives effective protection to those who are too young and too vulnerable to defend themselves and is also fair to those most affected, particularly parents and others with parental responsibility. This balance has been shown to be missing from child care law at present. We have also failed to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights that the present law in relation to parental access to children in care is satisfactory. The Bill seeks to correct these and other deficiencies of the present law.
We have adopted certain guiding principles for reform of the public law on children. The prime responsibility for the upbringing of children rests with the parents, but in cases of need the state should be ready to help, especially where doing so lessens the risk of family breakdown. Services to families in need of help should be arranged in voluntary partnership with the parents, and the children enabled to continue their relationship with their families where possible. Parents' legal powers and responsibilities for caring for a child should only be transferred to a local authority following a full court hearing and then only where there has been harm or there is risk of harm to the child. Though the interests of the child are the primary concern, parents should be able to be properly represented and should therefore be full parties in court proceedings in addition to the child. Emergency powers to remove a child should be of short duration and subject to court review. Finally, the legal responsibilities of local authorities caring for a child taken away from home should be clear. The powers and responsibilities of parents in these circumstances should also be clear.
So far as the private law is concerned, Parts I and II of the Bill largely implement the proposals of the Law Commission in its Report on Custody and Guardianship which recommends consolidating and amending the existing law in those fields to form a single rationalised regime which meshes with the Government's proposals in the White Paper to produce a consistent code. I should like to pay tribute at the outset not only to the commission's work in producing such clear and desirable reforms in the private law, but also to its help, and in particular that of Professor Hoggett, in analysing and formulating the Government's proposals for reforming the public law. The Bill demonstrates the very real and practical advantages which can flow from government departments and the Law Commission working closely together. And it is my earnest hope that similar co-operation will continue in other areas of the law.
I have dealt at some length with the background to the Bill. It may be helpful if I now go through it briefly and outline some of its main provisions. In Part I we have the keynote proposition of the existing law. It is that the child's welfare should be the paramount consideration when the courts reach decisions about his upbringing. That principle governs not only the making of orders in private cases, such as divorce, but also the court's decision on
490
whether to place a child in the care of a local authority or under its supervision. Clear as the statement of paramountcy is in Clause 1, there is always a danger that such a broad principle can lead to inconsistent practice and even to courts overlooking relevant matters of detail. Accordingly, subsection (2) follows the Law Commission's recommendation and provides a checklist of specific matters to which the court should have regard.
There is one final provision of Clause 1 that I would mention. That is the prohibition in subsection (4) against courts making any order under the Bill unless that would be better for the child than making no order. There is a danger that a child may be put in local authority care because of inadequate home circumstances but without evidence that the order would improve the situation. And in family proceedings the Law Commission noted a tendency to make orders simply as part of the divorce package. This provision aims to discourage both those practices.
Your Lordships will have noted a change of terminology in the Bill. The fundamental concept in this area of law is no longer to be expressed variously in terms of rights, duties, authority or even powers of parents, but simply as "parental responsibility". The phrase, recommended by the Law Commission, is apt to my mind. It emphasises that the days when a child should be regarded as a possession of his parent—indeed when in the past they had a right to his services and to sue on their loss—are now buried forever. The overwhelming purpose of parenthood is the responsibility for caring for and raising the child to be a properly developed adult both physically and morally.
Clauses 2 to 4 generally modernise and restate the incidence of parental responsibility and aspects of its exercise, I hope in much clearer terms. An important change affecting unmarried fathers is included. The Family Law Reform Act 1987 already makes provision enabling the courts to confer full parental status on such fathers and, as the Government have already announced, it is hoped to bring that part of the 1987 Act into force soon. Clause 4 will allow unmarried fathers to have equal parental responsibility by making a formal agreement with the mother without going to court.
The Bill also reproduces the existing law on the appointment of guardians to replace a parent when she or he dies. The only major changes here are that the appointment will simply need to be in writing whereas now it has to be in a deed or will, and that unless the child is living under a court order with the parent who dies the appointment in future will not take effect until both parents are dead.
Part II introduces four new orders. Anyone familiar with the case law or who has read the supplement to the Law Commission's working paper on custody will know how obscure and misunderstood existing orders are. Accordingly under the Bill the courts will cease to make orders which purport to apportion theoretical parental rights and duties and both parents will continue to have parental responsibility. The new orders can thus focus on settling the arrangements about the person

491
with whom the child is to live by making a "residence order". The court is also to have power to make "contact orders" about allowing the child to visit or have contact with a named person. In addition, if there is a dispute about a particular matter—for example, where the child should go to school, or whether he should undergo a serious operation—the court can make a "specific issue order" settling the matter. And finally, the court will be able to prohibit any particular step being taken in respect of a child without the court's permission—a "prohibited steps order".
Those orders will be available in proceedings seeking one or more of them specifically; in other proceedings affecting the family (most notably, divorce); and in care proceedings. Subject to some restrictions, requiring the permission of the court or parents in some circumstances, it will be possible for anyone to apply for one of these new orders. The aim of the restrictions is largely to protect children and families from unwarranted interference. Together with the wide range of orders, these more flexible rights to apply for orders should reduce the need to invoke wardship.
A major concern with litigation about children is delay. In Part II, the Bill states as a general principle that delay is likely to harm children and goes on to give the courts power in private proceedings to draw up timetables and to give directions about the conduct of proceedings. There are similar provisions in Part IV for care and supervision proceedings.
Part III sets out the principal responsibilities of local authorities to children in their area who are in need and their families, and to children whom they look after. It brings together in one statute the main local authority responsibilities to families with children, including those at present set out separately for disabled children. This should help to focus attention on the role of local authorities in supporting the family. Local authorities will have a new duty to promote the upbringing of children in need by their families so far as this is consistent with their welfare duty to the child himself. There are further requirements in Schedule 2 designed to help children in need to continue to live with their families and generally to prevent the breakdown of family relationships. Partnership with parents based on agreement so far as possible will be the guiding principle.
This will also apply where children are provided with accommodation under voluntary arrangements because, for example, the parents are prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care themselves. The present arrangements for reception into care often carry unwarranted association with parental shortcoming. Provision of accommodation in these circumstances should be seen as a service to the family without any stigma. The Bill makes clear the rights of the parents and the responsibilities of the local authority when this particular service is provided. Parents will no longer have to give notice before withdrawing their children from voluntary arrangements, and authorities will no longer be able to assume parental rights over children by
492
administrative resolution. The authority will have to promote contact between the child and his family, consult the child and the family on decisions and establish a procedure with an independent element for considering representations.
Part IV is a major feature of the Bill. It sets out new grounds on which the court will have to be satisfied before making care and supervision orders in any proceedings. These include the likelihood of the child suffering significant harm in the future. This will make it unnecessary for local authorities to continue to turn to wardship in order to avoid the difficulty that a mere anticipation of future harm is not at present a sufficient ground on which to seek an order.
The effect of a care order is that the local authority has parental responsibility for the child. The authority may only deny reasonable contact with the child in care under a court order or in emergencies for a maximum of seven days. Parents and others will be able to apply for an order for contact whether or not, as at present, contact is refused or terminated. Thus restrictions on access will be capable of challenge.
Rules of court will provide for maintenance of the status quo in respect of legal representation of the child. Moreover, the Bill provides that guardians ad litem should be appointed in all care proceedings, including those arising from family proceedings, except where the court considers this unnecessary to protect the interests of the child. It also provides for rules to be made concerning the way in which the guardian ad litem should assist the court. The Secretary of State will by regulations be able to lay down management arrangements and for joint working between authorities to promote more efficient guardian ad litem panels, which will thereby be distanced from the social services departments with which they deal.
I recognise that there will be concern that legal aid is granted swiftly to parties in care proceedings. This will be the responsibility of the Legal Aid Board, which takes up its functions in April next year. Speed will be achieved by waiving the merits tests for those who are automatically parties to the case, granting legal aid in advance of completion of the means tests and by making other special arrangements.
Part V makes major reforms in emergency protection. Here we seek to strike a balance between the need to protect children from harm in emergencies and the need to allow aggrieved parents to challenge action taken in respect of their children—the need for which was graphically illustrated by what happened in Cleveland. There will be a new emergency protection order limited to a maximum of eight days and extendable only once by up to seven more days. There will be a new opportunity for parents to apply for the order to be discharged after 72 hours if they were not present at the initial hearing.
The holder of the emergency protection order will be under a duty to take only such action as is necessary—which could leave the child where he is—and a duty to return him if his continued removal proves to be unnecessary. And the court will have power to give directions on contact and medical

493
examinations at any time an emergency protection order or interim care order is in force.
Part V also allows an emergency order to he enforced by a constable acting under a warrant, as at present, and it will allow the holder of the order to locate other children on the premises who are thought to be at risk. Police powers to take a child into police protection are to be limited to 72 hours and aligned with the other emergency protection powers, as proposed in the White Paper.
Finally, as recommended in the Jasmine Beckford report, local authorities and other agencies will be required to co-operate in support of a more active investigative responsibility placed on social services departments.
I must say a word about wardship. The Government, in line with the Law Commission's decision to postpone making recommendations about wardship, have not sought in this Bill to reform that area of child law as such, although many of the reforms both in the private and public statute law should substantially reduce the need to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. There is one exception, however. The conditions in the Bill which must be satisfied before the state, in the guise of the local authority, can intervene in families by seeking emergency protection, care or supervision orders are carefully designed as the minimum circumstances which can justify such action.
Accordingly, the Bill prevents the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, which is not limited by such conditions, being used to confer compulsory powers on local authorities. It is recognised that in practice the High Court would not be likely to exercise its power in cirumstances where a care order would not he justified under the Bill. However, as a matter of principle it is important for the law in a free society expressly to protect the integrity and independence of families save where there is at least likelihood of significant harm to the child from within the family.
The Bill does not prevent the High Court when hearing a wardship application making a care or supervision order under the Bill where the statutory conditions for such an order are satisfied. And what I will say in a moment about the concurrent jurisdiction will mean that complex or weighty care cases which require the expertise of the High Court will benefit from it under the Bill. Further, local authorities may still invoke wardship for other purposes, provided that there is no alternative statutory procedure and there is an apparent likelihood of substantial harm to the child.
Parts VI and VII replace with amendments existing provisions of the Child Care Act 1980 on local authority community homes, the regulation of voluntary homes and responsibilities to children accommodated in those homes. Parts VIII and IX re-enact, also with some amendments, similar provisions for private children's homes in the Children's Homes Act 1982 and those governing private arrangements for fostering children. We also intend by amendment to revise the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948 to regulate day care facilities provided privately for children under five years of age.
494
The Secretary of State's inspection and other supervisory functions and responsibilities are set out in Part X.
I turn now to Part XI. Clause 66 provides for the abolition of care orders as a disposal for juvenile offenders in criminal proceedings. There has been concern for some time that this disposal represents local authority care as a punishment when it should be seen as the best available way of safeguarding and promoting the child's welfare. In its place the Bill provides that the court can add a residence requirement to supervision orders in appropriate serious cases.
Turning generally to jurisdiction and procedure, I have said elsewhere that their reform in family cases must follow on reform of the substantive law. The logic is simple. It is the substantive law which determines the job which the courts have to do and it must be that law which determines matters of jurisdiction and other arrangements within the courts. If I may say so, this Bill goes one better. In reforming the law relating to children it also provides for the redesign of the court arrangements and procedures to meet the needs of children's cases.
First among the changes in those arrangements is Clause 69, which will create a concurrent jurisdiction in all children's proceedings. Thus, for example, in future an application for a care order will be able to be heard in a magistrates' or county court or in the High Court. And to emphasise the civil nature of those proceedings the Bill by amendment will take power to shift jurisdiction to hear care applications from the magistrates' juvenile court to their domestic court, thus finally obliterating any criminal overtones in those cases. Amendments to the Bill to give rights of appeal to the High Court in care and supervision cases will further emphasise their civil nature.
In addition to concurrent jurisdiction, there will he power under the Bill to require certain types of case to start at a specified level and in a particular court at that level. The intention is to require care applications to begin in magistrates' courts, from where some would be transferred to higher courts.
Secondly, every court having jurisdiction under the Bill will have power to transfer proceedings to another such court if this is more appropriate.
Thirdly, the power to transfer cases will be governed by criteria dealing with the complexity, weight or importance of the case. They will also refer to the need for speed in dealing with cases so that, for example, a magistrates' court which for some reason was unable to give an early hearing could transfer the case to a neighbouring magistrates' court or to a county court if that would speed up disposal.
Together these provisions will create a flexible system under which cases, according to their complexity, can he heard at the appropriate level of court. It will also enable all proceedings affecting a child to be heard in the same court and at the same time by magistrates and judges who are experienced in and who have made a special study of family work.
These powers will be exercised initially in relation to local authority care cases and adoption. The

495
powers will, however, be wide enough to rationalise the hearing arrangements for all children's cases under the Bill if that proves desirable.
The proposed arrangements are novel but we intend that cases moving around the system should do so in accordance with consistent and speedy procedures. Among other things we shall arrange for the courts concerned to produce information about cases in the pipeline, especially care cases, and to make this information available to their opposite numbers in courts to which they might transfer those cases. We shall also devise proper administrative arrangements for transferring cases. The Government intend to underpin the system by empowering the Home Secretary to require magistrates' courts to take the steps which I have described.
Other steps are being taken to deal with care cases. We are exploring what can be done to strengthen links between local courts. We are also considering what central co-ordinating machinery is necessary to promote a consistent judicial approach and to monitor administrative effectiveness.
Noble Lords will appreciate that care proceedings in particular involve a wide range of people with different responsibilities and interests. Uncoordinated, such a system is liable to produce delay, prejudice to the child, confusion and waste. The combination of these measures, together with those which I have already mentioned in relation to the administration of guardians ad litem, aim to create an efficient and effective system of jurisdiction.
Looking to the future, the Government are determined that all litigation concerning the family should be arranged to ensure that the best results are achieved with the available resources.
As this Bill indicates, it is not practicable or desirable to throw over existing machinery wholesale. Rather we intend to approach the problem in ordered stages, linking reform of the jurisdiction and procedure with the continuing review and reform of the substantive law.
With this Bill the Government have put in hand a programme of work which will extend step by step to all aspects of family law and business. We are, for example, looking at the matching of judicial resources to cases, the matching of procedure to substantive law, the organisation and function of welfare services and the appropriate balance between formal adjudication and conciliation.
Your Lordships may recall that on 11th July my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place that the Government hoped to make a statement about the family court by the autumn. I hope that what I have said today will be seen as redeeming that pledge. The major improvements which the Bill will achieve in the substantive law, procedure and jurisdiction take us a long way towards achieving the general approach to all family litigation sought by those who have been calling for a family court. The Government will not stop here, however, and the way forward is signalled by this Bill.
496
I hope that the Bill will be seen on all sides of the House as a landmark in children's legislation. It deals with important and difficult issues which require great care and sensitivity. The Bill will, in particular, establish a framework of rights and responsibilities with which to see that children in need receive the care, upbringing and protection they require, and that parents and others with an interest in the child can play a full part in those crucially important decisions. I accordingly commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.44 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is a pleasure to express the gratitude of the House to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for a masterly exposition of the Bill. It is also a pleasure to express on behalf of the official Opposition the general approval of what in the history of our legislation may well be termed the children's charter.
In his introduction the noble and learned Lord referred to the background to the Bill. It has a substantial history, which is one of scandalous cases; inter-departmental reports; consultation papers; a report by Mr. Blom-Cooper on poor little Jasmine Beckford; a report by a Lord Justice of Appeal on the Cleveland cases; a government White Paper; and a Law Commission report. Against that substantial background of human cruelties, plus the consideration of them with the greatest of care, we now have the Second Reading of this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill can be summarised as being to consolidate, clarify and reform. There is a great need for that. I should like to quote from the Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 presented by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. At page 216, paragraph 13.31, it states:
"We were told of the inadequacy of the present child care legislation and its failure to balance the interests of the child and the rights of parents. The shortcoming in the legal framework was seen by the Associations to have an effect on the way in which public opinion reacted to issues related to child abuse".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the Law Commission report. At the commencement of its exercise it states:
"The main principles of the law are reasonably clear and well accepted. The details, however, are complicated, confusing and unclear. The result is undoubtedly unintelligible to ordinary people, including the families involved, and on occasions may prevent them or the courts from finding the best solution for their children".
Any attempt—as the Bill undoubtedly is—to reform, consolidate and clarify must be welcomed in your Lordships' House.
There are some fundamental principles in the Bill to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention. First, he rightly spoke in terms of parental responsibilities, quite apart from parental rights, as being one of the fundamental principles which the Bill carries into effect. Secondly, throughout the Bill the overriding principle is expressed as being the wellbeing of the child. Thirdly, in looking after the wellbeing of the child there is a need to ensure that the machinery of the local authorities, our legislation

497
process and our courts is speedy and effective. They are the three principles.
In considering them at Second Reading and throughout the remaining stages of the Bill, when in an endeavour to improve the terms of the Bill we shall enter into great detail, we must remember that we are not just dealing with sexually abused children, but with all children—children who are deprived, children who have been cruelly treated, children who have been abandoned, children who have been neglected, children who are out of control and all too often children who are used as ammunition in the fight that parent so often has against parent.
I make some pleas to the Government and I make them at Second Reading, which should deal with general principles and not detail. My first plea is that the Government should not delay the implementation of this Bill. Its provisions are so badly needed. Clause 78 provides that commencement dates are to be fixed by the Secretary of State and that there will be different dates for different provisions and in relation to different cases. Perhaps when he replies to this debate the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will be good enough to indicate when the provisions of the Bill may be brought into effect.
I shall tell him why I especially stress that. It took 10 years before the provisions of the Children Act 1975 were finally implemented, which was a scandalous amount of time. I hope that this Bill will have the energy and, if I may say so, the dynamism of the Lord Chancellor who in a moving speech said how much the provisions are needed. They are needed, and may they be expedited and carried into effect.
My second plea is very necessary. I suppose that it was made all the more necessary when I heard the noble and learned Lord utter the words "available resources". It sends a shudder down the spine of some noble Lords when we hear about resources being made available to local authorities for welfare, general purposes and other matters of great social concern. I also looked with fear and trembling at the commencement of the Bill, where it deals with the financial effects. I read these words:
"The full annual cost of the Bill will therefore be between £4 million and £11 million of which £4 million will fall to local authorities and between £0 and £7 million to courts administration and legal aid. There may also be one-off training costs for local authority staff training".
My second plea to the Government is that of all matters being dealt with in the financial programme they should not stint on children.
I mentioned the question of training. If ever anything should not be stinted on it is on the training of those who are meant to carry out the active part of this Bill. It is so easy for us as legislators to think with some sort of sanctimonious comfort that we have looked after the children. We have passed a measure and have given great consideration to the provisions of the Bill. However, the people who have to carry it out are the people who have to be specialists for this job of all jobs. That has been emphasised and must not be forgotten.
498
I turn at once to the report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on the inquiry into child abuse. Perhaps I may read what she said by way of conclusions on training. I quote from page 225 at paragraph 15.2, which states:
"We regard training as an issue of central importance in ensuring that the special needs of children who have or may have been sexually abused are properly recognised and met".
She was talking about sexually abused children. What she said there and in the subsequent paragraph that I read applies to most of the children who come into care and who have problems. The report goes on:
"It was our overwhelming impression that the training provided nationally is inadequate".
She goes on to talk about the lack of training for general practitioners, social workers and nurses and says how essential that training is.
It is very common for the media, as your Lordships know, to criticise social workers. Either they have interfered and done too much or they have not been anywhere near the family or the premises and they have done too little. What they do in this specialist field is psychologically so important that the whole future physical and mental make up of the child depends on the accuracy of their judgment and the speciality of their conduct. If we stint on training resources we are not carrying out what we think we may be carrying out if the Bill goes on the statute book.
Perhaps I may ask some questions before I sit down. As the noble and learned Lord emphasised, Clause 69 is terrifically important because it deals with what he so rightly emphasised was a great improvement in jurisdiction; that is. it allows the Lord Chancellor to specify the courts and the provisions for transferability. Those are terribly important provisions. I did not understand, and I know it was my fault, his allusion to the family court and the compliance with an undertaking of the Attorney-General. I did not find his words very clear—and I repeat it must have been my fault. I did not know whether he was saying, "Look, in this Bill you can see that we have built the foundation for that unified court, the family court, which has been recommended by so many authorities and of course is also recommended in the Butler-Sloss Report". Was he saying that we have built the foundation or that we have built a substitute for the family court? Is the substitute to be the transferability from magistrates' court to county court arid High Court without all the conciliation procedures and without having a unified court dealing with all family problems? Perhaps in his kindness the noble and learned Lord will clarify what he said in that connection.
My next question is in regard to guardians ad litem to which the noble and learned Lord also drew the attention of the House. Clause 36(7) provides that the Secretary of State can establish panels from which the guardians ad litem may be selected. Clause 36(8) states that this is without prejudice to his ability to confer duties on the Official Solicitor. Will the noble and learned Lord please tell the House what he has in mind in that connection?

499
I particularly have in mind that the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper suggested for discussion that an office of child protection should be provided. That is not mentioned in this Bill. From what the noble and learned Lord has spoken about, and from what we see in this Bill relating to the Official Solicitor's duties being conferred on him without prejudice to what is said about the guardians ad litem, are we to understand that the Official Solicitor is to take the place of what was formerly intended to be the office of child protection?
For my next question I turn also to the matter of guardians ad litem. At one time it was mooted—sensibly, if I may humbly say so—that there should be a national administration of guardians ad litem as against a local one. I am not entirely sure whether that is carried out in the Bill. It seems to me that it is not. If it is not—I wonder whether it is sensible—it means that the guardians ad litem will be managed, as I see it, and paid in the area of the local authority and by the local authority which they may have to combat and oppose on occasions. Is it sensible that that should be so, or should there not be national administration?
My final question is this. There will be an increase in cases in which the guardians ad litem will be involved by virtue of Clause 36, to which, again, the noble and learned Lord referred. I am reliably informed that there are already delays in some parts of the country in getting these guardians appointed due to the lack of resources. I have referred to resources previously. Can we be assured that that will not happen after the provisions of the Bill are carried out?
Having said all that, I repeat what I said earlier. The official Opposition welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on it, though we may have to differ in some respects when we reach other stages of the Bill.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of this Bill. Your Lordships may have heard it somewhat cynically observed that children cannot be too careful in their choice of parents. We should realise that Parliament cannot be too careful in legislating to protect children from the difficulties which children do absolutely nothing to create.
The Bill is of vital importance, not only for what it sets out but for what it may sweep away. Among other things it will govern the circumstances in which children can be taken from their parents, sometimes irrevocably; the circumstances in which parents can be prevented from seeing their children; and the circumstances in which parents may even lose the right to be consulted about their children.
There is always a difficult balance to strike to ensure that intervention by the courts and by local authorities only occurs in the most serious cases; to ensure that such intervention, when it is necessary, is swift and effective; to ensure that rehabilitation is attempted as soon as possible; and to ensure that any decision to rehabilitate, or not to rehabilitate, a child
500
with his or her parents is an informed and authoritative decision, ratified where necessary by a court.
Reference has been made to the inquiries which have taken place into various tragedies. It is a feature of many of those cases that the statutory powers already existed but were simply not used. It is a sad fact that in some of those cases the social workers were intimidated, misled or simply unable to get at the truth. Indeed, we should not fall into the trap of baiting social workers for their inadequacies. Many of them are extremely good but it is extremely difficult for them. They either do too much or too little and it is difficult for them to get it right. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the need for training.
Clause 38 provides the very valuable new emergency protection order. It is a great improvement on the existing arrangements for place of safety orders. However, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can say who, in practice, will be making these orders and whether the lessons of the Cleveland saga in relation to place of safety orders have been learnt.
I also question the deliberate omission of provision for medical assessment orders. That topic was discussed in the Kimberly Carlile inquiry and others. If there is any doubt as to whether a child should be medically examined surely that doubt should be resolved in favour of the child. There should be a proper power to require medical assessment without always the need to resort to the more drastic emergency protection order. Medical assessment, and indeed developmental assessment, is valuable and useful in these cases, provided of course the child concerned is not exposed to medical examinations ad nauseam by or on behalf of the various competing adults.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we only hear of the sensationalised cases. We only hear of cases when something goes wrong. In the vast majority of cases the courts and the social workers deal with them sensitively and successfully. It is therefore important to look at how the Bill will work in dealing with the ordinary day-to-day cases which do not attract the headlines.
The heart of the Bill—at any rate from a lawyer's point of view—is to be found in Clauses 69, 70 and 71. Clause 69, as we have been told, enables the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to regulate the courts in which proceedings are to be initiated and then to be continued. It was encouraging to read the discussion paper of July 1988 from the Lord Chancellor's Department indicating that the department was actively considering a rational system of case allocation and control. I hope that the department's present thinking will be revealed to us in greater detail and that it will not be left to amendment at a later stage, because the point of entry into the legal system, and what one might call the quality control of a case thereafter, can be absolutely crucial.
I hope that the Government will do nothing to deprive parents and children of the calibre of the existing judiciary, in particular the judges and

501
registrars in the Family Division, and will do nothing to deprive access to the expertise of lawyers who specialise in that division. Arrangements must be made to ensure that complex and lengthy cases can and will go to the High Court.
Having said that I was encouraged, I should add that I was somewhat discouraged by Clause 69(4), which requires the agreement of the Secretary of State. That tends to suggest that considerations outside the administration of justice will intervene. I should prefer to see in the Bill a provision for consultation with the president of the Family Division.
I also hope that the noble and learned Lord can say what appellate structure is contemplated. He indicated that this would be a matter for later amendment by the Government. I hope that he can lift the veil this afternoon or at least indicate that the amendments will be brought before this House rather than another place.
I turn from the question of the right of appeal to the status of the parties in care proceedings. Both subjects were covered by the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986. The status of the parties is now covered by Clause 70 of this Bill. The 1986 Act began as Sir Dennis Walters's Private Member's Bill in another place. At the Government's insistence it was heavily modified, the argument being that all the topics covered by that Bill would be dealt with as part of the Government's overhaul of child care law. This is the promised overhaul, I believe that Parliament is entitled to an assurance that the 1986 Act that was effectively hijacked by the Government will not now be blown up.
I ask that Clause 70 will not diminish the hard-won status of grandparents in care proceedings. In practice grandparents who are willing and able to help are still too often overlooked in these cases. At first sight, one criticism of the Bill before us is that it may make matters too difficult for grandparents and for foster parents to contribute. Foster parents are special people entitled to special consideration.
We have been told that Clause 71 restricts access by local authorities to the wardship jurisdiction. I suggest that the clause is far too restrictive especially if read with Clause 8(4). The premise behind Clause 71 appears to be that with satisfactory grounds for the taking of children into care and satisfactory grounds for releasing them from care the wardship jurisdiction will be unnecessary. If the Government are right about that the use of wardship will diminish naturally and Clause 71 will be unnecessary.
Meanwhile, I suggest that we must not lose the traditional protective role of the High Court and the expertise to which I have already referred. It is not without significance that wardship has developed in recent years to deal with situations that have not been covered by the statutory code. Local authorities have valued the availability of wardship; it is a jurisdiction that is flexible, authoritative and more distant from the local arena. Wardship enables the court to make decisions to control perceived risks to children without having to make findings either because the evidence is not sufficient or because for a court to make express findings on a sensitive topic—possibly
502
alleged sexual abuse—will be hurtful to the adults who need to continue to work together for the benefit of the child concerned.
It seems that in this case the Government are going further than the DHSS Review of Child Care Law in 1985. At page 109 of the review it was not recommended that there should be,
"any change in the statutory ground for committal to care in wardship. Although we consider that our proposals will greatly reduce the need for local authorities to resort to wardship, we cannot claim to have foreseen every case in which it may be necessary to protect a child".
Likewise, the Cleveland report is being ignored in this respect. Paragraph 16.37 states:
"There is no doubt that the wardship jurisdiction came to the rescue of an otherwise overburdened Juvenile Court. It has proved in Cleveland to be an invaluable procedure to enable extremely difficult, complex and emotive issues to be fully considered and adjudicated upon. Wardship has an ethos which is recognised by those who use and are engaged in the jurisdiction. We see wardship having a role to play in care proceedings in the future".
The fact is that the statutory grounds provided by this Bill are not foolproof. And they are not lawyer-proof. I am aware that the lawyers are already busily trying to pick holes in them. Therefore we should not discard the wardship jurisdiction until we are absolutely sure it is not needed. And we cannot be sure.
The financial memorandum to the Bill suggests that savings from wardship may be used for example in employing guardians ad litem. I welcome the move towards the more universal use of them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, guardians ad litem should have true financial independence from local authorities. It is not enough to talk in general terms of distancing them. They should also not have to operate without legal representation. The reality is that there are simply not enough guardians ad litem available, and they are still crippled with insufficient resources.
The same point can be made about the provisions in the Bill stipulating timetables for child care cases. The concept of a timetable is admirable in theory. Children should not be allowed to drift and a week is truly a long time in a child's life. But timetables will be of little practical use if the courts are simply not available; if the guardians do not have the resources; or if it takes months to get an appointment with a child psychiatrist. This is an area in which there can be no real sanctions against a failure to comply with the timetable.
The Bill has many important provisions relating to private law as regards private disputes between parents over custody (it was formerly called custody) of the children. There are a number of minor concerns which I hope will not allow a distortion of the future working of the Bill in the private area. Clause 1 restates the welfare principle and gives a checklist. The first item on that list is the wishes and feelings of the child concerned, considered in the light of his age and understanding. This recognises the view that the voice of the child should not be ignored. We should remember that the voice of the child in these matters is not always reliable arid that there is a contrary view; namely, that children have the right not to decide a dispute between their parents and the right not to have to express a preference between their

503
parents. In practice, children give mixed messages. They are often trying to be desperately loyal to both parents. Some children form an exaggerated loyalty to one parent and an exaggerated hostility to another. Some children say one thing to one adult and a different thing to another, saying what they hope will find favour.
The worry about the prominence given in Clause 1 of the Bill to the wishes of the children is that parents will be advised to go out and ascertain the wishes of the child concerned. The pressure on the child will be increased when he is already distressed enough. It is very often a matter of practice nowadays for parents to come along to their lawyers with tape recordings saying, "This is what my child wants to do. Listen to the tape; can we play it to the judge?". That is very distressing and such circumstances should be avoided if possible.
Clause 7 introduces new terminology. It is hoped that this is rather more than a cosmetic renaming and that the terms used will be less emotive. The wording creates a measure of uncertainty about who is to have responsibility for the general management of the child concerned and uncertainty also for third parties such as headmasters as regards who to look to in medical and other emergencies.
I have one other concern as regards terminology; that is the question of international enforcement. The concept of a residence order does not seem to fit very easily with the convention contained in the Child Custody and Abduction Act 1985. That envisaged rather more than just residence. I hope that we can have an assurance that the Government are considering this aspect and that residence orders will be respected and enforced by foreign courts.
There are a number of other matters perhaps appropriate for discussion at the Committee stage. This is a Bill that will need detailed attention and sufficient time. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in expressing anxiety about the implementation of the Bill. The Children Act 1975 was a disgrace in terms of limping legislation. It took years to come into force and a great deal of uncertainty was caused. I hope that the Government will now think in terms of overall consolidation of other aspects of child legislation omitted from the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise to echo the congratulations of the two previous speakers on the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill. It was done in a splendid way and was easy to understand. I speak in this debate simply because I have had long experience of social work myself. I was chairman of the children's committee in Roxburghshire for some 20 years and chairman of the Advisory Council on Child Care for Scotland for another five or six years. I can speak with some authority on the subject before us today.
Admittedly, the area with which I was concerned was small. Our problems were never as difficult as those of the large cities and the great urban areas.
504
However, I learnt one or two things which are of relevance today. When the children's committees were set up in county councils, trained children's officers did not exist. The training of social workers was more or less in its infancy. The revolution in training was largely due to Dame Eileen Younghusband who was on the staff of the London School of Economics. She had been commissioned by the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust to make a report on the importance of the training of people to become children's officers and social workers. I remember at the beginning that county councils appointed anyone they thought would be able to cope because there was nobody else to do the job. There were some strange appointments. However, other universities, inspired by the London School of Economics, set up departments for the training of social workers. That was an enormous help. As chairman of my children's committee, I always refused to appoint anyone in my area who had not been trained, although the training was not very conclusive. However, things gradually advanced. With the far greater problems of today it is obvious that the training of social workers is very inadequate.
The normal training period is two years. Many undergraduates are quite inexperienced and not very old. Two years to deal with these extremely difficult subjects, which are becoming more difficult as we all know from the reports we read every day, is totally inadequate. I very much hope that after the Bill is passed more care and study will be given to the training of social workers and that money will be made available—it always costs money to do these things—so that men or women who are considered qualified for this difficult job will have a much better and more conclusive training in social work.
I should like also to refer to family courts. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the issue was under close consideration and might be brought up later on. I urge that this be thought of now. In Scotland we have had family courts for five or six years. I hoped very much that as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is (what shall I say?) the king of the Scottish Bar as well as everything else, he would be able to persuade the powers that be in England of the importance of the matter.
The courts have been successful in Scotland. It is not as though one is recommending something that has not been tried. Family courts have been in operation in Scotland for several years. The courts are supported by everyone in Scotland today—social workers, sheriffs, the police and so on. They are so obviously the right way to deal with these difficult problems. Instead of children being brought before the courts in a formal manner they sit round a table in a room with all the interested persons present—their parents probably and anyone else who they decide is the right person to be there—and talk informally about these matters. That gives the child a chance to say something without being alarmed by the conditions under which an ordinary court is conducted. It is very valuable. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will use his influence in order to provide these courts in England.
I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the importance of supporting all this work

505
by additional funds. It would be an economy and at the end of the day would save a good deal of money. A good many people will not have to go to court and be dealt with by solicitors and lawyers. They will already have been understood and dealt with in their own areas. That is extremely important.
I was also delighted to hear that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston, are prepared to back the Bill. It is not a party political Bill. It is a Bill which will help in the training of social workers, in the teaching of children and with the dealing of difficult and complicated problems. It is an admirable Bill to which no doubt there will be amendments in Committee. But the principle and the way in which it has been put forward are quite excellent and I hope that everyone will give it support.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I presume to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on his introduction of it. If one could possibly have a cavil, it is that the masterly clarity of that introduction disguises the complexity of many of the provisions of the Bill and invitably tempts one into dealing with Committee points at Second Reading. That being so, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with just two generalities, the first of which I recognise lies on the periphery of the Bill.
At the outset the Bill says that the paramount consideration in everything the Bill concerns is the welfare of the child. The old phrase was "the first and paramount consideration". That was really a pleonasm, because the "paramount consideration" means that the welfare of the child is more important than all the other considerations taken together, and therefore inevitably more important than any single consideration. I welcome that statement at the outset both as a method of statutory drafting and for its content. It emphasises that the Bill does not deal with a great sphere of our law where the welfare of children is intimately involved. I refer to matrimonial law. In matrimonial law (I think rightly left outside this Bill) there is no question that the welfare of the child is neither the first nor the paramount consideration, and your Lordships' consideration of this Bill may cause you to question whether that is right and whether it should be so.
My noble and learned friend on more than one occasion spoke of the Bill aiming to maintain the integrity of the family or the integrity of family life: he used both phrases. But anybody who heard the debate on home affairs on the humble Address must have been left with the firm impression that much of the evil in our society is due to the fact that we have not given sufficient maintenance and support to the family and to family life.
The other thing I wanted to mention arises out of the Cleveland report and out of the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Baroness who has just sat down. I speak naturally with considerable concern at what happened at Cleveland but also with caution today because some of the matters are sub judice. But there has been one most interesting discussion arising out of the report.
506
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, after having made the report, put forward the suggestion that it was not necessarily advantageous to anyone to take the perpetrator of child abuse out of the family, out of the community and particularly into prison. All who heard the debate to which I referred last week will, I think, echo that. But it was answered by a sociologist of distinction. She agreed that incarceration was by no means the best treatment but she said that there ought to be prosecution. That is understandable as marking society's reprobation of the conduct concerned.
However, there is an aspect of the family court which might deal with that more satisfactorily. If I may say so with great respect, I shared the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I was not completely clear how far my noble and learned friend was intending to dovetail a system of family court into the various institutions set up under the Bill. Since I put forward the concept of a structure of family court, I have been completely convinced that there are two matters which ought to be part of it. One I do not think is necessarily closely connected with this Bill, and that is that every court of domestic jurisdiction, and certainly every court of matrimonial jurisdiction, should have not only a judicial side but a welfare side and it is only those matters that cannot be dealt with by the welfare side that should have to come for judicial decision.
But there is another aspect. In 1965 the Home Office put forward a White Paper—at least its cover was white: one never knows these days—for consideration called Children and Trouble. That suggested they would best be dealt with in a family council. What was meant there was the extended family, which is known to many systems of judicature and legislature, whereas our system knows only the nuclear family.
I ventured to disagree with that document only in one respect, and that was that the family council was to be presided over by a social worker. I think, on its merits and particularly within the context of this Bill, the family council, or an extended family council, ought to be presided over by a magistrate, with a social worker attending as adviser and consultant. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to say something about how that strikes him because I know that his department has done a great deal of work on the matter of family courts. I have no doubt it will be raised further in the debate because the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is to speak later. Those are the two matters in general which I should like to refer to.
Obviously as your Lordships go through the Bill a great many matters of detail will come up, but I have no hesitation in welcoming the Bill as a whole in the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for its clarity, for its compendiousness and for the fact that now there is one document to which courts and all others can look for their instruction and information.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a singular privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in this debate. He

507
speaks from a wealth of knowledge and experience which I do not possess. At the outset, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his clarity of expression in explaining the Bill. I should also wish to associate myself with the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Meston, in their welcome for the general principles of the Bill as a whole. This, as has been truly said by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, is not a political affair at all. We have to get it right.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor truly said, this is in effect but a stage in an evolutionary process of reform in the law affecting children. The main purpose of this stage—this Bill—is to provide a fairer and more effective framework of child care law, with connected purposes. It is those connected purposes on which I should wish to dwell a little because in my view, and I hope it is the view of your Lordships, those connected purposes are the means of implementation of the framework of the Bill as it stands, and we are a little light on those.
The order of reform is cathartic: six enactments repealed and 30 enactments amended. One must accept, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepts, that in this, as in other aspects of the law affecting children, Parliament has ill-served the interests of children. It took 55 years for the maximum sentence for cruelty by a parent to his own child to be increased from two years to 10. That happened a couple of months ago.
As matters stand today, according to the will of Parliament, a child living three miles from school is entitled to free transport, but living less than three miles from school he has no such entitlement and can walk the best part of six miles to school.
Coming to matters concerned with the Bill, and concerned with the child's upbringing, parental status and children at risk, which are all within the scope of the Bill, the judiciary has always softened the rough edges of statute law by wardship and by resort to its inherent jurisdiction.
The provisions of Clause 71 which curtail the judiciary's jurisdiction—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to its traditional protective role, and if he did, how I agree with him—and its traditional protective role at this early stage (the first stage of the evolutionary process) warrant critical examination. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also took the point. I take the point, and, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I have no need to quote passages from Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report which I have in my papers. We are at one on this matter. Clause 71 demands critical examination by all sides of your Lordships' House.
As regards the Bill's practical implementation, within the scope of the "connected purposes" amendments concerned with principle will be tabled: first, to make general provision for the keeping and placing of children in secure accommodation under the authority of the court by introducing a new clause to such effect under Part II and by deleting Clause 21 in Part III, which is concerned exclusively with children looked after by a local authority; in other
508
words, to bring the matter out of the particular in Part III and put it into the general protection of children under Part II. That is a matter which will warrant your Lordships' examination. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to seek to obtain your Lordships' opinion on a matter of principle.
In a slightly different context, provision could also be made for a hospital to inform the local authority of any child kept as a patient for more than, say, two or three months.
Secondly, an amendment will be tabled to include in Clause 36, by the insertion of subsection (9)(i), a provision to ensure that the role of the Official Solicitor in High Court proceedings shall not in any way be affected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, albeit with legal qualifications, in any inferior court. I raise that point because, according to my information, there is concern that the Bill as drafted might to some degree reduce the status and functions of the Official Solicitor in that regard.
The third matter relates to Clause 69 to which certainly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred and, I think, also the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. An amendment will be tabled to ensure that the rules of court, made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as to which classes of cases shall be tried by which court shall assuredly not be subject to the veto of the executive; that is, the Secretary of State. I shall table an amendment to delete Clause 69(4). I know of no precedent where the executive has held the veto over the judiciary in such a context.
Furthermore, an amendment will be tabled to ensure that the rules of court shall be made by regulations so that, in accordance with Clause 76(2), they shall be laid before Parliament and subject to negative resolution. I listened with attention to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, but there is nothing in Clause 69 to ensure that the regulations, the rules of court or whatever, afford any person interested the right to apply to the specified court for transfer to another court. That could no doubt be a matter of insurance, but I suggest, with the greatest of respect to my noble and learned friend, that that is an entitlement of importance which should be covered by express statutory provision: the right of any person interested to apply to the specified court, for some reason or other, for transfer to another court.
There is a further difficult question. It is a matter for your Lordships. I do not know whether it comes within the intendment of the Bill. If it does, it might come under Clause 51(2). It is a problem with which all your Lordships are familiar: an unmarried mother, often a child herself, with her child goes into a voluntary home. After they have entered the voluntary home, they go out of it into bed and breakfast accommodation. There is then no supervision. The girl may sometimes be 13 or 14 or a little older. Your Lordships all know what goes on and how undesirable it is not only for the child mother but for the child mother's child.
I wondered whether something could be devised—I have been unable to devise it—to protect, deal with, or in some way control that situation in the interests of both children.

509
The hope is that an amendment will be tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Meston, have spoken about the point and my noble friend Lady Elliot with her great experience also spoke about it—in respect of the absolute need under "connected purposes" in the Bill's implementation to ensure a specific allocation and control of funds for the requisite recruitment, training and protection of the pay structures of social workers. These are the forces on the ground, the infantry in the campaign for the care and protection of children without whose good offices no practical advance may be made or held.
I wish to say this: in the wake of Cleveland ought we not to pay a generous tribute to the sense of dedication of social workers? is it not essential to their morale and status and indeed to the practical implementation of the Bill that Cleveland should be seen only as serving the greater purpose of focusing public attention upon urgent and important problems of nationwide incidence, problems buried in a maze of accumulated legal dust and layer upon layer of unbelievable complexity?
In conclusion, if it took a distinguished lawyer of the calibre of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, with her wealth of specialist expertise, to set us on the road to reform, assuredly the resolution of the questions before us does not lie within the province of any lawyer, however eminent, and certainly not within his exclusive province.
No doubt our debates on the Bill will afford yet another opportunity to demonstrate that your Lordships' House as presently constituted can render signal service and not only to another place; an order of service which no elected Chamber could conceivably perform.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I feel rather nervous speaking after five lawyers. However, I shall add my voice to the general welcome given to the Bill. We have waited a long time for it, but 1 should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Department of Health on the consultations they have held and on the fact that they have listened to what has been said to them and made some changes as a result.
That is in very sharp contrast to the Education Bill with which I was dealing earlier in the year, where there was hardly any consultation at all. Most certainly, those dealing with the education service in this country would not listen to the comments in response to what consultation there was. The result was that the Bill had a long and stormy passage. Therefore I trust that we shall study the Bill in a co-operative and constructive way and that we can make it an even better Bill than it is at the moment.
It is good to have child care law simplified and consolidated. There may be room for even more consolidation later. It is good to have it unequivocally stated that the child's welfare should be the court's paramount consideration. It would be even better if the Bill supported the view of the Cleveland inquiry that:
"the child is a person not an object of concern",
510
by giving the child, where possible, a greater say in what happens to him or her and by emphasising the rights of the child. This could be done by placing courts (in Clause 1) and the local authorities (in Clause 18) under a duty to ensure that, where they are satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision about the issue in question, he shall be entitled to determine it, unless the court or the local authority considers that his welfare would be seriously prejudiced if he did so. I hope that an amendment on those lines will be favourably considered.
I wish to raise only two points. One concerns the abolition of the absolute right of all children in care proceedings to be represented by a solicitor. The White Paper promised party status to children, parents and the local authorities. It would appear that the representation of children has been traded for financial reasons for the representation of parents.
It is good that guardians ad litem will almost certainly be appointed to safeguard the interests of the child. Since their introduction four years ago they have improved the standards of decision-making. However, in preparing the case for court, guardians ad litem work in conjunction with the child's solicitor. The duty of the guardian is to give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child, while the duty of the solicitor is to represent the child's wishes and feelings. This partnership has been one of the healthiest and most positive developments in our child care law. It could be at risk.
Incidentally, I was very glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord said about the appointment of the panels of the guardians. I think that would be an improvement. It seems that under the Bill a solicitor would be appointed only where there is no guardian ad litem if the child wishes to be legally represented and is of sufficient understanding or where it appears to the court that it would be in the child's best interests for him to be represented. This will mean that in many cases the guardians ad litem will go unrepresented, putting them at a disadvantage with regard to the other parties. The Government recognised that guardians would need lawyers when they withdrew their proposals to make guardians do their own advocacy when they were consulting on the 1984 rules.
There seems an underlying assumption that where adults agree (that is, the family and the local authorities) children may not need independent representation. The reports of the deaths of Maria Colwell and Jasmine Beckford tell us that when adults agree children can be at their most vulnerable. It is not possible to predict when it will be "in the child's best interests"—that is quoting from Clause 36(4)—for a solicitor to be appointed. The only sure way of safeguarding children is to make the appointment automatic.
The second point I wish to raise is about children and young people leaving care. The 1984 House of Commons Social Services Committee's inquiry into child care—the Short Report, it was called—recommended not only that the law on children in

511
care should be reviewed and consolidated but also that local authorities should be placed under a duty to prepare young people for leaving care and to support those leaving care, to quote from the report,
"in the manner of a good parent".
Clause 20 of the Bill, however, only requires local authorities to prepare young people for leaving care and to advise and befriend those who have left care. It otherwise merely simplifies the present rather complicated powers to assist in more practical ways and introduces a new power to make this assistance in the form of a loan.
That follows the White Paper proposal and the recommendations of the interdepartmental review but it is disappointing. One can only guess that the Government's rejection of the Select Committee's proposal was because of resource implications, and resource implications were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and other noble Lords.
Each year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. The majority have no suitable family home to return to and therefore have to live independently. The situation facing them has been exacerbated by recent social security legislation which is based on the premise that young people under 25 should continue to be dependent on their parents. In April there were changes to the means tested benefits system and in September restrictions of income support for people under 18 years of age. Many authorities are beginning to identify the potential cumulative effect of these changes and the fact that these will have a significant effect not only upon policies relating to young people in care but especially also upon procedures and practices surrounding discharge from care and care in the community in respect of young adults. There are particular concerns about the eligibility of young people under 18 for community care grants.
There are likely to be considerable difficulties with these young people finding suitable accommodation. Incidentally, there should surely be many more hostels where those without homes to go to can find reasonable lodgings. Some authorities already have leaving care schemes, for example Calderdale which has a maximum grant of £650, the amount being dependent on the length of time the young person has spent in care and what his circumstances are. Other authorities simply abandon young people on their eighteenth birthday and they may well end up on the street. We all know what that can lead to. It can lead to all kinds of temptations which we would surely all want to avoid.
If, as the Select Committee recommended, local authorities were placed under a duty to assist young people
"in the manner of a good parent",
they would have a considerable degree of discretion, as do other parents.
According to Clause 20(6), assistance may be given:
"in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash."
That assistance is very unlikely to be given in the present strapped financial circumstances in which
512
local authorities find themselves. If there were a positive duty, it would safeguard the young person against unreasonable neglect and mean that all authorities would have to maintain some kind of leaving budget. I myself think it would be infinitely better if that obligation fell on social security rather than on local authorities. I do not know whether it is possible to bring that into the Bill, but I think that it is the lack of social security help which leads to so many difficulties. But, failing that, I hope that local authorities may perhaps be put under a duty to make some provision to help these people.
Since I wrote my speech over the weekend I have heard that Barnardo's has produced a paper which very much emphasises this same theme of leaving care. Unfortunately, I have not had the time, as I received the paper just before lunch, to read it. But I thought that the introduction was extremely interesting.
I wish to quote the following words:
"The thing is society places itself in a position where it takes the role of parent. Now most parents don't stop at 18. Society does".
Those words came from a young man, aged 20, called Mark who was speaking at Barnardo's annual conference. Those words emphasise very much the point I wish to make which is that young people may be left in a very vulnerable situation when suddenly their care comes to an end and they are abandoned without families to go to. I hope very much that we can do something about that issue when we come to consider the Bill in Committee. Money spent wisely in this way, whether by local authorities or by the Department of Social Security, would save a great deal of money in the future.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as has been said by all noble Lords who have spoken, we are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very clear summary of the Bill. That was very helpful to us all.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, there was a meeting of voluntary and statutory child care organisations this morning. At that meeting 18 bodies were represented and all supported the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, further stated, those organisations were grateful for the consultations which have taken place with them and which have led to this Bill. The Children Bill is indicative of insight, sensitivity and sound good sense. It strikes a balance between prevention work and protection work. However, I think it is important to note that it also contains clauses on the promotion of good child care in this country as a whole.
We are grateful to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, who so ably carried out the Cleveland inquiry. We are also grateful for the inquiries into the deaths of Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile and Tyra Henry. I mention that because I think it is right to get in proportion the fact that we are not just talking about sexual abuse cases. We are talking about all children who suffer from sexual abuse, cruelty in all its forms and poor child care. We wish to pay tribute to the work of our Ministers, the Law Commission, civil servants and the inspectorate for their input into this Bill.

513
At first I was concerned that the title of the Bill was the Children Bill. I thought that it could have been entitled the Children and Family Bill. However, on reflection it is, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a children's charter. It reflects the concept that the well-being of the child is paramount. At the same time, the Bill safeguards the rights of parents and promotes and supports their responsibilities. Those two concepts are inextricably interwoven and one is dependent on the other. The Bill goes some way not only in dealing with the incidence of cruelty and abuse but, as I said earlier, actively promoting the well-being of children. I shall come to that later.
Part III of the Bill has particular importance in that it provides services likely to assist parents to keep their children at home. It assists parents who must go out to work. Unlike other EC countries, our country has as yet no policy for the social and educational care of children under five. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will be speaking particularly on this matter, because I happened to read the outstanding speech he made last week in which that issue was incorporated. I hope that we may hear the contents of that speech here again in your Lordships' House.
The Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science are beginning to acknowledge the importance of the years nought to five. To that extent both Ministries have given money towards the setting up of a research unit at the National Children's Bureau to look into the needs of children under five. But there are some very worrying situations here. For example, the Ministries do not seem to be working in concert with one another.
I believe it was last week that The Times printed an article which stated that the Home Office was to undertake responsibility for children under five of working mothers. I must be careful here because I have not checked this with the Home Office. Unfortunately, as the article was written in the newspaper, the thing that came across as being of greatest importance was the fact that mothers should be able to work for the sake of businesses and commercial enterprises. At the end of the article, just as a little aside, it was stated that the children had better be cared for.
I think that it should be the other way round. The emphasis should be on how children can best be cared for, and how this will then enable mothers to go out to work without their children being hurt emotionally in any way. I hope that when we talk about the promotion of a better structure in our society we shall take that into account. I hope also that the Ministries will be able to work together on that matter.
We are in some difficulty here because we would like that matter to be included in the Bill. As I think has been mentioned by one noble Lord, many of us feel that the nursery and childminders legislation should be repealed and something better put in its place in this Bill. However, I feel that that matter will need very careful consideration, perhaps by a committee set up to look into the needs of children under five, so that in this country for the first time
514
there will be a policy with regard to the care of children under five.
Other countries within the EC have policies, and their policies are good ones. We could learn from them. While I am on this issue I wish to mention one last point. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will be speaking on this matter. My point is that if we are seeking women in order to swell our workforce—I believe that is one of the intentions of the Home Office—we must realise that children need unhurried time and sensitivity in their pace of life. That must be taken into account when considering mothers working and running their homes.
I wish to speak on Part IV of the Bill on the question of a multidisciplinary assessment. It was pointed out in the Cleveland report that there was no co-operation between the various different people playing a part in the child's life. That was one of the leading points made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. It is said by many people that it is good practice to hold a case conference before action is taken on a child in any particular instance. That case conference should concern the teacher, the health visitor, the doctor if possible, a paediatrician, the police, the probation service, and so on. It is good practice.
In local authority social services departments throughout the country case conferences are held, but that was not done in Cleveland. Therefore, although it is general practice I believe that it has to be written into the Bill that before a case is taken to court there should be a multidisciplinary assessment. I also believe that the local authority solicitor should be present at such case conferences, and the guardian ad litem.
Furthermore, although the Department of Health has sent out very good circulars to all those concerned, such circulars go to different departments which have different management structures. For instance, I imagine that the circulars go to the general practitioners' committee for general practitioners, and to the department of education for education welfare officers; I imagine that they go to the social services department, and so on. While the information is sent out in circulars it goes to different people who are subject to different management structures. Therefore I believe that very serious consideration should be given to including a clause in the Bill making a multidisciplinary assessment obligatory. I put that to your Lordships' House.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the value of the guardian ad litem system. I hope that in the appointment of guardians ad litem we shall consider older people who have had experience of social work, people who have training and people who will not want to be social workers in social services departments. We do not want the guardians ad litem to cream off the social workers, because where would we be then? I think that we should consider guardians ad litem as people of maturity, experience and training.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the structure of the guardian ad litem system. At the moment it is almost a home industry, if I may put it that way. A number of guardians ad (item work from their homes; they do not work from an office or with a

515
number of other people with whom they can discuss matters. I believe, as I think other noble Lords believe, that the guardian ad litem service needs to be organised into panels or offices of some kind, perhaps under a chief adviser or co-ordinator. Such a policy would give a consistency of service throughout the country which does not exist at the moment.
I should like to make a further point, which I believe has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Can we be given an assurance by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a child will not be removed from his or her home unless there is no other way of safeguarding the well-being of that child and that the order which is proposed by the court is the most effective means available for safeguarding the child's welfare?
In that connection perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he does not agree that wherever possible and practicable a child should not be separated from the mother. I believe that if a child is very unhappy or has been poorly treated or abused, perhaps by the father, the boyfriend or the man she is living with, to remove the child from the mother is a second abuse. I have felt all along that we ought to work as far as possible not to separate children and mothers unless the mother is implicated or she cannot cope with the situation.
I have to say that I realise, looking back, how extraordinarily fortunate I was when I worked in Oxford to have four units of empty accommodation available. It was possible to go to a mother or a family, making no allegation against the man who was the alleged abuser because that would have been quite unjust, and to suggest that while the matter was under consideration the man might wish to leave the matrimonial home. However, if the tenancy of the house is in the man's name why should he leave the house, particularly as he may say that he wants to plead not guilty? Nevertheless, in the cases in which I interviewed the men they generally left home at once—I do not know what I did to them—and the mother was left in the home with the children. I was also very fortunate in that the local children's hospital had two units of accommodation in the form of empty flats. If we were concerned about a mother's mental health or that she might be worried we were able to offer her accommodation.
This Bill does not seem to emphasise the need to keep mothers and children together where possible and practicable. One of the difficulties is the question of tenancy. If the tenancy is in the man's name there is no reason why he should leave, though I have to say in fairness that many men do.
I turn now to the question of the training of social workers, and I know that I shall get hot under the collar about it. I believe that the subject has been mentioned by almost every Member in your Lordships' House who has spoken. I am bound to say, as I have said before, that up to 1970 social workers received a general social work training of two years. Training in law, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be glad to hear, at that time was very good. We usually had a law lecture each year for two years and had to write an essay.
516
That was quite something. Social workers then worked in the field under supervision and later went on to do a further year's training, either in mental health or child care or working with the elderly and disabled. Ultimately it was a long training but with practical work in between.
Training is not like that these days. It is not up to those standards. Tributes have been paid, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to the work of social workers. It is amazing that they can do what they do with so little training. In the interests of society, in the interests of children and in the interests of this Bill I believe that it behoves this country to see that social workers are adequately trained.
I should make one last point. When one discusses a case with colleagues and one knows that one is less well trained—I do not know whether that is what happened in Cleveland—one tends to give way to them because one has the feeling that they know more. However, if one has had good training one feels on an equal footing with one's colleagues. On many occasions I have been called out at night with the mental health doctor and have been able to argue with him simply because I was fortunate enough to have had good training. It is only if one has had such training that one is on an equal footing with one's colleagues.
I implore Her Majesty's Government to look into the whole question of training, which I know they are doing. Personally, I am not quite sure that the Treasury is willing to provide money for training but I believe that it will be a great loss if it is not done.
Perhaps I may finish by asking the noble and learned Lord some questions of which I have not given notice. The first of them has already been asked by other noble Lords; namely, when will the Bill be brought into force and when will it be brought in in its entirety? I ask that question with great diffidence because I am frightened that if I say why I want the money the Treasury will reply, "We shall bring in this part of the Bill and that part, but not this part of it". Over the past three or four years, or perhaps even longer, services to vulnerable children in this country have diminished. Children's homes have closed, local authorities do not send children to voluntary organisations, which can give superb service, and the children ultimately arrive in youth custody centres.
In our city of London there are parents who have asked for their children to be taken into care because they are unable to manage them, but the local authority has had to refuse because the facilities are not available. The facilities for vulnerable children have been run down and we shall have to build them up again. I dare to say that that will require resources. Will they have to come from the local authorities with their present budgets or will extra money be made available to build up those resources?
There is much else to say. I merely point out that even in the Financial Times it is recommended that money should be spent both on resources and on training social workers. Other noble Lords will follow me, but I make one plea in particular: that this very good Bill should not be spoilt because it cannot be properly administered.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I remember the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying on 24th November that this Bill,
"will he a major overhaul of child care law to provide a fairer and more effective framework".—[Official Report, 24/11/88; col. 104.]
It certainly is. I think that it is a very good Bill. It is a great pleasure too to take part in a debate in which there is neither undertone nor overtone of party politics. Nevertheless, as a layman I must also say that I find the Bill very complex. It has to be read in conjunction with previous legislation. I hope that before long there will be a consolidating Bill to make life easier for those who have the task of implementing it in their daily social work and also for those who are responsible for training. I need not mention again the problem of training, so clearly adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, were also most pertinent.
I do not propose to discuss the legal details of the Bill. Other people more competent than I have already done so or certainly will do so. There is however one aspect of the Bill which I find unsatisfactory. My concern has long been for services to the under fives. Part III of the Bill places a general duty on every local authority,
"to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families".
In defining those in need the Bill states:
"For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if—

(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain . . . a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;

(b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired . . . without the provision for him of such services; or

(c) he is disabled".

That is fine. It would have my full support if I thought it possible to discover and identify more than a modest proportion of those who are in need. In my view—and it is the view of many others—these services are needed by the great majority of children who, at various stages in their early life, should have access to day nurseries, play groups and, later, preschool education. Where needed, they should also have access to guidance services and so on.
Twenty years ago the Committee of Local Authority Personal Social Services, which I had the honour to chair, pointed out the grave deficiencies of those services, saying:
"The need for day care does not arise from the fact that the parents are working. Of those who do not go out to work there are many mothers with their children who are, or feel, socially isolated, and others, particularly mothers with large families, who need respite from the constant care of several infants. The children involved often lack space to play freely and safely and they need opportunities for mixing which may be denied in overcrowded or isolated households. For play is life to young people and the means by which they learn".
One may say that that was 20 years ago and that things are better now. I must therefore draw attention to what Gillian Pugh, a research worker with the National Children's Bureau, writes in her excellent book Services for Under Fives, published just a year ago:
"There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to provide pre-school services, and as a result services over the country have
518
developed in a haphazard and unco-ordinated way and are often in short supply . . . The Plowden Report of 1967"—
which appeared only three or four months before the Seebohm committee sat—
"accepted for the first time the principle of nursery education on demand, recommending that it should not start uitil the age of three and should be part time".
I thought at the time that that was a fairly modest requirement.
In the 1972 White Paper entitled Education: A Framework for Expansion, the report was accepted. The White Paper recommended the provision of nursery education for 50 per cent. of three year-olds and 90 per cent of four year-olds. That vision was shortlived. The 1980 Education Act removed from local authorities any obligation to provide nursery education and emphasised the discretionary nature of the service. The 1981 Education Act imposed a statutory requirement on local authorities to provide that service but only for children assessed as having special needs. That is the case too under Part III of the Bill. In 1986 the patchy nature of the provision was most marked. Gillian Pugh has pointed out that whereas Hounslow provides nursery education for 66 per cent. of its children of three and four years of age, in 18 other local authorities only one in 10 obtain places.
My point is that most children need day provision but do not get it. So we are still looking at cures and not causes. I am sure that the legal framework we are considering today is a great step forward. However, to continue to limit day care to those in need as defined in the Bill ignores the well researched recommendations of two government approved committees 20 years ago and more recent authoritative reports, which show sad lack of progress. I believe that further legislation or alteration to the Bill is urgent. It may require a Bill leading to another Education Act. I do not know. However, I believe that something has to be done.
I remember only too well 21 years ago sitting round a table with my committee and talking to four or five highly qualified psychiatric doctors who told us that the age from birth to five years was the character forming period which affects children throughout the whole of their lives. The point I wish to stress today is that we do not know which children are in need. I believe that they are all in need.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we must all welcome this Bill which is long overdue, doing away with seven outdated statutes, clarifying and simplifying new ones, which must surely be a benefit to us all. Not only does the Law Society welcome the Bill, but it is anxious, as are we all, that it should be implemented as soon as possible. Only yesterday I heard of an innocent baby dying after being physically maltreated in her own home. Cases such as these fill us with such horror and revulsion that we feel they must never be allowed to recur. On the other hand, we do not wish to cause unnecessary disturbance and distress both to children and their parents, as happened in Cleveland when some children were taken into care who should not have been. There is a very fine line between these two extremes along which

519
this Bill is seeking to tiptoe. In the felicitous phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the Bill is indeed a children's charter.
Having already stated how important I believe the system of the family courts to be, such as we have in Scotland with our children's hearing, I am sorry that there is not a direct provision for them in this Bill, although I believe that Clause 69 goes some way towards this system with increased powers to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to specify which particular courts are to have jurisdiction, and with the removal of criminal connotations. That is a very worthwhile step in the right direction and, with other noble Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack's broad hint that it is only a step in a progression.
I do not go so far as Ruskin who thought that,
"The first duty of a state is to see that every child born therein shall be well housed, clothed, fed and educated till it reach years of discretion".
The first duty of a state must surely be to defend its borders, its laws, its institutions and its people from all enemies, both physical and spiritual. Without that defence there would be no state. Having said that, I would agree with Ruskin that the care of our children must be a prime priority.
Within each child is the person he will one day become. Inside each of us is the child we once were. All of us who had happy, secure and loving childhoods have much for which we can thank our parents and all those who brought us up. If we can continue to give the same love and security to our own children and help others in our land to do so also, we shall be building for ourselves a strong, good and powerful nation for the future.
5.34 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on the rapidity with which they have produced the Bill so soon after the Butler-Sloss report. Perhaps I may also say how pleased I am that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has introduced it.
Broadly, I welcome the Bill very much in that it codifies and extends child-care legislation. It provides an acceptable framework for it which I trust will prove durable for many years to come. I welcome the general statement of principles at the beginning of the Bill and in particular the opportunity now provided for unmarried fathers to acquire parental responsibility.
I note that the press has estimated that 40,000 children are currently registered as suffering or potentially suffering abuse in this country. It is particularly welcome that every local authority is to be required to open and maintain a register of disabled children within its area. It will be important to see, when this comes into operation, how many more children will be thus registered.
It seems to me that the Bill strikes a good balance between children's and parents' interests, and the rights and duties of parents, and, above all, provides that the child's welfare is to be regarded as paramount.
520
I welcome the provisions for emergency protection orders and that parents should have proper rights for making representations to the court, and for having reasonable access to their children.
In spite of my general welcome, there are several issues which cause me anxiety which in due course I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord set at rest. In Part III parental duties for those children being looked after by local authorities are not defined. Again, in the same part, solicitors for children can be appointed only by a court. That appears to me to deny the right of children to legal representation as of their own right.
I much regret that there is no mention in the Bill of family courts. This rather surprises me, because in Scotland—with its fundamentally different legal system—such courts have been a success for the past 20 years or so. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord why it has not been thought fit to learn from Scottish practice and to apply the knowledge gained there to England and Wales. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, perhaps I may also ask the noble and learned Lord to explain what he said. I apologise if I misunderstood him, but I thought he said that there was no call for them yet.
There are two further matters on which I feel anxiety. Resource implications are under consideration by the Government. Many of the encouraging features of the Bill can be introduced successfully only if local authorities have sufficient resources. Local social services departments have found all too often in the recent past that Government have expected them to make far-reaching changes without providing additional resources. Pressure on these departments from childcare duties has meant that additional resources have had to be deployed at the expense of the curtailment of services to other client groups. Again, the Bill's provision can be successfully implemented only if good quality systematic training is provided to all those who will be responsible for carrying it out. Without such training the Bill, with all its good intentions, will be nothing but a dead duck.
Social workers in field, residential and day centres will need specific training over and above their basic qualifications and preparation. I say this after consultation with the Chairman of the National Training Committee for the Association of Directors of Social Services who is the director of social services in the county of North Yorkshire where I live. The director of the sub-committee for children and families—a sub-committee of the Association of Directors of Social Services—feels that specific and specialised training could be difficult for social workers if they are to carry on with their day to day work. Perhaps exta staff will be needed, thus leading to extra financial strain.
I return to Part III with particular reference to Clauses 15 and 16. There is evidence that certain local authorities have closed down their day care facilities. I understand that they have done so because it is a fairly easy way to save money, in particular if the local authority has been rate-capped. I do not think that that was intentional on the part of the Government, and it seems to me that this aspect of the matter needs to be looked at most carefully again.

521
It appears that certain local authorities have interpreted the Education Act 1988 somewhat over literally for children with special needs. I refer in particular to those children who may be deaf or blind. Those children are being sent to schools where there are suitable classes for them but because of their individual home backgrounds they receive little or no support from their parent or parents. In such cases boarding schools for their specific needs might seem far more appropriate, but again that is expensive for local authorities.
Clause 16 appears to enable local authorities to have some loopholes. It should be a duty on local authorities to look after the children in their authorities. Some local authorities would like clarification of what "in need" means and how a local authority will be expected to determine those in need. What about children in bed and breakfast accommodation? They are surely a case of "special need". Moreover, Clause 22(3), dealing with complaint procedures, gives cause for concern to those who have profoundly handicapped children in their care.
Perhaps those two points, and many others, are more suitable for discussion in Committee. I shall mention only one further point. Schedule 2, paragraph 13, seeks to promote contact between a child and his or her family when a child is being fostered or is in a residential establishment. It empowers local authorities to make payments to parents to cover travel costs and so on in order to visit the child. I should be glad to know whether "residential establishments" are held to include hospitals. Many local hospitals are being closed with the result that the children are more likely to be in regional units and so some distance from the parental home. Thus some parents could find the cost of visiting children in hospital prohibitive. I hope that that point may also be considered with sympathy.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, this important Bill merits the balanced response it has received from these Benches and elsewhere in the House. We welcome much in it that is good but deprecate what concerns us as possibly bad. My party's concern for child care is long established. A Labour government were responsible for the Children Act 1948 which provided that local authorities' decisions concerning children in their care had to be taken so as to foster the welfare of the child. In 1969 the Family Law Reform Act extended the ancient, highly valued jurisdiction of the High Court in wardship cases. It enabled the High Court in proper cases to commit a child to local authority care. In the same year there was the Children and Young Persons Act. Approved schools were abolished and community homes established for children in care.
The next Labour government brought forward the Children Act 1975 containing many beneficial reforms. It prevented the wrongful removal of children from foster care by unfeeling parents and others through the introduction of custodianship. There was also the humanitarian change that children could be freed for adoption before placement with a new family; this avoided the
522
anguish of a child's removal from a new home because an adoption application failed.
It is from this background that we are ready to welcome generously what is beneficial in the Bill. That does not require us to be silent about the provisions of the Bill which we are concerned will devalue the quality of hearings affecting the welfare of children. Let me list some of the principal benefits of the Bill, observing that these will either involve no money or that the cost will be met by savings elsewhere. It is right for example that the prize of custody, with the attendant right to control the child's life, should go and that it should be replaced by the new residence and contact order. However, too much should not be looked for from a change of name. The unreasonable divorced parent will continue to be unreasonable and the reasonable, reasonable, whatever the change of name.
The improved rights of parents to have regular access to their children in local authority care are welcome; they cost nothing. We welcome the enhanced rights of fathers of illegitimate children. We observe that those rights likewise will cost no money. Where new money will have to be expended, often it is not central government that will foot the Bill. The provisions of Part III are an elaborate exercise in passing responsibility away from central government. A broad range of facilities for needy children are to be made available by local authorities, but with no help from central government. Local authorities are required to,
"facilitate the provision [of the services] by others".
So, although represented as progressive reform by central government, this is a comprehensive exercise in passing down responsibility to others and to voluntary bodies in particular.
The provisions of the Bill which cause great concern, however, are those whose purpose is to save money at the expense of the quality of proceedings that affect children's lives. Broadly, in the compulsory care field, the present position is that a local authority can invoke the ancient wardship jurisdiction of the High Court in difficult cases. Parents' access to this beneficial jurisdiction has been restricted by three decisions of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity—restrictions which called down criticism from the European Court of Human Rights and resulted in substantial damages against the Government. One solution which should be considered is to put down amendments to throw open the High Court both to local authorities and parents in wardship proceedings.
Your Lordships will recall the growing alarm—many have referred to it—last summer following the removal into care of large numbers of children in Cleveland. It has to be remembered that it was the High Court in its wardship jurisdiction that brought swift, objective and expert investigation to bear on this problem. It ensured the immediate return of children to their parents when that was the proper course. So it was to this ancient and strong jurisdiction that the pleas of the parents were addressed after they had been rejected both by the local authority and the magistrates.
It is to the credit of Cleveland that it submitted to this jurisdiction. If it had not, the parents could not

523
as of right have had the merits of their cases considered by the High Court. The general effect of these three decisions is that the High Court must decline jurisdiction unless the local authority consents. It is for consideration whether the proper remedy is to liberate the High Court from these restraints so that it can deal with these cases either at the instance of parents or of the local authority.
What the Bill does by Clause 71 is to restrict, and, I fear, in practice to abolish access by local authorities to the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court. If that is right, equality is created not by granting equal access to the High Court's wardship jurisdiction but by denying access to it. I have not ignored Clause 71(4). In Committee we intend to open up the clause to critical analysis to demonstrate that in practice it will have no real content and so, in substance, the High Court's jurisdiction will be ousted in care cases.
Some candour is to be found in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill which states that,
"There will be savings from the transfer of most local authority wardship applications to care proceedings in lower courts".
My concern is that for the word "most" we should read "all" or "practically all". One asks therefore: why is the High Court's wardship jurisdiction effectively being sidelined? It is always revealing to trace ideas back to their source. The source is not the Law Commission, not the Government White Paper, and especially not the report of the Cleveland committee chaired by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss which was emphatic, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, reminded us, that wardship should continue to play a role in care proceedings. The report also made the point, as I have, that parents should have the right to initiate wardship proceedings.
The source is as obvious as it is depressing. The Treasury thinks that money can be saved. Ministers have made no secret of the fact that any extra costs resulting from the Bill will be offset by savings achieved in the use of the High Court's wardship jurisdiction. Is that not a false economy? It cannot be said too often that we all have one childhood only. Today's abused children can too easily become tomorrow's abusing parents.
I believe I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that under the new dispensation, appropriate complex cases will continue to benefit from the High Court's wardship proceedings. That is an undertaking that we shall be concerned to clarify in Committee. We wish to understand fully what the noble and learned Lord anticipates will be secured in practice. Allied to this restriction, if not ouster, of the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court, are the new procedures to which other noble Lords have called attention for determining where care cases are to be decided.
I fear that the thumbprints of the Treasury are all too visible upon Clause 69. This provides that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may, by rules of court, require particular cases to begin only in the county court or only in the magistrate's court. What is more, even the noble and learned Lord does
524
not have a free hand. He must secure the agreement of the Secretary of State before making any such rules. That is provided in Clause 69(4) to which the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Campbell of Alloway, have already drawn attention.
I was heartened to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, indicate that an amendment will be tabled to the effect that the rules will not be subject to the veto of the Secretary of State. So far as I am aware, he rightly described it as being unprecedented. It is as unprecedented as it is unexplained, and I shall be interested to know the reason for the veto. I am sure that I should he able to tell from the Bill, but I am unable to identify who is the Secretary of State whose agreement must be secured before the rules of court may be made. Is it one Secretary of State—perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Services—or more than one Secretary of State? Information will be welcome on that issue.
We fear that the ultimate decision on where these critical cases concerning children are decided will be made not by Parliament, not by the judges regulating their procedures as they think best in the interests of children, not even by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but by the Secretary of State, whoever he may be.
I predict that hereafter the vast majority of such cases will be directed to the magistrates' court, some to the county court and scarcely any at all to the High Court. We shall look with great care at the amendments tabled to the Bill which I believe I heard the noble and learned Lord say he envisages being brought forward in this context.
I hasten to add that we on these Benches, like noble Lords elsewhere in the House have the greatest respect for the voluntary work of the magistracy and for the system of lay justice, particularly in the criminal field. However, care cases are very different. They are often lengthy and rightly so. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will permit me to borrow her graphic expression, and I do so not only in the context to which she referred in her notable speech. Children need "unhurried time".
Care cases frequently occupy three or four continuous days of court time. There is often complex and conflicting paediatric and psychiatric evidence. It must be tested by cross-examination and carefully evaluated. That is no luxury: it is done in order to secure the right future for the child. The decision may involve the permanent severance of any connection with the child's parents. It can result in the child being grafted on to a new family, taking a new name as an adopted child. The judges of the Family Division command the confidence and respect of all parties—losers as well as winners. I repeat that that is not to say that the magistrates would not give themselves conscientiously to such cases—of course they would. However, they would be the first to acknowledge how acutely difficult such cases are, and the special expertise and evaluation of expert evidence for which they call. But also—and this is so important a point when public confidence is uniquely in issue—magistrates do not generally give their reasons in such cases. They can be compelled to do so if an appeal is desired. Meanwhile, the decision

525
applies without reasons; although when they emerge the decision may be seen not to be tenable. How can the parties have confidence in the decision, or know whether they should appeal, without first knowing the reasons?
The High Court's decisions are meticulously reasoned. They are of the quality required by the crucial importance of such cases. It may be said that the High Court is a Rolls-Royce system, but I say that in crisis that is what our children deserve. The costs are recouped overwhelmingly in better citizens. In Committee we shall be looking with the greatest care to discover what is the real role which is intended to remain for the High Court in care cases.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in my view the Bill has been touched with the wisdom of Solomon. We have heard from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with his perspicacity and powers of prognosis, what we are to expect from the Bill. I listened with tremendous interest during the 31 minutes that he took to explain this vital Bill. It is a milestone in child care and there has been a need for it to be brought before the country for a long time. It changes a great deal but it does not change the fundamental care that we have, should have and hope to have for all our children. It states that the child is paramount and that the child's wishes are also paramount. That is vital.
Many words of wisdom have been spoken in this House this afternoon. I shall not try to emulate them because the night is getting on and your Lordships have other business to deal with. I shall merely comment on some of the ideas which have been put forward. With my knowledge as a mother, a grandmother, a magistrate, and so forth, I believe that it is one of the best Bills that has come before this House during the 17 years of my membership.
I used to sit in the juvenile court and I am pleased to see that in future such cases will be heard by the domestic court, in which I also sat. I am pleased to see that the fathers of the children will be taken into consideration, whether or not they are married to the mother. So often the court makes an order that the father shall support the child. Whether he does so does not often fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The fathers leave the court having been told that they must pay for the child but they consider that they have little access and rarely see the child again. I believe that to be fundamentally wrong because the father is as much a parent of the child as is the mother. Therefore I welcome Clause 4.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the emergency protection order, and I should also like to query that. I believe that those who make the emergency protection order, and the time taken to serve it, are vitally important matters for the child. Therefore, perhaps my noble and learned friend could furnish me with an answer to that. As one noble Lord rightly said, the domestic panels will need more training than they already have, though in my experience they are nearly always made up of married people and also of parents. I believe that they should always be made up of parents.
526
The noble and wise Lord, Lord Seebohm, talked to us about the under-fives, who are also one of my priorities. I am very glad that the Government have taken up that matter. In emphasising this point the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, seemed to think, I hope wrongly—and I am almost certain that he is wrong—that money will come into it more than the care of the child. I am sorry that he is not here, but he emphasised and re-emphasised tha.: money was to be very much at the forefront of the Government's thinking.
As regards the under-fives, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, put the case very much better than I could. However, unmarried mothers of children under five live a particularly difficult, stressful and unhappy life. My noble friend Lady Faithfull reiterated that in her brilliant speech. Mothers of young children are with them all day and all night. Those children are not always good; they have tempers, and so on. Tempers in the family become very strained and sometimes there is friction. As we know only too well, the stepfather or perhaps the boyfriend of the mother becomes jealous and fed up with the child and there is then trouble in the home.
I believe that the guardian ad litem is a very important post. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, they should be independent people. As I am chairman of the National Association of Widows I feel very strongly that some widowed mothers might be very good guardians ad litem, but independence of the local authority is one of the most important factors.
In all those matters and in the implementation of the Bill, time, as other noble Lords have said, is of the essence; not only time in bringing the Bill forward and implementing it but also time in courts; time, as other noble Lords have said, where the parent or parents are worried about what will happen to their child. I wish that I was still chairman of my domestic court because on its behalf I should have liked to say that the magistracy, if it is to be the first court to hear the cases of problems within the home, will sit well into the night to solve the problems of small children and their future. I say that although I do not now sit in the domestic courts.
This Bill is vitally important for future generations. I believe that it is the most important Bill to which I have had the privilege of listening in your Lordships' House, and I certainly wish it well.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I begin my remarks by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, when she says that this is an important Bill. I believe that the House will agree that we have had a useful debate this afternoon in which we have heard a variety of points of considerable interest which will no doubt influence the future development of the Bill as it goes through the House. The Bill has been generally welcomed. My noble friend Lord Meston made it very clear that we, on these Benches, fully support it even if we have a reservation or two about some of the many propositions contained in it.
This is a very comprehensive measure replacing seven Acts of Parliament in a single regime of law. On

527
these Benches we have one major regret about it; that is, that we have not yet arrived at a situation where there is established a family court. We are not quite clear whether the provisions contained in the Bill, that is, the new flexibility with regard to the particular court in which a case is started concerning arrangements for transfer between different courts, is in lieu of a family court or whether it is preparing the ground for it. I am encouraged to believe from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this afternoon that it is the latter but at present we do not know and we shall be looking very closely at that matter.
The Bill secures a balance between parents' responsibilities, children's rights and social workers' duties. The report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss has undoubtedly been influential in determining the provisions of the Bill even though it has not been accepted entirely, as is evidenced by the fact that there is no office of child protection in the Bill. However there are many things in the Bill which seek to do that which the report suggested might be done by that office.
I should like briefly to mention four points which have been touched on by other speakers but on which I believe it is worth spending extra time. Clause 20 puts a duty on local authorities to prepare young people who have been in care for independence. It is not clear whether that would include housing. I very much hope that it does. However, the principal point which I should like to make is broader than that. It seems that the responsibility for income support is moving from social security to the personal social services; that is, income support for those people who have been in care.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned, it is rather interesting that Barnardo's has today issued a statement in which it says that young people leaving local authority care are finding it difficult to survive under the new social security regulations. At the same time as there is that feeling on the social security side, there is the special provision on the personal social services side and there seems to be a shift from one to the other. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that that shift is not altogether desirable and it would be better to keep the financial provisions under one hat, as it were, and to keep the other provisions separate from that.
The second point I should like to make is in connection with guardians ad litem. At the beginning of our debate this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, stressed the importance of the independence of the guardian ad litem. The Law Society and the National Childrens Bureau have issued statements making that same point. There seem to be worries that this is an area which should be looked at. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might say something about that in his reply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred to the under-fives. The Bill merely gives a power to local authorities to deal with this matter—a general provision for those children under five. It is not a duty so they do not
528
have to do anything and I am inclined to fear—perhaps I am taking a slightly more pessimistic view of this aspect than the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve—that nothing much is likely to change for the under-fives; that is, those who are not marked out as being in need although as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, all children under five are in a type of need.
My fourth point is that made by my noble friend Lord Meston, and by others, on the doubt which exists about whether children are to retain full party status in the proceedings resulting from this Bill. Perhaps that point can be made clear beyond doubt.
In conclusion, I return to the point concerning resources mentioned by my noble friend Lord Meston, the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. They stressed the fact that this is basic to the success of the Bill. Between £4 million and £11 million is stated as the likely cost of the provisions in this Bill. Compared with the £150 billion that we spend each year that seems to be a very modest amount. The question is whether it is too modest. New duties are being put on local authorities and they have to take preventive measures. We are all agreed that there is a need for training, particularly training in co-operation between different services. There are many new orders and it is possible that when the Bill becomes law there could be at the outset a rush in the demand for these new orders. The question is whether the lower courts can cope with such a rush. Some of them have great difficulty in coping with the present burden and if they are to cope with a larger burden they will need resources.
I believe that it is the case that in some areas the Law Society will only deal with legal aid matters on the telephone if they are really urgent. They have to be left if they are not of immediate urgency. Delays may result in the long run.
The provision of resources will determine when the Bill is implemented. I believe that it is true that some sections of the Child Care Act 1975 were not implemented before they were repealed. Clearly, we do not want a repetition of that situation. Therefore, what I am saying—it has been said by others but it needs to be said again and again—is that in the long run resources will determine whether the Bill is the success which we believe it deserves to be.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this has been a debate of high quality, and happily entirely on non-party lines. That augers well for the remaining stages of this important Bill. It is a great relief to me that we are not arguing across the House, but that all of us are arguing in the interests of children.
We have a unique opportunity to carry out a much-needed reform of child care law. Of course, many people throughout the country will say, "And about time too". In fact, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, virtually said that. However, it must be done well in law, in practice, in resources and in training. If we carry through what looks like a good law but do not put the resources behind it, we shall not be forgiven. We cannot carry

529
out the terms of a Bill like this, or a law as it will become, unless we are prepared to back it up with the resources and training that are clearly needed. It will be a long time before we have another opportunity for a fundamental change in our law and we must get it right now.
I had the privilege and was fortunate enough to be a Member of the House of Commons Select Committee during 1982 and 1983 when all the evidence was taken on which the report was produced after the 1983 election. It came out on 24th March 1984, but the conclusions were based on the evidence taken when I was on the committee. Although time has passed, the timing of this Bill is apposite. In my view, it is essential that we should have the considered views of some of the most recent reports—I have in mind the Cleveland report and the admirable presentation of that report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. We are grateful to her for that report as well as to those who produced the reports on Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile and Tyra Henry. Indeed, we are also grateful for the reports of the Law Commission, the Lord Chancellor's Office, the White Paper in January 1987 and, as I said, the Select Committee itself which, after all, set in hand this overall review of child care law.
Doubts and some concern have been expressed that the Bill does not implement the recommendations on family courts. I agree with that concern. I recognise that there are a number of clauses which acknowledge the need for changes in the structure of courts and the combining of family and child care legislation. However, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and others who have spoken. I am not clear whether we have been provided with a substitute for family courts or are paving the way for some later legislation. I hope that this can be tidied up not only in the information which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give us but by the debates that will take place during later stages of the Bill.
One of the most powerful conclusions that I reached when serving on the Select Committee and I visited Scotland was the benefit which came, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said, from the atmosphere of the family courts. That is something from which we in England can learn. If we cannot learn it now, then I do not understand why we cannot do so. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will make clear that point when he replies to the debate.
It is in my view a happy coincidence that this Second Reading debate comes just a few days before the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which lays down the basic principles that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state, and that no one including children shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Of course, it was only a few days ago that some of us attended the launching of the United Nations draft convention on the rights of the child. I am certain that people in other parts of the world will watch the progress of this Bill for what they may be able to learn from it.
530
The Department of Health has reported that nearly 40,000 children and teenagers are on the child protection register in England alone. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which helped over 50,000 children in 1986 and 1987, has reported that more than one-third of these children were under five years of age. It revealed a 21 per cent. increase in registrations of sexual abuse, and a 25 per cent. increase in physical abuse and severe injuries. We see the size of the problem.
To put the matter further into context, the majority who are in care—I do not believe this will be doubted by many of your Lordships—are not there so much because of their behaviour or characteristics but because of circumstances beyond their control. The reason may be parental neglect, ill-treatment or abuse; it may be that parents are unable to cope with the care of their children, or the problem may be parental illness. The children may be orphaned or abandoned; or there may be unsatisfactory home conditions. In many cases, the blame is not simply on the parents but on a society that still permits such unsatisfactory social conditions to exist.
We hope that this Bill will not only deal with the situation in terms of law, but that the provisions made for local authorities may improve some of the conditions in which our children live. The care system is designed primarily to provide protection for children against adult society rather than the protection of society against children.
Speakers in today's debate have reflected the general acceptance that this legislation is crucially important. Most speakers have welcomed the provisions contained in the Bill. There has been a general welcome for the principle that the child's welfare must be paramount and that the wishes and feelings of the child must be taken fully into account. There has been a welcome, particularly for the wider parental rights to appeal and to have contact with children. In my view, the Bill strikes a reasonable balance between the child's rights and those of the parents. There has been a welcome for the greater responsibilities given to local authorities in Part III of the Bill to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to give support to the families.
Like most noble Lords who have spoken on this subject, I have the gravest doubts as to whether the funds allocated in the financial memorandum are anything like adequate to meet the demands. I am not simply looking at those demands that will be made upon the social service departments. If they are to do the job the funds have to be there. I am also looking at the question as regards the courts. By the praise of the Bill we must be wary that we are not misleading the public because we cannot fulfil our tasks unless the funds are there.
There has been a welcome for many other aspects of the Bill including the new eight-day emergency protection order contained in Clause 38 instead of the much-criticised place of safety order. There is also welcome for the parental right to challenge such orders after 72 hours plus the new rights of access during the crucial period of separation. There are also the new grounds for making care orders in

531
Clause 28 and these proposals are also to be welcomed. There is emphasis on the risk of removal of children from the mother. That was a point made very strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in what I believed was a quite admirable speech. We owe her a very great debt of gratitude not just for that speech, but for her record of service in this field and the work that she has done on this Bill. I believe that her efforts will help to make it a better Bill by the time it has passed through all the stages in your Lordships' House.
I also welcome the provision for unmarried couples to make a formal agreement for joint parental responsibility of the child. In addition I welcome the reform of the law on private fostering. As so many other noble Lords have said I include the greater use of the guardian ad litem system. It is encouraging that a training framework for panel members is also mentioned. Although subject to regulation, I trust that children will continue to be parties to proceedings. As my noble friend Lady David said, we would welcome an explicit statement of the duties of guardians ad litem and in particular upon the guardians' ability to instruct a solicitor.
The debate has shown that not only is there a welcome for the Bill, but that we are going to have a very energetic and detailed Committee stage. In the process of this debate, many important proposals have been made. In the meeting today to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred, there are so many voluntary organisations to which we are extremely grateful for the service that they give. I am not going to run through the list of the organisations for fear of missing out any one of them. They have done a remarkable job. It shows that we are going to have a hard time and there is no harm in that.
I am sure that there will be a debate on the family courts. I support some of the points made by the noble Baroness in her speech, and I do so en passant because she dealt with them so well. I refer to the need for a multi-discipline assessment process, and for this to be in the Bill. I cannot emphasise more strongly than she did the importance of the training of social workers and the present inadequacy of their training for a task which is so responsible. I join with others in paying tribute to the social workers who often work under very severe conditions.
The Gillick case recognised the right of young people to make decisions about their lives if they are mature enough to understand the implications of the decisions. As my noble friend Lady David said, I hope that we shall carefully explore the proposals that courts and local authorities be placed under a duty to ensure that where they are satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision about the issue in question, in certain conditions they shall be entitled to determine it. Young people should have a share in the responsibility for their own welfare.
I understand that the Government propose to ban corporal punishment by regulation in child care institutions. We must be certain that this power covers not only child care placements but also those in private mental homes, foster care institutions and
532
others. This a a matter that should not be left without attention. Part II deals with children in families and other proceedings and it carries through most important proposals from the Law Commission. Though there is much to welcome, we shall want to explore the children's right directly to participate in the decisions in ways that will recognise and strengthen the rights of children. We need to strengthen in a variety of ways the role of local authorities in protecting the rights of children in care and for those who are leaving care who may be particularly vulnerable.
Clause 20 places a duty upon local authorities to prepare young people in care for independence and to offer assistance after they have left. That is also going to cost money. The clause is unspecific as regards the duty upon local authorities to assist with housing. In addition, while I am strongly in favour of not imposing social work support on young people after they have left care, a more gradual process of reaching independence is required. One of the matters that we discussed in some depth in the Select Committee with the young representatives of those who have had the experience of being in care was the importance of preparing the way for independence for such young people.
I have taken only three minutes so far which is very encouraging for the rest of my very long presentation. I am much concerned by what seems to be a denial to children in care proceedings to have their own legal representation. I hope that this is a point with which we shall be able to deal at the Committee stage.
I ask what has happened to the child assessment order which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It was recommended in the Kimberly Carlile report. I share also the concern of the children's legal centre about voluntary and private homes being able to lock up children. We must consider in what way this matter can be dealt with in the legislation. I also ask what has happened to the report by 16 organisations which formed the group called Law Reform of Children Day Care. The group submitted a series of detailed proposals which we shall need to consider in Committee. What about the White Paper on Child Care and Family Services which proposed to amend the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948?
I have touched on, though rapidly, just a few of the issues which we shall want to explore in the later stages of the Bill. Together with comments made by noble Lords, there is enough to show that we shall have a busy time in Committee. We want to send the Bill to another place greatly improved, recognising the qualities which it has within it. I believe that there are qualities in this House which can ensure that we send to another place a Bill even more worthy of the acclaim that it has received during the course of today's debate.
6.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken during the debate. On this occasion I think I can claim unanimity in welcoming the Bill in principle, although I recognise the problems raised in

533
connection with it by a number of noble Lords. I shall try to emulate the wonderful presentation in three minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I doubt whether I shall be able to cover as many points as he did in that time. Your Lordships will appreciate, I am sure, that a number of the matters are most suitably dealt with in Committee. It would be wearisome for me to try to deal with all those matters now. However, there are some leading matters with which I should like to deal briefly.
First, an important issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. As your Lordships will know, she had no reason for feeling any difficulty about speaking after five lawyers because issues concerning children are issues for us all. In what she said she showed a special knowledge of a number of the areas. She asked whether children's views should always be heard and generally prevail. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was inclined to think that that might cause difficulty. Those of us who have had experience of dealing with these cases know that children may be expressing, in answer to questions, not their own view but the last view expressed to them by the parent to whom they feel greater loyalty at that moment. It is a fact that a child may feel torn by considerations of that kind. In a sense both of these views are clearly right, but they are right in the particular circumstances in which they are expressed.
In the Bill we have tried to deal with this delicate matter in an appropriate way. We have stated the general principle about the paramount consideration being the child's welfare. Everyone agrees that that is correct. Then we put, in the forefront of the particular circumstances, in Clause 1(2)(a),
"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned".
That, in a sense, is the point of the noble Baroness, Lady David. She said that the court should have regard in particular to the child's wishes. We also have to try to deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. That we have done by the portion in brackets:
"(considered in the light of his age and understanding)".
It may be that other matters have to be considered as well. This is an attempt to give a lead, so far as one can do in the words of legislation, in dealing with this difficult problem, recognising the child as a person with wishes and feelings that may be ascertainable, but recognising also that these may be influenced by the circumstances in which the child is placed, his youth and his level of understanding.
We can look at this matter in Committee to see whether the way it is put in the Bill is the best way or whether it can be improved. I shall be extremely willing to hear proposals for improvement of the Bill in any respect. That would only be right in accordance with the spirit which has been manifested in the debate. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he said that it was a debate of the highest possible standard. It is my wish to take advantage of all the help your Lordships can give to improve the Bill still further.
While I am on the subject of the child and the child's views, I should like to make it clear that it is intended that the rules of court which would appropriately deal with that matter will contain a
534
provision for maintaining the status quo in respect of legal representation of the child. Therefore the Private Member's measure in that respect will not be lost.
Reference was made to the position of grandparents. At present, grandparents participate by virtue of the 1986 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston referred, without the necessity of obtaining any order. In future, grandparents and foster parents as well as any person who would lose rights and who wishes to obtain an order will be able to apply to the court. I have already said that the child will be a party. Clause 36 deals with the position of guardians ad litem. Their position will be strengthened by the provisions for the Secretary of State for Health to deal with arrangements for the management of panels, giving them some independence from the local authority.
The crux of the detail under Clause 7 is that the various orders are more concrete and deal with more particular matters than the present orders; for example, the varieties of custody to which we have been accustomed. I am not aware of any difficulty in international respects in this connection. However, the noble Lord having raised the point, I shall look at it further.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke with special authority, having regard to his greater experience in these matters. All noble Lords who spoke have relevant experience, which is one of the great values in our discussions here. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the paramountcy principle should apply in matrimonial proceedings. In so far as this Bill deals with children affected by matrimonial proceedings, the paramountcy principle will apply. I rather think that the noble and learned Lord was wondering whether the paramountcy principle should not have effect in respect of all the orders that we make in relation to a divorce; and whether this principle should not have some effect in, as it were, trying to keep the family together instead of allowing a divorce to take place in the circumstances envisaged in the present law. That is a large and difficult subject. As was acknowledged, it lies outside, or is at least peripheral, to, the concerns with which the Bill seeks to deal. I venture to think that that is perhaps a matter for another occasion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Another Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, says, perhaps—indeed certainly—for another Bill, if and when sufficient agreement is reached on these difficult matters.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, asked that the Bill's provisions should be implemented without delay. As your Lordships will appreciate, I am keen that the Bill's provisions should be implemented as soon as possible. These reforms are necessary. Of course the first step is to get parliamentary approval for the Bill. It is certainly our intention so far as possible to implement the whole B.11 as a package; but I cannot guarantee that now. There are circumstances which we cannot completely foresee. A good deal of preparation is required in the making of

535
the necessary arrangements before the Bill can come into effect. I would think that from 12 to 18 months from Royal Assent would probably be necessary for that purpose. However, your Lordships may take it that I would certainly like to see the Bill, if and when it becomes law, brought into effect as soon as possible.
Many of your Lordships have raised questions about resources and I think it is right to say that the responsibility for providing or seeing to the provision of the necessary resources is one which lies upon those who are elected to the other place. The Estimates for the public service are laid before them and therefore it is their responsibility to provide the necessary resources. When your Lordships pass this Bill, probably the last thing in the formal proceedings before the Bill is passed will be the incorporation into it of the privilege amendment; so matters of resources are finally matters for which others have responsibility.
This Bill has been preceded by a great deal of consultation and we believe that the estimates of extra expenditure and savings attributable to the Bill are realistically stated. Obviously there is always an element of uncertainty in these matters, when changes in responsibilities and practice as major as those proposed in this Bill come into effect.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, in view of the great concern in all parts of your Lordships' House about the question of resources, would agree to put his very powerful weight in Cabinet and elsewhere on the priority which this House give to expenditure on the provisions of this Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to say that I am committed to this Bill and desire to see it carried into effect; that may be an adequate answer to the noble Lord.
I turn now briefly to the question of guardians ad litem and the possible interrelation between them and the Official Solicitor: this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My department and I, as the Lord Chancellor put out a consultation document Improving the Arrangements for Care Proceedings following the Cleveland report, where a child protection office was mentioned. I am not intending to proceed with that, as matters stand at present, in the light of the consultation. However, I believe that some of the principles that were discussed there can be given effect in other ways by building on existing arrangements, including the guardians ad litem system. The proposals we are making are intended to strengthen that system and to make it more effective and more co-ordinated. Clause36(8) merely acknowledges that the Official Solicitor could still be appointed in High Court proceedings instead of a guardian ad litem. There is no prejudice to the existing powers in that respect.
I believe that the regulations contemplated in the Bill providing for collaborative arrangements for jointly managing panels between authorities will have the effect of giving the guardians ad litem more independence from the local authorities in question,
536
and it would not be necessary to go to the length of a national organisation. I hope we have got the necessary result without doing that. The total number of guardians ad litem may be less than one would like and the expenditure provisions make an assumption that some additional guardians ad litem will be required.
A number of your Lordships raised questions about the training of social workers. This is obviously an important area, and I would certainly like to say from my own personal point of view that I appreciate the difficulties in which social workers can be placed. I have participated in one of the inquiries that took place in Scotland following the sad death of a child. That and other experiences gave me some insight into the difficulties they face, and I do not think that anyone who knows anything about it would be other than sympathetic towards social workers and their difficulties, recognising that social workers, like most of the rest of us, are fallible and may make mistakes; and that their mistakes, like those of others, can have very sad and costly results. Having said all that, we must recognise the difficulties under which they work and acknowledge that they cope with those difficulties generally remarkably well.
However, against that it has to be said that the need for training must be emphasised. The Government accept the need to improve training for social workers and other social services staff. We believe this requires a balanced programme. One million pounds of additional funding in the current financial year has been provided to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. From 1988—89 and from 1989—90 high priority will be given to improving practice placements, with a minimum of two years' training for postgraduate students. These and other initiatives, particularly the training support programme, I believe demonstrate the Government's intention to make very significant improvements to training. In his response to the Butler-Sloss inquiry report, the Minister for Health announced a further grant of £7 million in support of provision of £10 million for the training support progamme, for improvements to training for staff working in the field of child care, with an intitial concentration on child sex abuse.
We intend to work with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work on a framework for qualifying and post-qualifying training. We prefer an approach which aims to make the best use of the existing resources deployed on post-qualifying training which identifies and gives priority to the gaps which most urgently need to be addressed.
A number of your Lordships—I think perhaps particularly those who are concerned with the procedures in courts of law—raised the question of the wardship jurisdiction. As I said at the outset, we consider that the Law Commission was right not to seek to propose any reform at this stage of the law relating to wardship. But I want to emphasise that one of the changes we have made in this Bill is that the High Court and the county court are now available to hear child care cases. Until now, child care cases were dealt with by the magistrates' courts.

537
I have also mentioned that the intention is that the child care cases in the magistrates' courts should be dealt with by the domestic panel. That means that the expertise of the Family Division and the registrars of the Family Division will be available to deal with child care cases. That is the correct way for these courts to become involved. What has happened in the past, as I understand it, is that because only the magistrates were competent to deal with child care cases, those people—and local authorities in particular—who sought to get into the High Court had to do so not by seeking a child care order directly but by invoking the wardship jurisdiction. It seems much better and more direct to provide proper procedures for dealing with child care applications, and that is what we have done. I mentioned that it is proposed by amendment to introduce an appeal provision. The idea will be to match the case, its complexity, difficulty, and so on, to the particular expertise and level of the court to which the case goes.
This brings me to say just a word or two about the family court and about Scotland, because of course your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I have a considerable appreciation of the arrangements made in Scotland. This illustrates the difficulty of understanding precisely what those who use the phrase "family court" mean by it. Those who say that we have a family court in Scotland are referring, I think, to the arrangements for the children's panel, a children's hearing in which orders for care are made.
One of the fundamentals of that structure is that the jurisdiction to make an order arises only on the basis of particular grounds. There must be a basis for making the order. That basis will of course have a content of fact. If all the parties concerned admit the facts, then the panel may immediately consider making an order. It does so in an informal atmosphere. The issues on the merits have by that time been resolved and the basis of the panel's jurisdiction has been established. However, if any party to the proceedings disputes that basis, the matter is dealt with in the sheriff's court as a matter of contested fact in the same way—speaking generally and subject to special rules— as any other contested matter would be dealt with before the sheriff. That is not precisely what everyone in England means when they speak of a family court. Different arrangements are envisaged.
An arrangement such as that I have just described could be operated under the Bill's provisions, but one of the consequences of such an arrangement is that the tribunal deciding what to do about making an order is not involved in the detail of the contest on the facts. Some people here have told me that they feel that that would be a rather sad loss and there is something to be said for the court which looks into the facts and decides contested issues being the same as the one which decides what to do. There are important problems to be addressed. I have tried to say here not that we have a substitute for the family court or that we are laying foundations for it, setting those alternatives against one another, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was inclined to do; but in the Bill we are trying to develop, on the basis of structures that we know, a suitable mechanism to deal, in the first instance, with child care cases.
538
The simpler cases will be dealt with by the magistrates. There is provision for parts of cases to be dealt with in different ways from other parts so that flexibility of the kind that I have described could be involved. The next level of court (the county court) is available to deal with more complex cases. Finally, at the summit, there is the High Court with the Family Division judges with their expertise I also indicated that in my view there was scope for the county court judges who would deal with such cases to be judges who have made a special study of those matters.
In the Bill we have provided the framework for effective arrangements, particularly as experience and practice develop, and with flexible rules of court being capable of improvement in the light of experience.
The noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Campbell of Alloway, were somewhat disturbed to think that the Lord Chancellor should be at the mercy of a Secretary of State in relation to the making of rules. The Secretary of State for the Home Office is responsible for the magistrates' courts in this country. Therefore, arrangements in connection with the magistrates' courts would normally be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Office. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the county courts and the High Court. There is therefore a boundary which is the reason for that provision. We may be able to make that plainer. The constitutional convention is that the Secretary of State is referred to, and the Secretary of State who makes the order depends upon all the circumstances. I believe that to be the proper formulation.
When I said what I did about the family court in my opening remarks, I was saying that we have delivered, in the way that I have explained, a considerable improvement in the arrangements for dealing with child care cases, capable of being extended to all cases involving children. I believe this meets many, not all, of the objectives which those who have supported the family courts campaign have set for themselves. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for all the work that she has done in that connection. She has been kind enough of course to discuss many of the ideas with me. I hope that I have benefited from the discussions. I hope that perhaps the Bill has also benefited from them.
There are one or two other matters which may be slightly more detailed. My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about the social and educational care of children and the position with regard to joint assessment. That is intended to be provided for by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. My noble friend may have something else in mind, but that provision seemed to me possibly to cover what she mentioned.
The provisions in Part III to which. I referred, place an emphasis on trying to keep the child within the family. Of course where there is a problem in the family, that may present particular difficulties, but the emphasis remains. I should also like to remind your Lordships of the passage in Clause 1(4) to which I referred, which provides that there should be no order unless making the order would benefit the child. An order to remove a child from the mother

539
could not be made unless it was shown to be of benefit to the child.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull told us that when she made inquiries of the father, he normally left the house. Her inquiries were obviously extremely effective and social workers of that calibre are much in demand.
The under-fives have been referred to. Clause 16 relates to that matter. In particular I wish to mention the situation with regard to the Home Office taking the lead which was contained in the press report to which my noble friend referred. It is always difficult to know precisely what is in issue, but as far as I can make out, that press report is a reference to a ministerial group on women's issues chaired by a Home Office Minister out of concern for equal opportunities, which is part of Home Office responsibility. There is in no way a change of responsibility for the under-fives. The Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science retain their responsibilities for the under-fives. That was merely an illustration of the type of inter-departmental co-operation that all your Lordships would welcome and which is always our aim.
The Government share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, about the importance of services for the under-fives. We have set out for the first time in Clause 16 a general duty on local authorities in that connection. We shall be tabling some amendments to modernise the 1948 Act which deals with the registration of private and voluntary facilities. Together, they will amount to a modern statement of the statutory provisions.
Those were the main matters of principle dealt with. I must refer to Clause 23 in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said about Clauses 20 and 23. Clause 20 has to do with after care or leaving care when people are being prepared for leaving the care of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, inquired whether Clause 20 would cover housing. The answer is, I think, that it is directed to the social service committee but the housing authority is among those who are expected to co-operate in that matter under Clause 23. I believe that the problem is addressed in the Bill.
The final matter I should like to mention is one of some detail but it is important; namely, the medical assessment orders to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred. A proposal for a medical assessment order was put forward in the report on the Kimberly Carlile case. We have always been anxious that separate orders for dealing with children about whom there is concern might be confusing and could result in potentially serious misjudgments by the local authority—or even by the court—as to which was the appropriate order in particular cases. In a real emergency, going for the softer option which would not provide immediate protection for the child could be very serious for the child. If one thought that there was a serious problem and one went for the lesser order, it might be found that by the time the order was enforced it was too late to prevent major harm.
540
Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in her report on the Cleveland inquiry was also concerned about the risk of confusion. I think it must be taken into account. There are cases where persuading the parents to agree that the child should be examined is a problem. If this cannot be negotiated, and if the local authority considers that, as a result, there is an emergency, it could apply for an emergency protection order and ask the court for a direction on a medical examination under Clause 37(4). Thus, in that way, one would have the best of both situations. If a medical assesment were needed it could be provided that way and if as a result some protection were required it would be given. I believe that we have dealt with that matter in the Bill. Obviously I shall be very interested to examine the matter further when we discuss the Bill in Committee.
I have taken a little longer than Lord Ennals' three minutes, I fear, but I have tried to deal with the main matters raised by your Lordships in the debate this evening. I am extremely grateful for all the remarks and for the interest your Lordships have taken, as well as the commendation which noble Lords have given to the Bill. Therefore, with some confidence I move that the Bill he read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Regional Airports: Intercontinental Services
7.2 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to promote direct intercontinental air services to regional airports in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was prompted to take an interest in this subject because although I have spoken on transport matters over the past 20 years, this is the first time I have taken to the skies. It is a fairly salutary experience.
After a recent visit to Australia, returning on a 24-hour flight, I was diverted to an airport on the continent because London was fog bound. That made me think of the much better weather record which many of our regional airports enjoy. It led me to ask why we could not make better use of them for intercontinental scheduled services. Indeed, I noticed that when I was checking in at Sydney to come to London there was a flight from there to Manchester —but via London! This must be very irritating for the northbound passenger. Upon looking further into the matter, I discovered that there are a number of problems which our regional airports appear to be having in getting intercontinental services. I therefore felt that the issue was sufficiently important for us to debate today or at a suitable time.
I see several benefits from having more long-distance air services to regional airports as well as to London. First, it would help to relieve the congestion in the skies over the South-East and on the ground at the London airports. Every passenger coming from Glasgow or Newcastle to Heathrow in order to fly out again contributes two passenger movements in each direction at Heathrow which could be avoided.
Secondly, it would meet demand. For example, last year half a million passengers from Manchester's catchment area flew to the United States of America, mostly via Heathrow or possibly by using an airport on the continent. These are not just business travellers but also people visiting friends and relatives and, of course, tourists who are travelling further and further afield.
Thirdly, it would help to strengthen and consolidate the economic position of the regions themselves. These benefits are impressive. Airports and air services generate real jobs, both at the airports and throughout the regions. Improving regional accessibility to overseas markets means that both manufacturers and service industries in the regions are better able to compete abroad. Finally, the tourist industry benefits and expands and, again, this helps reduce pressure on tourist facilities here in London. It has been calculated that every 10,000 passengers create seven jobs at the airport and 10 in total.
We do, of course, have a number of splendid regional airports which stand comparison in efficiency, facilities and friendliness with any in the world. Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and Newcastle are but four of many. Manchester in particular is well located because over 35 per cent. of the population of Great Britain and 60 per cent. of manufacturing industry are within two hours' drive of Manchester. Your Lordships will well know that there are many better roads in the north than in the south. Also communications are better and long may they be so. That is a point to remember.
Let us consider Manchester. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, is present and Liverpool is not very far from Manchester so I hope that he does not mind me taking Manchester. An inspection of the timetable for that city shows that it has some intercontinental services to Australia, Singapore, New York, Chicago, Canada and India. One is very pleased to see that British Airways will soon start a service to Islamabad. It is to be congratulated for that after four years of hard work. Many of these flights go via London and are simply extensions of London flights. That leads to problems because of congestion in London. It has been reported to me that British Airways' London-Manchester-New York service was on average two hours late leaving Manchester during the summer because of delays en route in London. In contrast, the American Airlines' direct flight to Chicago was on average less than 30 minutes late.
The airlines have recognised the benefits of using our regional airports and actually want to start more such services. It is not as if we are dealing with an imaginary problem. Three American airlines, for instance, would like to start direct services from either New York or Boston to Manchester but, so I am told, have been refused licences. We have the demand, we have potential suppliers but we cannot get the services off the ground! I mention Manchester because its development in this respect is most advanced. However, other regional airports face the same problem.
I understand that British airlines have objected to the American licence applications. In 1985 we legislated to end licensing for bus services and I spent many hours sitting on the red cushions here during those debates. This is consistent with the Government's policy of fostering competition. I can now see no justification for restricting airlines that are perfectly willing to put themselves to the test of the market. In the long run, letting these airlines go to Manchester will be in the country's commercial interests because otherwise they will use continental airports as their gateways. Amsterdam is already a major gateway. I know of Japanese businessmen who fly between Tokyo and Newcastle via Amsterdam. We do not want to lose these services to the continent when their major objective is in the United Kingdom.
We have a successful precedent in the UK-Canada agreement which, I have recently been told, has resulted in an excellent agreement which gives access to several airports including Leeds-Bradford, Cardiff, Manchester and Newcastle. Full power is due to the Government on this achievement. I congratulate the Government also, and I hope that they can repeat the achievement with the American services because many other airlines are watching these negotiations. If they are successful, they will follow. Indeed, there are two other carriers waiting to see how the negotiations develop before making formal applications.
I am sure that we need a speedy and successful conclusion to these negotiations. They have been going on for a long time. Similar negotiations with Hong Kong have been going on for two years, with a government—a government, and also a colony—which is extremely friendly to the United Kingdom. If this takes two years with Hong Kong, I wonder how long it will take with o1her nations.
Therefore, I wish to ask what the Government are doing to encourage direct intercontinental services to the regional airports, and to overcome the problems being faced in the case of Manchester in particular. I understand that talks have been held and have been adjourned. I am grateful that my noble friend will reply to the debate instead of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. However, I gather that at this very moment my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara is probably uttering exactly the same words in Bristol as the Minister will use in his reply. I hope that he is enjoying himself there. However, I am delighted to have my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip replying this evening. I should not want the Minister or anyone else to prejudice the outcome of the talks in any way. I hope the Minister will be able to give the House a full progress report and advise us if any progress has been made. There are two speakers before my noble friend replies; but, nevertheless, I look forward to hearing his reply.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of us when I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for giving us an opportunity this evening to debate the present situation regarding regional airports and the intercontinental airlines. I do not think that anybody who makes a habit of attending

543
aviation debates in this House needed to be psychic to guess that Manchester would form a strong part of the noble Lord's case. The noble Lord made the Manchester case very well, although I always have a slight reservation whenever the number of people living within two hours' drive of Manchester is mentioned, because of course if they all take advantage of Manchester they will penalise their local airports. We must never forget that.
One should partly explore this matter in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, did as regards the benefits that can accrue to the provincial airports. But one must not forget that there is a national issue and a national interest involved too. As the noble Lord said, increased services must lead to an increased number of airport-related jobs. That must be a clear economic benefit. After saying that, the noble Lord mentioned that tourism would benefit. I agree totally with him there. There are other benefits. The noble Lord touched on the fact that passengers would not have to go through foreign airports. He mentioned air traffic control. I am a little "iffy" about that matter. Those of us who had the pleasure of attending the very excellent presentation given by the Civil Aviation Authority early last week perhaps realise that the air traffic control problem is not uniquely a South-Eastern one. It catches our attention because a lot of us travel from the South-East, and because the South-East is that areaof Britain where people flying from provincial airports have to transit, in passing to the South. They inevitably get delayed there if any foreign air traffic controllers go on strike, work-to-rule or indulge in any of the other infinite number of what one might call Spanish customs, which they are wont to do.
If one had been present at the CAA presentation one would realise that the air traffic control problem is not limited to the South-East of England; it is spreading nationwide. We were also reminded that above Britain, and above what one might call the London and provincial skies, there is a vast amount of transatlantic traffic flying north and south which puts a ceiling on the air traffic position in England itself. There is the additional problem that much of the military's training is carried out in the west of the island of Britian, but the aircraft are based in the east. So there is a cross-flow.
I mention those things simply to demonstrate that to argue that diversion of traffic, or rather creation of traffic to provincial airports—that is what we are really talking about, and that is what the question concerns—will ameliorate the problem in the South-East is not an argument that I find totally acceptable.
There is another advantage which the noble Lord touched on, but only touched on, when he mentioned competition. I believe that fares might react to competitive pressure and to greater choice by coming down. We would all welcome that. My Scottish tourism colleagues, in particular, feel disadvantaged by the lack of what is known as "common rating" within the UK. They have seen some attempts at intercontinental services. They have seen some of those attempts stand and some of them fall. That only proves that demand cannot be taken for granted.
544
However, in a changing tourism world, my colleagues argue that the Australians, for example, who used to come to Britain and indeed to Europe on a once in a lifetime trip, now come for shorter but more frequent visits. They now make three, four, five or six visits. If they wish to visit London and then go to Paris, they can probably go to Paris at absolutely no extra cost because London and Paris are common-rated by the airlines. But if they come to London and wish to go to Glasgow, they may find themselves paying £360, for example, in additional costs simply for the air trip up and down the country. There I feel, as I have said, that the development of additional intercontinental services, if the demand exists, will help the situation because it will reduce fares.
I realise that that is not entirely a matter for the Government, who are mentioned in the Question, in the sense that it is a commercial judgment. But nonetheless I believe that what the Government decide to do and what the Government achieve could affect fares and could bring them down. That would be to the benefit of all of us, and to the benefit of the provincial airports.
There are many other smaller arguments that one could advance for the regional airports. But now I should rather turn to what I call the national case, which I believe is an equally strong one. There are two major planks to my platform. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who in opening an airports debate—it may have been a Second Reading debate on the Airports Bill itself—reminded us some years ago that we had not only the world's favourite airline but, in London, the world's busiest international airports. The economic case which these three entities make for themselves, and the contribution they make to the nation's economy, seem to me at least as strong as any economic case that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I could agree in respect of intercontinental services going to the regional airports.
It is further strengthened, in the national sense that I am following, by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned, which was that we are in heavy competition with Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris, to name but three of the major overseas airports. Any weakening of the London position in that context might be to the disadvantage of the nation as a whole in this very heavy competition.
Further, there is the issue of deregulation. I think we would all agree that Britain leads Europe in deregulation, and that Europe and America probably lead the rest of the world in deregulation. Perhaps one day we may see total and unilateral global deregulation. However, I do not think that will occur for many decades yet. Until we have that we must live with the many countries which practise regulation of their air services, and we must compete in regulated markets. I feel that the Government have a duty, whether it is in the context of the national interest or indeed that of the provincial one, of defending the interests of our carriers in that still regulated field.
If we give intercontinental airlines increased access, either to London or to the regional airports, I hope that the Government will continue to make sure that we get something in return. We must not

545
simply be seen to give, we must also, quite cynically, be seen to take once in a while. What, for example, could we ask for from the United States of America? We could ask for additional points of entry. There are British airlines who are seeking additional points of entry. We could look for a reduction in the break of gauge freedom which the American intercontinental airlines enjoy in terms of flying 747s to international hubs like London and then scattering passengers on to places like West Germany or Scandinavia. We could look at enhanced access to computer reservation systems to enable British carriers better to position themselves in foreign markets. It is difficult for a foreign carrier to position itself in a market which is not its own in which it is inevitably competing head to head with the dominant local airline.
As I said, I support the regional case. However, I still say that it must be seen as part of a national issue rather than as a parochial one. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, reminded us last week in response to an oral Question, the Government's policy is to continue to attempt to negotiate agreements which will increase the number of services to and from regional airports. Providing that the Government continue to make sure that in this regulated world we get a quid for a quo, that policy is one that I wholeheartedly support and I look forward to my friends in the regions reaping the benefits.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and although it is not usual to come back when one has already had a crack at the subject, I should like to raise one point. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned that I said that regional airports would relieve the South-East. I agree with most of what he said in his speech but I should like to say that it was not a question of relieving the South-East; I drew attention to the fact that 35 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole came from the North-West. Therefore it was not a question of alleviating the problem in the South-East.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I picked up that remark by the noble Lord. I think that he referred to people who live within two hours of Manchester airport. I said that we must be very careful because two hours from Manchester airport brings one very close to the South-East. In seeking to build up Manchester airport one must therefore be very careful that one does not do so to the detriment of Birmingham, which he mentioned earlier in his remarks.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position. It may be that any speech made this evening will be of no use whatsoever. The Minister has been asked a Question, and it may be that he will tell us that the Government will do all that they possibly can to satisfy our demands. The Minister is nodding; so I suppose that I could sit down and say that we have what we want.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, this is a national as well as a regional issue. Eggs have been
546
in the limelight recently. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The truth is that airports will not function properly unless there is demand. It is ironic that the last time the noble Lord and I spoke in a debate we concentrated on whether or not there should be national plans for our transport infrastructure. If ever a transport function required to be looked at from a national point of view, it is airports.
The great tragedy is that no one in a responsible position in this country over the past 40 years has been prepared to grasp the nettle. No one has been prepared to say that because of the restricted size of the United Kingdom and the thousands of miles to Australia, Canada or Japan, it does not matter much to the international traveller whether between airports there are a few hundred miles, 50 miles or even—if I can come closer to home—the distance between Liverpool and Manchester airports. One can move from Liverpool airport to Manchester airport five times more quickly than one can travel through the area of Merseyside; they are that close.
In the North-West there is need to look at the situation objectively and to recognise that Manchester will expand. I should like the Minister to tell us that the Government will win on the issue of the applications for three additional international flights at Manchester. That is vital. It will be another step along the road of development at Manchester until finally we reach the situation where Manchester, like Heathrow, is too congested. Those in control at Manchester will then realise how justified has been the shouting over the last 20 years or so that Manchester and Liverpool airports be considered as one part of the infrastructure of air travel of the North-West.
My only regret is that when that time arrives it will not be possible for Manchester and Liverpool to work together because this Government's policy may well have taken Speke airport out of the realm of public planning. It may well be that if the airport is privatised someone will come along arid close it down and make a pile of money out of the land asset of that area. Once again we shall have lost a wonderful opportunity to develop a proper infrastructure in the North-West that would also meet the national need.
Perhaps I can remind the House and those interested in airport infrastructure that we lost a godsent opportunity at Burtonwood where there was a complete runway already on site. That would have been one of the finest airports in the whole of Europe. It had enabled the American air force to fight the war in Europe. We closed it because the governments of the day were so short-sighted that they allowed the coal board to undermine a massive runway for a few hundred tons of coal that produced an immediate gain. They ignored the long-term view.
That takes me back to the days when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, served with me on the North-West Economic Planning Council. We said to the Government that that should be a plan for the North-West. Not only did the Government refuse to accept that point of view; they also abolished the planning council because it was becoming too awkward.

547
When the question of Stansted was being hotly debated, it was discussed in that same council, made up not only of Labour members but consisting of representatives of the whole range of commercial enterprise in the North-West. The council came to the view that Stansted was not on and that the third London airport should not be created there because, as has been argued today, it would add to the congestion that would ultimately strangle the South-East. That was also the argument I advanced in this House over the question of London Docklands and Canary Wharf. No one takes any notice.
We said that if there had to be a third national airport—we insisted on calling it a national airport—it should be somewhere near the centre of England. It should be linked to the M 1 just above Milton Keynes. The name escapes me at the moment. That would have been the most sensible place. But no! The powers-that-be in the South-East wanted it much nearer; so they got Stansted. Now the South-East will get something else, which has nothing to do with airports. A new town will be developed; then another new town will be developed. The congestion we have seen today in some parts of London, and which we saw last week around this House, will get considerably worse because no government, no person and no party is really tackling the job of planning our national infrastructure.
I am not blaming everyone in the South-East. At this very moment there are vested interests in Manchester which look upon Speke as a rash upon the face of the North-West. They want nothing to do with it. They will learn in the very near future that that it is a very sadly mistaken policy. If we are to be successful we need that extra runway in the North-West.
I revert to the theme of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Does the airport encourage employment or does the installation of manufacturing or other kinds of industry that generate employment and economic activity create the need for the airport? Of course the answer is the latter.
London Airport was sited where the economic activity of the United Kingdom is or was sited. Now the economic activity of the South-East is beginning to kill itself. In this House we warned that one terminal could not handle the extra traffic generated by the Channel Tunnel. The proposal was opposed by the defenders of the private enterprise system, free competition and deregulation. "No," they said, "we will handle it." Now, however, two terminals are wanted. The matter will not end there. There will be another terminal.
As yet no attempt has been made by this Government to relieve the pressure in the South-East. In the North we do not by any means denigrate or wish to reduce the potential of the capital. We merely point out that if the resources in the North are not used and pressure in the South-East is not relieved, then the South-East will kill itself, because there are Amsterdam and Paris. On television the other day I saw that the Bourse in Paris is already preparing to compete with the great financial centre
548
of London. Of course it is. Unless there is more assistance given to private enterprise and to the financial world in London by relieving some of the congestion and pressures, there is a very real danger—as I said in this House nine years ago—of the economic activity jumping from the South-East of England into the golden triangle of Europe: Amsterdam, Paris and Continental cities. That danger is there and will remain until people grasp the significance of planning the infrastructure of an airport and its site.
I make no apology for saying that one of the greatest causes of congestion is the direct employment by this Government of people who have no need to work in the South-East. There is a decent air service and a very good rail service from the north of the country into London for Ministers who go to see their departments. In any case, in these days of modern communications there is physically no need for them to travel in order to stay in touch with their departments. To solve the problem of congestion in the South-East one must not just focus on one specific aspect. One must take in the whole planning concept and make sure that the plan embraces the rest of the country.
So the real area of economic activity of the United Kingdom covers 200 miles. And we must see that in a world context, where it is only the size of a pocket handkerchief. We have to be very careful in our planning. We must always ensure that any further economic activity that is generated takes place in the northern parts of this country. If we do not, the final result will be that the South-East will be too congested; and the private sector—about which this Government likes to boast—will not hesitate at all to move toward the biggest money. If that "biggest money" happens to be in Europe, that is where it will go. If the South-East begins to learn that lesson, God help the North, because the North will be condemned to be a land of dereliction such as has never before been seen in this country.
I support entirely the case made for moving activity into the regional airports, but also we must generate the activity that is required by the airports, which means moving people, jobs and resources out of the South-East. It already has too much.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, although I have not put my name on the list of speakers for this debate, I should like to join in supporting many of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Much of what I had intended to say has already been said by my noble friend Lord Sefton, but I should like to speak from the point of view of a practical user of Manchester Airport.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about the situation at Speke. Last week I had the opportunity to say so during an oral question to the Minister. So far as I am concerned Speke and Manchester airports are one airport and should have been one for many years. I believe that they could still become one airport and hope that they will not miss the opportunity of joining together one day, the sooner the better.

549
I speak to your Lordships today as a user. I am a director of a joint venture company with Chinese partners, which means that I have to go to China three times a year. I travel from Blackburn, my home town, down to London and then from London 1 go to Heathrow or Gatwick. It takes me eight hours to get there and eight hours to come back. I do that three times a year. It is not always convenient to catch the Shuttle and therefore I travel by British Rail. I am a great supporter of British Rail but even though the service from the North-West is fairly good and quite adequate—well, nearly adequate—nevertheless, the inconvenience of eight hours' travelling is considerable. An air service from Manchester would make the journey much more easy and much more profitable and would save the dickens of a lot of time.
While the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, was speaking I was reminded of the fact that during the course of this year I travelled to China twice, Hong Kong twice, Bombay once, Washington once and once to Kuala Lumpur. I regret that I have not been to Glasgow. On no occasion was I able to obtain a direct flight from Manchester to my destination. If that is my experience during the course of one year, how much is it the experience of others, time and again? I should like to echo the plea for more international airlines operating out of Manchester. I suppose that the same plea could be made for other places in the regions. This does not just apply to Manchester although it is my particular case.
I should also like to correct one or two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, regarding the road and rail services around Manchester. I wish that it were as easy to reach Manchester airport from certain parts of the region as the noble Lord made out. Going over Barton Bridge or the viaduct takes much longer than he says it does at the present time. However the roadworks are only temporary and when they are completed the journey will be much quicker than it is now. Nevertheless, the structure is there to enable a speedier passage to the airports.
I also support the plea of noble Lord, Lord Sefton, for greater use of Speke airport.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for tabling this Unstarred Question. But for this debate I would have been at the JACOLA (the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities) conference which, as has been mentioned, is meeting now at Bristol. In fact, the minister for transport, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is speaking there tonight. We are however delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, is to reply to us tonight on behalf of the Government.
We have the advantage of previously stated views and replies to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and the supplementary questions subsequently raised in this House as recently as 30th November, about the encouragement that should be given to provincial airports. In readiness for this debate I thought that it might be useful to see what had been said previously by Ministers. I have
550
therefore re-read the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which opened and closed the debate on 5th July 1988 on the White Paper, Airports Policy. Again I thought it worth while looking at the debate on the Second Reading of the Airports Bill on 21st April 1986, which was opened and closed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. There were references to runway capacity, terminal capacities and air transport movements, but little or no mention of air space capacity. Yet now it is generally accepted that the important problem in particular to the South-East is the availability of safe airspace capacity.
That is one reason why we on these Benches have congratulated the Minister on the efforts that he has been making in Europe with regard to Eurocontrol. On 30th November the Minister reminded the House that the Civil Aviation Authority has been asked for its advice by July next arising from a review which it is to undertake of airport capacity. I naturally assume—I dare not do otherwise in view of what my noble friends who sit behind me have said— that the CAA will deal with the position of the United Kingdom as a whole, not merely that of the South-East.
I have in mind extracts of a CAA memorandum to the House of Commons Transport Committee on air traffic movement in the UK, document CAP-537 published only on 26th April of this year. That memorandum dismissed a misconception that the problem of airspace congestion could be reduced by simply increasing runway capacity, a point that I have made time and again from this Dispatch Box. Paragraph 24.4 of the document published in April this year clearly argued that increased runway capacity does not reduce airspace congestion in the London terminal control area.
The final paragraph of that memorandum stresses that any possible measures that may be taken cannot be painless. Although the CAA is prepared to play its full part, it will be necessary for the Government to provide a clear and coherent policy which will require decisions to be taken. That was only seven months ago. I agree with my noble friends who sit behind me that the Government have some very important decisions to take which they must take.
Ministers have often referred to the role of regional airports. I readily recognise the approval that has been given of special capital development schemes. But surely more must be done; it can be done.
Following the 1986 Airports Act, 16 of the largest local authority-owned airports have been established as public airport companies. Surely following that there should be some relaxation of their borrowing powers. There have been murmurings of possible compulsory privatisation of these local authority-owned public airport companies. I hope that the Minister will he able to give a definite assurance tonight that there is no intention to make local authorities dispose of these new public airport companies which are now registered under the Companies Act. These 16 public airport companies must be able to plan for the future and murmurings of privatisation will do no good. That is linked to the whole question of regional airport development.

551
Following this debate, I trust that the Minister, the Department of Transport and the CAA will take another look at Section 6 of the White Paper, Airports Policy, on regional airports. Although it is often stressed that most passengers using South-East airports emanate from the South-East I draw attention to paragraph 12.11 of the White Paper. It states:
"The Government recognise that too many travellers from the regions are forced to use the South-East airports".
The document went on to point out the important part that air transport licensing policies play in the use of regional airports.
On 8th May 1987—I know the date only too well because it is my birthday; I do not forget that!—when the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and I spoke on an order to limit the aircraft movements at Stansted, I said that sooner or later there would have to be a stop to the building of concrete jungles throughout the South-East of England. I expressed a regret that although some 31 bodies had been consulted about that order, there had been no consultation either with JACOLA or the North of England Regional Consortium. I should like the Minister to give an undertaking—I am certain he will—to urge on the CAA in the review it is now to undertake that these two bodies will be included in the consultation. That is essential.
The Minister is speaking tonight at the JACOLA Conference. I am sure that there will be useful discussion with him and from him. I hope we shall hear that he has dealt with some of the important points affecting regional airports that are raised, first, in a guide recently issued by JACOLA; and, secondly, on a policy statement issued by that authority to which I shall refer before I close.
I am not a representative of JACOLA. However, I believe that its pressure for regional airports is common sense, and an issue in which my party and I believe. The statement by JACOLA says:
"The Joint Committee continues to monitor developments in Europe in the light of the European Commission's liberalisation policy to ensure that maximum benefits are achieved for regional airports".
Let us remember that 1992 is not a long way off. The development of regional airports in this liberalisation policy must play a very important part.
Is sufficient being done to encourage the use of regional airports in bilateral agreements? I know that we have recognised some successes in this House. With regard to Manchester, three American airlines have requested an increase to frequency of movements into Manchester. It has been said that apart from revenue to the Manchester Airport it would bring 1 million extra passengers and possibly help the regional economy to the tune of £100 million. There is grave danger in pressing for Manchester because if we are not careful we shall have not only intense rivalry and competition between Manchester and the South-East, but intense competition with regard to proper planning between the different airports outside the South-East; and that must be avoided.
I also remind the House that written into the 1986 Act is the duty placed upon the CAA,
552
"to have regard to the need to secure the sound development of civil aviation throughout the United Kingdom".
Those words were inserted in the 1986 Act deliberately, I believe, from an amendment which the Government eventually accepted. It is vital that in any plan that is made we consider civil aviation not just in the South-East and London area but for the nation as a whole, not only in regional airport development but what effect such development might have on the economy in various parts of the country.
The Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities has recently issued an excellent policy statement. What it stresses must from my point of view include the four BAA airports in Scotland. By regional airports we do not just mean local authority airports, so we must take into consideration four important airports owned by the BAA in Scotland.
It would be simpler if, instead of using my own words, I quote from the introduction of the JACOLA policy statement:
"The Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities recommends that the Department of Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority, JACOLA and the aviation industry—
that includes both airlines and airports—
"should work closely together in formulating and implementing positive steps to ensure that the potential contribution of airports outside the Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted system to meeting the UK's air transport needs is more fully exploited. Such joint action is essential in order to"—
Four points are made, and I believe JACOLA's words are much better than anything I could use. The first is to:
"satisfy the air transport needs of the travelling public in the most effective, efficient and accessible way; [secondly, to] prevent any worsening of the environmental and land-based transport congestion problems in the London area as a result of the concentration of airport development there; [thirdly, to] enable the regions to maximise the economic development, land use and other transportation benefits of airport development; [and, fourthly, to] ensure that the UK obtains maximum benefits from the EC aviation liberalisation measures".
I am certain that few noble Lords in the House would disagree with those four points, but they are matters which must be kept in mind in answering the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and in properly planning a national policy for airports, not only including the South-East and Manchester but also taking into consideration all the airports needed for the development of the economy in different areas of this country.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for asking this Question. I remind your Lordships that my noble friend asked specifically what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote direct intercontinental air services to regional airports in the United Kingdom. I shall now attempt to answer that Question.
It also provides an ideal opportunity not only to explain the Government's policy on the expansion of services from our regional airports but to demonstrate how successful that policy has been. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara would of course have liked to answer this debate himself, but, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, he had a long-standing engagement to address

553
JACOLA at its conference in Bristol. This committee represents the owners of the majority of the regional airports, and I have no doubt that my noble friend will at this moment be discussing many of the topics that have been raised this evening.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for their contributions to the debate, although it went on for slightly longer than I expected and at one stage became rather more lively than I had anticipated. Some of the matters which have been raised fell rather wide of the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall, however, comment briefly on three questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Sefton.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked for an assurance about privatisation. The Government are keen to see the introduction of private capital into airports owned by local authorities. The Airports Act 1986 enables authorities to dispose of company securities as they think fit, but it does not require disposal. The Government have no present plans to take such powers. The noble Lord also asked that the CAA should consult JACOLA and other organisations. I have no doubt that the CAA will take account of the views of all parties interested in the matter.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that the Stansted development was needed to meet demand in the South-East, but regional airports development is also needed to meet demand there. I should remind him that the CAA is due to report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in July 1989 on the requirements for United Kingdom airport capacity to the year 2005.
In 1985 the Government published their airports policy White Paper, which confirmed unequivocally our commitment to encourage the use and development of our regional airports so that they can meet the maximum demand they can attract. But of course this policy objective is not only intended to benefit the airports themselves. Increased opportunities must be created for airlines, both domestic and foreign, if airports are to expand. This, in turn, will provide the consumer with a wider choice, both in terms of destinations served and frequency of services.
Both the Government and the regional airports have a role to play in achieving this objective. It is for the airport managements successfully to persuade airlines that new services to their particular airport are not only economically viable but represent a better alternative than increasing their existing services to the already congested London airports system. Where traffic rights do not exist, airports should make it clear to airlines and through them to foreign governments that such rights are worth negotiating for.
The Government's role, on the other hand, is clearly set out in the White Paper. We are committed to creating wider opportunities for airlines when conditions of competition are fair and British interests are not prejudiced. Our success in meeting
554
this commitment is perhaps best exemplified by our recent air services agreement with Canada. Now, both Canadian and UK designated airlines are completely free to operate services between any airport in either country's territory. This has largely resulted in a significant increase in intercontinental services from our regional airports. During 1988, Leeds-Bradford, Cardiff and Newcastle have all offered regular scheduled services to Toronto. Other regional airports, such as Manchester and Prestwick, also offered services to other Canadian destinations such as Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Halifax.
More generally, over the past decade traffic at regional airports has grown by 92 per cent. compared with only 59 per cent. at BAA's London airports. Growth at Manchester has been over 150 per cent. and scheduled services are now operated from Manchester to over 60 foreign destinations, including services to eight points in North America and the Caribbean, and to eight other intercontinental destinations. Prestwick now has services to six North American cities.
However, there are examples where, despite these endeavours, the Government have as yet been unable to negotiate wider opportunities for airlines to service our regional airports. Your Lordships will no doubt appreciate that we have yet to negotiate satisfactory arrangements for an increase in the current level of services from Manchester to Singapore and the commencement of services by US carriers from New York and Boston to Manchester.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but he just mentioned services to Manchester from all those places. How many direct services are there to Manchester for those foreign airports; or are they via London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend the answer to that, but I will write to him. I could find the answer, but it would take me time and I think my noble friend would rather I go on with my speech.
We are currently examining the possiblity of introducing more liberal air services arrangements with Singapore and there is to he a further meeting between the UK and the Singapore aeronautical authorities early next year.
Wider access for US carriers to serve Manchester is a complex issue. Until this year the US Government were of the view that access for US airlines to serve Manchester was not worth negotiating as their airlines had no interest in such services. But Manchester airport successfully persuaded some US carriers that Manchester and the North-West offered their own substantial market for direct services.
Intergovernmental consultations were the next step. The air services agreement between the US and the UK is founded in the principles that there is a broad balance of opportunities for each side's airlines. If the Americans were to be given more rights at Manchester, balancing concessions would be needed for UK carriers in the United States.
At negotiations in March we offered the US a very reasonable package, taking into account the benefits

555
that would accrue to Manchester and the North-West from additional US services. I shall not trouble noble Lords with the details of what we sought but our offer to the Americans was a good one. We said that we could agree to the immediate commencement of a daily non-stop service between Manchester and Boston, and a daily one-stop service between Manchester and New York. But the American team's reaction was disappointing. It would not accept any package unless we agreed to the immediate commencement of all the services it sought. That include a second daily service between Manchester and New York, that one being non-stop.
As many noble Lords will know, the immediate commencement of a service on the New York-Manchester route by two large US carriers would have been disastrous for British Airways' fledgling daily service on that route. Manchester Airport, which was consulted frequently during the course of those negotiations, had advised that the survival of BA's service was of top priority to it.
The US Government then took the view that a second round of consultations should take place no earlier than the beginning of the next year. Eventually, however, they were persuaded out of that and the second round was held last week in Washington. We are disappointed that, again, no final agreement emerged.
But last week's negotiations were not a waste of time. On the contrary, there was a useful exchange of views, and the sides explored a number of new ideas for developing an appropriate package as the basis for an agreement. A Manchester Airport representative was included in the UK delegation throughout. Discussions will continue and we shall meet again as soon as mutually possible. The US Government are now considering dates which we have proposed for further negotiations in December or early January.
556
In the meantime, both sides will further examine each other's ideas and the Government very much hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached soon.
I noted what my noble friend Lord Teviot said about deregulation but there is an important point to be made. The US Government must be in no doubt that if a deal is to be struck they must be prepared to pay a reasonable price. We shall not be unreasonable. We see advantages for Manchester and the North-West and we shall take them into account. But there must also be advantages for UK airlines. I have no doubt that the US negotiators watched very closely the reactions of Manchester Airport and its supporters to the breakdown of talks in March. No doubt they were hoping that the Government would acquiesce in the face of that domestic pressure and give traffic rights to Manchester for nothing in return. They were mistaken. There must be mutual benefits. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, will agree.
Our policy was conceived after extensive consultation and careful consideration. We are not going to set it aside and ignore the interests of UK airlines in the highly competitive US environment. As well as those of Manchester, we must safeguard the broader interests of the country as a whole.
Allowing access to Manchester or to other regional airports for nothing in return would not be in anyone's long-term interests.
The Government and regional airports must therefore be seen to be pulling together. Of course the Government wish to increase traffic to them. But the interest of the nation as a whole demands that we have a strong aviation industry and the Government must look to their interest as well.
House adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.

  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS: INQUIRIES
  WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS: INQUIRIES
  BRAILLE UNITS IN THE PRISON SERVICE
  BRAILLE UNITS IN THE PRISON SERVICE
  BOMBING CASES: REPRESENTATIONS
  BOMBING CASES: REPRESENTATIONS
  NATURAL MEDICINES COMMITTEE
  NATURAL MEDICINES COMMITTEE
  ROYAL LONDON HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITAL
  ROYAL LONDON HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITAL
  HOMOEOPATHY: EUROPE
  HOMOEOPATHY: EUROPE
  THE HOMELESS: GP SCHEMES
  THE HOMELESS: GP SCHEMES
  SINGLE HOMELESS PEOPLE
  SINGLE HOMELESS PEOPLE
  AIDS: SECTION 1 REPORTS
  AIDS: SECTION 1 REPORTS
  DIOXINS: POSSIBLE HEALTH HAZARDS
  DIOXINS: POSSIBLE HEALTH HAZARDS
  AGRICULTURE: ANNUAL REVIEW
  AGRICULTURE: ANNUAL REVIEW
  SALMON DEALER LICENSING PROPOSALS
  SALMON DEALER LICENSING PROPOSALS
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND NATURE CONSERVATION
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND NATURE CONSERVATION
  RECYCLED PAPER: USE IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  RECYCLED PAPER: USE IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  YOUTH TRAINING COUNCIL
  YOUTH TRAINING COUNCIL
  ISLE OF WIGHT: A.3055 MILITARY ROAD
  ISLE OF WIGHT: A.3055 MILITARY ROAD