Sitting of 13 December 1989

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

    City Grant, Birmingham
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of city grant money awarded to programmes in Birmingham in the current financial year.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Five city grants totalling almost £10 million have been awarded to programmes in Birmingham, including one of £3·2 million to support a major commercial and leisure development known as the Arcadian centre, which I have approved today.
    Mr. Bevan: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the grant for the Waterlinks development in Birmingham is worth more than £6 million and is the second biggest city grant approved so far? Is that not convincing evidence of the Government's commitment to Birmingham's needs? Can thought now be given to a grant-aided scheme for the restoration of the Grand Union canal in Yardley, Birmingham and the areas around it?
    Mr. Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends on having so skilfully and effectively lobbied on Birmingham's behalf, in particular on city grant programmes. The answers to his questions are yes, and yes. The major Waterlinks development is the second biggest scheme approved so far and is equivalent in value to 10 per cent. of the annual approvals programme. I congratulate Birmingham on the exciting and imaginative schemes that it has submitted and I look forward to examining further schemes in due course.
    Mr. O'Brien: How much of the city grant, to Birmingham in particular and throughout the country in general, goes to housing for rent? According to the terms of reference, houses for rent should be provided by those who receive city grants. When will the same amount be spent on providing houses for rent as is being spent on commercial undertakings in Birmingham? Does he agree that assistance should be given to provide houses for rent throughout the country.
    Mr. Hunt: The purpose of our inner city policies is to provide inner city people with job opportunities, to match their skills to the jobs available, to provide retraining, better homes, better community facilities and a better environment in which to live and work. We have increased
    976
    the amount spent on city grants from £29 million in 1987–88 to £67 million in 1988–89 and we intend to maintain that rate of552
    increase in future years.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are mindful of the fact that the Government have been generous towards Birmingham? They understand that Birmingham needs a lot of money for the changes that need to take place. Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to ensure that the spine road to the Birmingham heartlands, which will set it on the road to growth, goes ahead so that Birmingham can be given a real chance to provide something of great worth to its people?
    Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Four large projects in Birmingham are under appraisal, including one in the heartlands area. My Department and I look forward to working with heartlands. We shall continue to support worthwhile city grant schemes. However, because of the complexity of the problems in heartlands, schemes may take longer than usual to appraise. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to speed up their consideration. I completely agree with my hon. Friend that important infrastructure improvements are vital to inner city regeneration.

    European Community Ministers
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I met my European Community counterparts as recently as Tuesday 28 November at the Environment Council in Brussels, following which on 30 November I gave a report of the meeting to the House in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright).
    I intend meeting my European Community counterparts again at the next Environment Council on 22 March. The Republic of Ireland takes over the presidency of the European Community on 1 January 1990, and it will be for the presidency to determine the Council agenda.
    Ms. Quin: Has the Secretary of State discussed with his European counterparts the speeding up of Britain's full compliance with EC water quality directives? Does he agree that instead of the taxpayer having to fork out more than £3 billion for privatisation, the money would have been better spent complying with those directives earlier? If we are supposed to enter the single European market in 1992, why do we have to wait until 1995 at the earliest for better quality standards?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that we have the most comprehensive, fully funded and obviously committed programme of investment in raising our water quality standards so that they will be in full compliance with EC directives and, perhaps even more to the point, so that we can meet all our standards, some of which are higher than those set by the European Commission. In the other parts of the question, he hon. Lady seemed to be muddling together a number of facts, but I am sure that she will be as delighted as the rest of the House at the extremely successful flotation of the water industry and at the large number of new shareholders in the water industry.
    Mr. Hunter: In dealings with his European counterparts, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no wasteful overlap between the activities of the European environmental statistics office, the European environmental CORINE programme, the European environmental agency and the European environmental monitoring and information system? It all sounds rather excessive, as though it involved creating or adding to the bureaucrats' paradise.
    Mr. Patten: We are all against other bureaucrats' paradises, although we may be in favour of our own. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of avoiding overlap. I believe that the establishment of a European environment agency, for which we pressed so strongly at the last Council meeting, will help to establish a common basis for information and debate on European environmental issues. I believe that Britain would come out of such debate pretty well.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: When the Secretary of State next meets his colleagues in Europe, will he ask them how France and Germany are managing to secure reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, while in the United Kingdom they increased by 2·6 per cent? In view of his comments outside the House, does he believe that more intelligent public transport policies and energy conservation measures have contributed to those reductions, and will he be recommending that we take similar action?
    Mr. Patten: I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman's last point. Since the substantial increase in investment in public transport announced in the Autumn Statement, I believe that we are now looking forward to the largest investment in British Rail since the move from steam to diesel, and we should all welcome that. Carbon dioxide emissions will be a major issue on the international agenda in the next few years. It is extremely complicated, and I am surprised that the Opposition have found it so simple to resolve, but I am sure that the rest of us will continue to do what we can to stop global warming and prevent climate change.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend recall that despite vigorous opposition from the British Government, the EC imposed VAT on non-domestic construction work in the United Kingdom? If the matter comes before his EC counterparts now or in the immediate future, will he give them notice that in no circumstances do the British Government want VAT to be imposed on domestic construction work in the United Kingdom which would increase house price inflation?
    Mr. Patten: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern and the argument that he has put so vigorously. Were the issue to come to the Environment Council, my first reaction would be to tell my distinguished colleagues that it should be discussed not by the Environment Council but by other Councils in the Community. I assure my hon. Friend that I would want the closest consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about any such proposal.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last month on the community charge.
    Mr. David Hunt: I have received about 150 representations from local authorities and others on transitional relief. I continue to receive many representations on the community charge.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not the Government accept by now that the poll tax is utterly and totally discredited in the minds of people throughout the country? Can he not see that the people who gain are those who live in large, expensive properties and those who lose are those who live in small, inexpensive properties? In so far as the poll tax is now discredited because it is grossly unjust, is it not time that the Government withdrew the legislation and set about re-evaluating the rating system once again?
    Mr. Hunt: No, no and no. Things are on course for the successful introduction of the community charge on 1 April next year. As for the position of the hon. Gentleman and his party, what is discredited is the present rating system, which all major parties now agree should be abolished. We believe that we have a fair and simple alternative. The hon. Gentleman should not pontificate on these matters until he and his colleagues have decided whether they wish to pursue their plans for twin-tax torture for the British people or whether they have some other alternative to bring forward.
    Mr. Fishburn: Can my hon. Friend tell the House at this stage what proportion of the British public have registered for the community charge?
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I am able to publish today the community charge population figures for England. They show that the proportion of the Government's estimate of people liable to the charge who have been registered is 99–95 per cent. on average throughout the country.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling in Tameside about the way in which the poll tax formulae have been applied? He will be aware of the representations that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and myself to the Department, and of the puzzlement of people in Tameside as to why Tameside appears to have done so badly under the formulae compared with other towns such as Rochdale and Oldham, which are within the same area of Greater Manchester. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the particular problems of Tameside and the way in which this treatment has been particularly unfair to that authority.
    Mr. Hunt: We do not regard as unfair the fact that we have increased the total spending for local authorities next year by 11 per cent. above the current figure and the amount of external finance by 8·5 per cent. Obviously, we are now in a consultation process and I would not want to comment further, except to say how delighted I am that in Tameside more than 100 per cent. of people—[Interruption]—have now registered.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: So that local authorities can levy a community charge which is fair and is seen to be fair, has my hon. Friend had representations from local authorities worried about the treatment of reserves and balances which, as he knows, distort the perceived spending and

    979
    perceived needs of each authority, making it difficult for my hon. Friend to assess a reasonable and sensible support grant?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The use of balances has always distorted the picture for local authorities. To compare like with like, we have endeavoured to leave the use of balances out of our calculations. Their use can create the kind of problems to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Blunkett: In view of the obvious dismay on the Conservative Back Benches at the fact that the £1 billion bribe offered to the electorate to soften the political impact of the poll tax is clearly not working, will the Minister tell the House whether there are any further plans for financial changes between now and 1 April, whether he understands the existing administrative chaos and whether he understands and appreciates the fact that, whatever the Government do to try to bribe the electorate and to provide what are becoming known as sweeteners, the poll tax will show its full implications when people vote in the local elections in May and display their disgust at and distrust of the Government's proposals to use their money to try to persuade them that the tax that they do not want is acceptable?
    Mr. Hunt: When the hon. Gentleman refers to administrative chaos, he can hardly be referring to the excellent work of community charge registration officers throughout the country in achieving a national average of 99·95 per cent. I greatly regret the fact that many local Labour parties have been associated with non-registration campaigns—which have been singularly unsuccessful. On implementation, we believe that the transitional relief scheme is generous and important in trying to overcome the problems in certain parts of the country. However, the certainty that is now present in the system will continue until 1 April, although we have not yet announced the results of our consultations on the amount of rate support grant and external finance.
    Mr. Ward: Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider carefully all the representations that have been made to him recently about the community charge and especially those that were made by representatives of the borough of Poole to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) last Monday, when they demonstrated clearly that they had been treated unfairly in comparison with neighbouring areas? There must be other areas like this, so can my hon. Friend guarantee that they will all be considered carefully?
    Mr. Hunt: In paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the robust representations that he has made on behalf of his area, I confirm that all the points that he and the delegation that he headed made will be considered carefully.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the fact that the Minister has refused to respond properly, I propose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. All that is necessary is to announce that a matter will be raised on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman need not go into the arguments now.

    War Memorial, County Hall
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the war memorial and inscripted marble in county hall, London SE1 will be safeguarded in the event of redevelopment.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I understand that, as part of their proposals for the development of county hall, the London residuary body and the County Hall Development Group are prepared to provide for the restoration of the memorial and inscripted marble.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that the great majority of Londoners still find it most offensive that county hall, which was built with ratepayers' money to be the headquarters of the old London county council and then of the Greater London council, should be turned into something as wholly inappropriate as a luxury hotel? Will the Secretary of State take a message from this House to the spivs who propose to build a luxury hotel that the place will be taken back by the people of London for the government of London and that the Opposition will ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Patten: My impression has been that most Londoners are able to contain their misery and despair a t the abolition of the GLC within the bounds of public decorum. The capital receipts from the sale of county hall will, in due course, be used for the benefit of Londoners—would that all the money which flowed through county hall in the past had also been used to the benefit of Londoners.
    Mr. Hanley: Talking of war memorials, may I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the Property Services Agency for at long last illuminating the cenotaph in Whitehall? It is now a site of remembrance worthy or those who died for all of us and one of the most attractive monuments in London.
    Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I agree with him about the importance of what has been done and about the attractiveness of the result.
    Miss Hoey: Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Waterloo what direct benefits their community will derive from the conversion of county hall into a luxury hotel, and especially what the benefits will be for people sleeping in the nearby bull ring?
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Lady knows, one proposal for the development of county hall is before an inspector at the moment and another is before the courts, so it would be injudicious for me to be drawn into too much detail in responding to her question. I am sure that one result of the development of county hall which would benefit the hon. Lady's constituents would be the creation of more jobs.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people will be glad to hear that the war memorial is to be preserved and properly presented for the benefit of the people of London? Does he also accept that, whatever one thinks about the structure of local government in London, county hall will not be needed again by any body that is established? Will my right hon. Friend take care about answering questions from the hon.

    981
    Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because when the hon. Gentleman sees valuable things lying around county hall they tend to end up lying in his loft?
    Mr. Patten: There are many places that I would like to visit, but I have never included the hon. Gentleman's loft among them. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the government of London. I also agree that it is important to protect the interior of county hall and, whatever our disagreements, that is a point on which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I agree.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that if the Government allow the demolition of any part of county hall it will be seen as an act of vandalism motivated by political spite, and as an attempt by the Government to prevent the next Labour Government from re-establishing Londonwide regional government based at county hall? We shall not be deterred. County hall is as much a part of our heritage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking a question.
    Hon. Members: What is it then?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Allan Roberts.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that county hall is as much a part of our heritage and of the Thames skyline as the Houses of Parliament? It is not surprising, however, that the Government refuse to intervene to protect the former workplace of Ken Livingstone, given that they refuse to intervene to protect the former workplace of William Shakespeare.
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is right that the building in question is part of our heritage, but I have never regarded the GLC as part of that heritage.

    Nature Conservancy Council
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairperson of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Chris Patten: My colleagues and I regularly meet the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. The most recent meeting was on 23 November, when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside met Sir William Wilkinson to discuss proposals connected with the forthcoming reorganisation of the council.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State, who will shortly be addressing an important conference to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the national parks, accept that the transfer of responsibility and the decentralisation of the scientific base to Wales is generally acceptable in Wales and that the combination of the powers with those of the Countryside Commission will provide a new body able to promote conservation and encourage access, within limits, to the Welsh countryside? Will he now state that it is the Government's intention to organise a joint statutory committee to ensure that Great Britain-wide and United Kingdom-wide issues are dealt with in the reorganisation?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We intend to establish a joint statutory committee. People in Wales, as in England and
    982
    Scotland, wish, as we do, to ensure that scientific matters which should be taken on a Great Britain basis are taken on such a basis.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both within and outside the Nature Conservancy Council and its advisory bodies, many more people support his restructuring proposals than have raised their voices against them?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend, and one of those who have supported our proposals is the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Gould: Has not the proposed dismemberment of the Nature Conservancy Council met with almost universal hostility on the part of all those directly concerned with conservation? There is still time to withdraw the proposals and I urge the Secretary of State to do precisely that. Does he not accept that his proposed palliative of some form of joint committee has also been decisively rejected as an inadequate piece of sticking plaster for a wound that should never have been opened? Would it not be better if he stayed his hand from surgery altogether?
    Mr. Patten: I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition is among those people who have not condemned the proposals. I have in front of me, as barristers are able to say, a letter from the office of the Leader of the Opposition which says:
    "Mr. Kinnock … welcomes the proposal to establish a countryside council for Wales."
    If the Leader of the Opposition welcomes the proposals for Wales, I do not see how he cannot welcome them for the rest of the country. Perhaps Labour party policy varies from one part of the country to another.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to ensure that we safeguard the science base of the Nature Conservancy Council's work. I share the Leader of the Opposition's determination to ensure that there is a profile for nature conservancy work in Great Britain. Our arrangements on the machinery allow for that. We are not talking about changing conservation policy, but changing the machinery, and that is justified. The only real difference between us and the Nature Conservancy Council now is whether or not there should be an independent chairman of the joint statutory committee.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what the governing bodies may have said or written to newspapers, the majority of Nature Conservancy councillors are firmly in favour of the changes, and the individual countries are particularly pleased because they look forward to a more practical involvement in nature conservation, with a stronger scientific base?
    Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend says. He has made a distinguished contribution to the work of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am sure that the majority to which he referred will be delighted at the confirmation that I have been able to give this afternoon and they will be delighted that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with them.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends that the level of payment to be made for water and associated charges in respect of domestic hereditaments will be determined in future; and from what date any change of system shall take effect.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): It is for each water service company to decide how to charge domestic customers for its services, subject to the limits placed on each company's charges by the Secretary of State and the director general, and the other conditions of their appointment. The use of rateable values as a basis of water charges will not be permitted beyond the year 2000.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister therefore confirm three principles to the House now․first, that compulsory metering will not be introduced; secondly, that the new system, whatever it is, will have to relate the charge to the ability to pay; and thirdly, that nothing will be introduced that could be regarded as any sort of water poll tax?
    Mr. Howard: There are provisions in the licence of appointment against any kind of unfair discrimination against different categories of customer. That is more than sufficient protection for water consumers.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that metering means that people will pay more for the water they use and that a household containing a bigger family will pay more than a household containing one person, and, what is more important, the more water that they use, the more they will pollute, and that will conform to our policy that the polluter pays?
    Mr. Howard: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Metering is used almost universally in other countries, but will not necessarily be adopted by the water service companies. It is for them to choose the most appropriate method of charging.
    Mr. Beith: What will the Minister do about the impact of charges upon the customers of long-established private water companies, such as the Newcastle and Gateshead water company? Customers of those companies have already faced increases of more than 18 per cent., which is partly due to the demands of privatisation legislation. They will face greater increases, because those companies do not get the green dowry that is being given to the newly privatised companies.
    Mr. Howard: We are engaged in discussions with those companies to decide the appropriate level for the limit on charges during the next 10 years, and those discussions are continuing.
    Mr. Dover: Is the Minister able to confirm whether arrangements have been made for housing developers, with regard to the charges that they have to pay for the provision of water services to housing developments?
    Mr. Howard: Infrastructure payments have to be made under the legislation by developers so that the costs that their developments impose on the water infrastructure are fully met.

    Litter
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has as to the number of tonnes of litter left on British streets every day; what was the average figure for 1988; and what was the figure for 10 years ago.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): No statistics of this nature are available, but it is perfectly clear that there is far too much litter on many of our streets. We are determined to put this matter right, and we shall shortly introduce legislative proposals to tackle the problem.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to the Government's estimable anti-litter proposals is not just an increase in fines, but enforcement? The City of Westminster is undoubtedly trying to solve the problem, but all we see is innumerable signs telling us of fines and nobody backing them up, with the result that Marsham street, in which the Department of the Environment and I reside, occasionally resembles a street in Cairo rather than London.
    Mr. Trippier: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. There will be strong enforcement powers in the forthcoming Environmental Protection Bill. Litterers who default on paying fixed penalties within the prescribed time will be prosecuted. That is an important element of enforcement. Moreover, an aggrieved citizen will be able to apply to a magistrates court for a litter abatement order. That is broadly welcome and means that a citizen will be able to take the local authority to court if he is not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its area.
    Mr. John Evans: Would the Minister care to estimate how many tonnes of litter are left lying on Britain's trunk roads all year long? Is it not time that he instructed his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Transport to clean trunk roads such as the East Lancs highway, which is in my constituency and is so littered with debris and shoulder-high weeds that it often looks like the main thoroughfare in a refugee camp?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered. He knows that I am familiar with that road. I am delighted to be able to tell him that we shall deal with that problem in the forthcoming Bill.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend enter discussions with supermarkets, brewers and the soft drinks trade to explore the possibility of introducing a system of refundable deposits on cans and bottles such as operates so effectively in Switzerland for example?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to confirm that we are anxious to talk, to supermarkets in particular. I am about to meet representatives of the leading supermarkets, and I hope to raise that issue with them.
    Ms. Walley: Rather than extol the virtues of what Westminster city council has done, will the Minister face the fact that, for many years, that council did not charge for the collection of trade refuse? He has not so far got to the heart of the matter. What discussions is he having about the importance of waste reduction and waste minimisation, and applying a precautionary principle rather than enforcement? He is not giving local authorities

    985
    the money they need to deal with competitive tendering. Where is the ability to recycle in this? Where is the Government's real concern about the environment?
    Mr. Trippier: I would not disagree with what the hon. Lady said about precautionary measures. When we are talking about waste minimisation, we are talking about recycling in the main. The Government have entered a partnership with Friends of the Earth to launch an initiative for recycling the city in Sheffield. I hope to have the support of the Labour party and other political parties represented in the House for it. We all hope that the initiative will be a success. We hope to learn from it and to replicate it elsewhere.
    It is not fair for the hon. Lady to knock what Westminster city council has done. Its initiative to tidy up Westminster has been a tremendous success. The appointment of litter wardens has had a significant deterrent effect. We have chosen the city of Westminster as an example and are building the forthcoming Bill around it.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has quoted the example of the work that is going on in Westminster, but is he aware that other London boroughs are taking just as much action and setting just as good an example to the rest of the country, for example, Kingston's "Bright and Clean" campaign involves both schoolchildren and the community at large and in Wandsworth, which sets so many examples to other local authorities, there is an anti-litter blitz squad?
    Mr. Trippier: I am anxious to pay credit where it is due and I am happy to confirm a number of examples in London where the local authorities have acted responsibly and can be held up as a superb example that the rest of the nation should follow. I hope to visit all the authorities that my hon. Friend has mentioned and I add to his list the London borough of Sutton, which has achieved a considerable degree of success in this area.

    Water Quality
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a response from the European Community on the programmes presented to it to implement the tap water quality and bathing water quality directives.
    Mr. Howard: I have received no indication from the Commission as to when it expects to respond.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that there is a good possibility that the Commission will insist on the implementation of both directives at an earlier date than many of the schemes that have been put before the Commission suggest that the Government are prepared to accept? Given that on the bathing water directive alone, the Government intend that £760 million worth of work will be done after 1993, does he agree that if the Commission insists on 1993 as the date, there will be a big shock for those people who are making short-term gains from the water privatisation?
    Mr. Howard: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Our programmes, which are very detailed, provide for the work that can be done to be done as soon as is practicable. I cannot believe that the Commission would
    986
    be so unreasonable as to insist on earlier dates. In any event, that would not be to the disadvantage of investors, who are entitled to a reasonable return on their capital in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
    Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware of the bad quality of the sea water along much of the coastline of south Devon, where a young lady swimmer caught hepatitis A last summer as a result of swimming in the sea? Does he agree that lengthening the outfall pipes will not solve any of the problems because it will simply divert the sewage right along the coastline to other beaches?
    Mr. Howard: I agree that much needs to be done to improve the quality of our bathing waters, but the proposals of South West Water plc, in common with other plcs, amount to much more than simply lengthening the outfall pipes. Their proposals are carefully considered and prepared and will achieve compliance with the European Community's directive.
    Mr. McGrady: Will the Minister discuss with his EEC colleagues the rise in pollution in the Irish sea, which is so damaging to the marine aquasystem? Will he suggest setting up a tripartite commission involving the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man to study pollution and to make suggestions for its eradication?
    Mr. Howard: These matters receive careful and continuous attention by those of my hon. Friends within the Department who have responsibility for them.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the run-up to water privatisation Southern Water announced that it would invest heavily to improve the sewage situation in the English Channel in the Deal, Dover and Folkestone area? Is he further aware that the privatisation will bring that investment forward and that more money will be available to improve the quality of the water in that area?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both his constituents and mine will benefit in precisely the way that he has identified.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: But if there are to be extra costs to meet EEC standards, who is to pay? Is the Minister aware that some stockbrokers are already warning the new shareholders that extra spending may require another rights issue? Will the Government allow that to happen or will Ministers step in again to put the interests of shareholders first? Will Ministers make taxpayers or consumers foot another bill on top of the £3 billion that the privatisation has already cost the taxpayers of this country?
    Mr. Howard: The limits on price rises that I announced in August provide for the £24–6 billion investment programme which will take place during the next 10 years and accounts for the industry's predictable investment needs. The success of the privatisation lay behind part of the hon. Lady's question. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in the Financial Times of 14 September that
    "Success … will be measured in terms of how enthusiastically the small investor goes for the issue."
    I am content to accept his criteria, and on that test it is clear that the issue was a resounding success.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this hostage to fortune matches in its eloquence and efficiency the hostage to fortune put forward earlier this summer by the hon. Member for Dagenham's colleague who said that South West Water would not be a triumph when it was offered for privatisation? That is now selling superbly.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party was determined to wreck the privatisation, did everything it could to wreck it and manifestly failed to do so. All we have from it now are the sourest of sour grapes.

    Walkers and Ramblers
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase access to the countryside for walkers and ramblers.
    Mr. Trippier: The Government are committed to protect public access to the countryside through the rights-of-way network. We fully support the Countryside Commission's initiatives, working with local highway authorities, to raise the profile of rights of way work and improve the quality of access.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that walking is a growing recreational activity in this country and that the number of people who enjoy it both in wild and mountainous areas and on urban fringes is steadily increasing?
    We should look for new areas to which people can obtain access to avoid the overuse of some of the existing honeyspots. What are the Government doing to improve access as opposed to protecting existing access?
    Mr. Trippier: We must put this matter in context. The 140,000 mile network of rights of way is, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the main means by which the public can gain access to the wider countryside. Walking as a recreation is certainly on the increase. The Countryside Commission has come forward with a new initiative entitled "Enjoying the Countryside". It has made specific recommendations to which we are anxious to respond and has also made specific recommendations to the highway authorities to which I hope that they will respond.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many districts around the urban areas of this country, footpaths are cluttered with a horrible accretion of discarded supermarket trolleys? When he meets the supermarket operators, will he take a strong line with them and ask them to introduce a system whereby before trolleys are taken into the stores supermarkets demand a deposit which can be reclaimed when the trolleys are left behind in the parking lot?
    Mr. Trippier: I am sympathetic with the point made by my hon. Friend. I shall certainly ensure that this matter is on the agenda when I discuss the issue with the supermarket chiefs.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Since 20 per cent. of the nation walk in the countryside each year and the Countryside Commission has just reported to us that up to half the rights of way are difficult or impossible to use․it estimates that one cannot walk further than two miles before reaching a ploughed right of way or some other
    988
    obstruction․will the Minister consider asking the Countryside Commission to take a new initiative to propose, with the regional sports councils and recreational councils, a new development plan for walking? That is desperately needed in this country. Will he consider increasing the Government grant to highway authorities from £14 million to £21 million so that they can meet their programme? Will he kindly consider giving the Countryside Commission default powers to deal with ploughed footpaths which need to be opened up but the landowners or farmers are unwilling to do that.
    Mr. Trippier: I shall try to remember all those questions. In reply to the first, I am happy to respond positively to the right hon. Gentleman's request that we should approach the Countryside Commission to see whether we can enter into partnership with the regional sports councils. That seems to be a good idea. In terms of the amount of money that the Countryside Commission referred to in its report and the initiative that I mentioned earlier, the Commission suggests that a great deal can be achieved through money being made available by local authorities. The amounts are between £40,000 and £90,000 ․not high amounts but that money could go a long way. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the ploughing of footpaths which he said can destroy public enjoyment of the countryside. Of course there is legislation which says that footpaths should be reinstated within two weeks. I am not entirely satisfied that that is happening. I welcome the opportunity to say that farmers who break the law must expect to face the penalty.

    Association of County Councils
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Chris Patten: My Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities met the Association of County Councils on 6 December and discussed the proposals for the 1990–91 grant settlement.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When my right hon. Friend meets the association in the near future will he make it absolutely clear that if community charge levels in Derbyshire are higher than expected it will be solely due to the profligacy of the county council whose spending included the cost of sending a delegation to that well-known home of liberal democracy, North Korea? Will he urge the county council to emulate the example of Amber Valley borough council which has saved a huge amount through competitive tendering and which has ploughed much of that money back into improved services, including environmental schemes and recycling?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to suggest that life would be much happier for charge payers and people in Derbyshire if Derbyshire county council were as prudent as the Amber Valley district council. My hon. Friend asked me to make representations to Derbyshire county council. Alas, as it is not a member of the Association of County Councils, I would not be able to get through to it in that way.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Association of County Councils share with many other bodies, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the serious concern about the

    989
    inadequacy of Government regulations, especially with regard to toxic waste․an inadequacy which is deplorably and sadly continuing and is a very great problem in my constituency?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that our proposals in the Environment Protection Bill will help to deal more sensibly with waste. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have made proposals to the other members of the European Community about toxic waste and I hope that we shall have Community support in trying to follow them up in the OECD.
    Mr. Hind: When my right hon. Friend meets the Association of County Councils, will he tell it that the community charge protects and benefits many people on low incomes? I am speaking especially of single pensioners and single-parent families. In my constituency 80 per cent. of council house tenants in receipt of housing benefit will not pay the full community charge and that also applies to 38 per cent. of owner-occupiers and private tenants. The only real danger to those people is from Labour-controlled county councils who will heap additional costs on the community charge in order to try to win seats that are held by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Patten: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to help all charge payers, including those who are less well off, is to ensure that councils provide value for money and reduce their spending to what is absolutely essential. My hon. Friend was also right to mention the substantial support being given through benefits to charge payers. That will amount to at least £2·5 billion.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has a meeting scheduled with Nirex before Christmas to discuss the disposal of low and medium-level nuclear waste.
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not expect to meet representatives of Nirex before Christmas.
    Mr. Salmond: Although the Secretary of State will not meet representatives of Nirex before Christmas, will the Minister take this opportunity to bring some Christmas cheer to the north of Scotland? Will he instruct the nuclear agency to accept the democratic and overwhelming vote of the people of Caithness against the Nirex proposals? Does he accept that that vote, in line with other expressions of opinion throughout Scotland, makes it clear that no area of Scotland will consent to be somebody else's nuclear dustbin?
    Mr. Trippier: We must put the matter into context. First, we are talking about planning applications not for the facilities but for test bore drilling. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman addresses. The matter is before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and he is obliged to take into account views expressed by local people.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Energy? Does he recall that when the Secretary of State was Chief Whip, he and three of his hon. Friends were not anxious about having that low-level nuclear waste dumped in their constituencies? Now that
    990
    the former Chief Whip is the Secretary of State for Energy and seems to believe that nuclear power is God's gift to the human race, perhaps he has changed his mind. Perhaps he might like to have it dumped in his constituency. Will the Minister ask him?
    Mr. Trippier: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is completely irrelevant to the question about Nirex. The principal point is that the safe disposal facilities have been suggested and welcomed by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment and the House of Lords Select Committee. I need hardly point out that those are all-party Committees.

    Playing Fields
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to protect school and community playing fields; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: It has long been Government policy that local authorities should consult sporting and recreational interests in considering any application for the development of recreational land. The Department is currently preparing a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation which will consolidate and update the existing guidance.
    Mr. Greenway: Is the Minister aware that we are in danger of becoming a nation of Billy Bunters?
    Mr. Hayward: Not all of us.
    Mr. Greenway: I did not say of all ages but perhaps I should have done. We are in danger of becoming a nation of Billy Bunters because playing fields are disappearing owing to local authority pressure on them for building. Is he aware that in my constituency the beautiful Cayton road playing fields—17 acres with trees and the rest․have been children's playing fields for over 50 years? The national Labour party says that it is in favour of retaining playing fields, but Ealing Labour-controlled council is doing its utmost to build on them and to take them away from the community and from children. Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Howard: Were it not for the Government's sensible policy on these matters, the danger referred to by my hon. Friend might well exist. I know that he has made a strenuous effort to fight for the retention of the playing field to which he referred but he will understand that, as the decision may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I cannot comment on the matter further today.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister know of any case where playing fields sold for redevelopment have been returned to use as playing fields? Does not the absence of such cases make vital a proper national Government strategy rather than mere guidelines?
    Mr. Howard: We have asked the Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association to combine to consider the matter and to determine whether it is desirable to compile a register of playing fields. That might go some way to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's points.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional lettings over the next two years are expected to be made available for the homeless as a result of his Department's homelessness initiative.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Government estimate that around 15,000 additional lettings will be made available as a result of the extra £250 million to be allocated over the next two years to local authorities and housing associations for schemes to assist the homeless.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is extremely welcome news and that two ways of encouraging a reduction in homelessness are first, to encourage private tenancies rather than discourage them by rent controls and other restrictions and secondly, to encourage housing associations rather than rely or impose too heavily on local authorities? Will he confirm that the Government's policies are achieving precisely that?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has certainly set out our objectives clearly. That is why, for example, we are proposing to double the Housing Corporation's programme in the next three years, which will allow it to produce many more homes. That is also why we have
    992
    encouraged the private-rented sector through legislation and in other ways. I am delighted that the business expansion scheme is providing an additional £350 million for private renting.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that almost every housing organisation recognises that this panic-striken cash hand-out is nowhere near enough to meet the disgrace of homeless teenage children begging on our streets, possibly for the first time in 80 years? Why does he not do what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) urged a previous spokesman on housing to do, namely allow local authorities to use capital receipts from council house sales to build, repair and renovate? Why was it that when that Minister made that recommendation, he suddenly became a junior Minister fin the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is the first person to describe the £250 million initiative that we have launched in that way. The figure that we announced a few weeks ago exceeded some of the figures we had been pressed for by housing associations, including one which represents the Labour party. It is insulting to refer to Northern Ireland as the hon. Gentleman did. Moreover, there would not have been any receipts from the right to buy if the Opposition had had anything to do with it.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the terms of Question 26 on the Order Paper? I should make it clear that I took the first opportunity I had to notify the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that I intended to raise this point of order. I understand that he has now withdrawn his question. Nevertheless, the question was tabled and appeared on the Order Paper, which is why I wish to raise the matter.
The question asks
"by how much more the rate support grant figure for 1989–90 would be increased if 2,000 of the residents of Langbaurgh were black."
The question is undeniably racially discriminatory in intention and it is racially offensive and inflammatory in effect. It breaches the usual rules of good order which we attempt to establish in this House, and it is potentially in breach of the statutory rules applied by race relations legislation.
How was it that the Table Office accepted the question? Are there not rules which we can deploy to protect the House against such offensive questions? In asking you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I add that I invite the Secretary of State to join me in dissociating himself from the terms of the question?
Mr. David Winnick: On the same point—
Mr. Speaker: No. Why does the hon. Gentleman always rise when I seek to reply? I can give the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) the answer to his question. The Table Office accepted the question because various criteria are used in calculating rate support grant, including the make-up of the population. As for the motives, any hon. Member can table a question provided that it is in order. That is a matter for him.
Mr. Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that, when I raised the point of order about events in Hong Kong, it was valuable and a statement followed?
Mr. Speaker: I know. Oh, go on.
Mr. Winnick: My point of order arises from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). On Monday, when the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made certain comments that many of us considered to be an incitement to race hatred, you said that every hon. Member has a right to express a view. If legislation forbids the incitement to race hatred and it is illegal outside the House, why is it that remarks such as those made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North or offensive questions about blacks are accepted by the Table Office? Does that mean that we can ask questions relating to the number of Jews, Catholics or Protestants? It is difficult to believe that such questions would be accepted.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is challenging what I have said. I have already explained why the Table Office accepted that question. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about other matters, I can only remind him that, over many centuries, we have achieved
994
freedom of speech in this House, and it is for each hon. Member to decide how to use that right. As Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in the business of rationing freedom of speech in this place.
Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, and further to your explanation in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I wonder whether you would reconsider the matter. I do not believe that local authorities collect information on the basis of the colour or the ethnic origin of citizens. That being so, I submit for your consideration ․and I accept that you need time to think about this․my belief that the question should not have appeared on the Order Paper, under any circumstances, as it is grossly offensive. Although we understand and value the help that we receive from the Clerk's Department, this is an unfortunate matter that requires further consideration.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall reflect further on this matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Very wise.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Very prudent.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an Opposition Supply day. This is taking time away from those who wish to speak.
Mr. Allen: This is a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker. Given the subsidy for the sale of our water industry of £3·3 billion, or £65 for every man, woman and child in the country, would it not be for the convenience of the House if the Secretary of State were to submit a memorandum and all the side papers involved in this matter to the Public Accounts Committee now, rather than in a year's time?
Mr. Speaker: What has that to do with me?
Mr. Allen: It is for the convenience of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The question is—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On another matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

BILL PRESENTED

  GOVERNMENT TRADING
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Waddington, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. Peter Lilley and Mr. Richard Ryder, presented a Bill to amend the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 and section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 and to repeal the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  Mr. Speaker: On another matter—Mr. Campbell-Savours.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you were here during Question Time and heard what happened on water questions, and as you know that many Conservative Members of Parliament have bought shares in water companies and that Labour Members have refused to do so, is it right that those Conservative Members should be allowed to ask questions which, by their effect, may help further to drive up the price of water shares on the stock exchange? Is it not improper for them to ask questions that might influence whether a further rights issue should be made to secure further money for the water companies? Could you rule on this matter? Surely it is quite improper—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have absolutely no knowledge of the shareholdings—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They should he on the Register
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said, "As you know". I have no knowledge of such matters. If they are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, I would have knowledge of them, but I have no knowledge about the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking time from his Front-Bench spokesman, but I will hear him.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is it not correct that those Conservative Members who have bought shares in the water companies should now declare that and should not take any part in any debate or discussion of the matter in this House, because otherwise they could be thought to be feathering their own nests as a result of being Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are well-known rules about the registration of interests in companies. If an hon. Member had a certain number of shares that fell within those rules, he would have to register them.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), which I well understand, would it now be in order for you to rule that an hon. Member can table a question asking for a breakdown by colour of how many people are stopped by immigration officials and how many are deported? A breakdown by colour would prove categorically that the Government are racist in their immigration policies.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table such a question, I shall look at it carefully.

Opposition Day
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY

    Mortgage Costs and Housing
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.39 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the Government's responsibility for the growing housing crisis; deplores the rise in mortgage interest rates which has destroyed family budgets, cost some their homes and placed home ownership beyond the reach of others; warns that Government-inspired increases in council rents above the rate of inflation will cause hardship to many low-income people; deplores the Government's failure to maintain the condition of the housing stock and the consequent shortage of affordable housing; and believes that the scandal of growing homelessness is just the most visible sign of a wider housing failure.
    Of all the mistakes made by the Government, and there have been many, none is more resented, none is more painfully felt and none is more likely to cost the Government support than the steep and sustained increase in interest rates․a rise which in itself is an admission of economic failure and is a sign of desperation in the pursuit of economic policy, and a rise which has its most immediate effect, and does its most immediate damage, in its impact on mortgage rates.
    The anger and resentment that that has caused are not just the result of the damage that it has done to family budgets, although that is real enough. Average monthly repayments for the country as a whole since May 1988 have risen from £259 to £347, an increase of no less than £88 per month. In London, the figures are even worse, because they reflect a rise of £162 per month. Increases of that magnitude will have shattered even the most careful of household budgets and will have plunged thousands of families into the most desperate of financial plights.
    But the anger and resentment arise not just on that account, nor just because, for a tragic minority, the increase has meant the shock, despair and humiliation of losing their homes. In the first half of this year there were 6,350 building society repossessions. There is precious little comfort to be gained from the fact that that high figure represents a small decrease from the even higher figure of the earlier year or two; little comfort because the lower figure reflects the fact that building societies are playing a somewhat smaller proportionate part in the provision of mortgage lending, and even less comfort because, in prospect, the outlook is much grimmer.
    Already we see the volume of mortgage arrears growing fast. In June this year, no fewer than 45,100 mortgages were between six and 12 months in arrears, which represented a jump of more than 20 per cent. What is already a grim reality for many people is rapidly becoming a frightening prospect for many more.
    But the true reason for the widespread resentment and anger is the sense of betrayal felt by many thousands of people who recall that they were enticed on to that treadmill of spiralling house prices, of ever-rising mortgage repayments, by a Government who told them that we were enjoying an economic miracle; a Government

    997
    who made them glib promises to the effect that home ownership was a risk-free one-way bet; but a Government who, with equal irresponsibility, threw everything into reverse when their own mistakes caught up with them and then blamed the victims of those mistakes for being so easily duped.
    It is the Government's heartlessness, their almost moralistic zeal in turning the screw, which has added insult to injury, and it is that which has created mortgage misery for millions. In case anybody thinks that that easy alliteration conceals nothing much, let us be clear that it conceals a true degree of desperation. It is that desperation which has made home ownership an impossible dream for some and an impossible nightmare for many more.
    It is not just mortgage payers who are suffering. Tenants, too, find that their housing costs are going up sharply. It is not surprising that tenants feel somewhat aggrieved at what they consider to be the excessive attention paid to the interests of mortgage payers. They, too, find that housing costs are rising inexorably against them. Council tenants have been put on notice by Ministers․including the Secretary of State․that the Government intend to force their rents up to near market levels. The new subsidy arrangements and the ring-fencing provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 mean that the Government now have the power to make their writ run, whatever local democracy may require or suggest. Council rents are set to rise much higher than the inflation rate, often against the wishes of local authorities and almost always against the interests of some of the lowest-income families in our society.
    At the same time, private sector rents will also rise sharply. The Housing Act 1988, which allows market rents to be charged in place of fair rents and reduces security of tenure, is just beginning to have its malign effect. What that will mean in terms of affordable housing is clearly shown by a survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment and carried out by Price Waterhouse, which was published in August. It shows that a married couple with two children and an income above the qualifying level for housing benefit would be able to afford a market rent for a two-bedroomed house in only two cities in the country․Leicester and Newcastle. For the rest, market rents will mean that private rented accommodation is placed beyond their reach. That is a prime instance of the futility of looking to the market to meet unmet housing needs.
    Even housing associations, which are now looked to by the Government as the instrument of salvation, will find that their rents will rise as they are forced to turn to private sector funding. It is little wonder that over the past year housing association rents have risen by no less than 24 per cent.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Newham, we will be faced next April with rent increases of about 21 per cent. because of Government diktat? Is he also aware that, because of the benefit changes last April, rent arrears—not only in Newham but throughout the whole of London and the country․went up by an average of 38 per cent.? What impact does he think that this enforced rent increase will have on rent arrears throughout the country?
    Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend lends detail and substance to the point that I am making. His experience in his borough is echoed and repeated up and down the country ․certainly in my part of London. He is right to point out that rent arrears have risen and the difficulties have become manifest before the real impact of the recent changes has been felt. Therefore, as I have argued on other issues, the prospect is even grimmer than the current reality.
    Wherever people turn, as owner-occupiers or tenants in the public or private sector, they find that the cost of housing is moving sharply and inexorably against them. That is sometimes because of deliberate and direct Government policy․as with the recent legislation—and sometimes because the market is distorted by the excessively high interest rates imposed by the Government.
    However, affordable housing is a matter not just of price but of supply. Here, too, the record of the Tory Government is appalling. Housing completions have fallen steadily throughout the decade. In the public sector, they have fallen from 113,800 in 1978 to just 24,800 last year. The total number of housing completions has fallen also․from 240,800 in 1978 to just 184,600 last year. Those figures complete a picture of a grim decade for house building. Worse is to come. I expect the Minister—
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard)rose—
    Mr. Gould: The Minister rises on cue.
    Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 2 million houses have been built in this country since the Government took office? Does he regard that as a record of failure in house building?
    Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Minister for putting the question in that direct and simple way because I can give him a direct and simple answer. Yes, that is housing failure. When it is measured against the unmet housing need․which I will come to shortly․the record is appalling.
    It is far worse than the house completion record under the Labour Government. The Government having decimated․in literal terms, having far more than decimated․public sector house building, the prospects for the Government's policy on private sector house building are equally grim. Even the brief 1988 revival in private sector house completions has come to a sticky end as the construction industry grapples with the full brunt of high interest rates. During the first six months of 1989, there was a 17 per cent. slump in private sector housing building. Comparing the second quarter of this year with the second quarter of 1988, we see that fully a fifth of what was then achieved has been lost.
    It is hard to understand how value added tax on new domestic house construction will help. I, in common with many others, felt a sense of alarm when the Secretary of State failed earlier this afternoon at Question Time to rule out in absolute terms any willingness by the Government to accept diktats from the Commission in Brussels.
    Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point, because it was the reply to my question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to which he has just referred. My interpretation of his answer was not quite the same as the hon. Gentleman's. My right hon. Friend said

    999
    that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that all possible opposition was mounted if the EC threatened to impose VAT on domestic house construction. The hon. Gentleman is a responsible Member of the House. He should not try to attach such a dishonourable interpretation to my right hon. Friend's answer.
    Mr. Gould: I bear with equanimity the fact that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation and my interpretation of what the Secretary of State said are different. We start from different points of view. The hon. Gentleman is intent upon finding the most favourable interpretation. However, the hon. Gentleman has gone even further. Perhaps he should have given the answer at the Dispatch Box; it would have been a much better answer than that given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is fair and honourable. I am sure that he will concede when he consults Hansard tomorrow that he added substantially to his right hon. Friend's answer and that my interpretation was exactly correct; that the Secretary of State promised only to consult the Treasury and that he gave no assurance, either on his own behalf or that of the Department or the Government, that he was implacably opposed to the imposition of VAT on domestic house building.
    Housing costs have risen. Housing supply, in terms of new build, has fallen below what we have a right to expect. Housing supply is not just a matter of new build; it is also a matter of the condition of the existing housing stock. The brutal fact is that the condition of the existing housing stock is growing worse. There are now 2,400,000 houses in serious disrepair, or 13 per cent. of the total. To put those houses into proper repair would cost an estimated total of £30 billion. That is a shocking record for any civilised country, but it is especially shocking for a country and a Government who have enjoyed over £120 billion of North sea oil revenues. Surely the Government ought to have spent some part of that bonanza on providing decent housing for all our citizens.
    The failures have not happened by accident. The problem is․we have had 10 years' experience of it․that the Government prefer dogma to decent housing. They are prepared to carry on a war of attrition against the most obvious and efficient instrument for the provision of housing, particularly for low-income families․the local authorities. The homeless and the badly housed are the innocent victims of that unilaterally waged war.
    Local authority housing investment programme spending has fallen consistently over the past decade. In 1980–81, it was £3·37 billion, in 1982–83 it was down to £2·84 billion, and by 1988–89 it had decreased to £1·12 billion in total. The most lunatic expression of the Government's vendetta against local authorities and their role in the provision of housing concerned the spending of capital receipts. The councils have £ 8·5 billion of capital receipts which they want to spend on improving housing stock and housing provision. Incredibly, they are prevented from doing precisely that by central Government diktat.
    I hold a regular surgery in my constituency, as I am sure most hon. Members do. Perhaps 80 per cent. of all those who come to see me have housing problems. The inability of hon. Members to deal with those problems is one of the most worrying aspects of our job. I rarely conclude my surgery, which can go on for many hours, without a feeling
    1000
    of desperation and sadness that I can do so little to help. When people come to me and say, "Why can't the local authority spend a little more on putting my house into proper repair; why can't they build a few more flats for young married couples; why can't they spend some of the money that they must have received from the sale of council houses and council property?", I tell them that local authorities are not allowed to do that, as the Government have consistently prevented them from spending more than 20 per cent. of their receipts on those obvious and worthwhile purposes.
    Almost invariably, my constituents look at rue pityingly. One can see the disbelief spread across their faces. They think, "Here is yet another politician flannelling on about absolute nonsense." They cannot believe that any Government could be so misguided and illogical as to impose such a stupid and damaging restriction.
    Mr. John Maples: Most of my constituents who come to see me also have housing problems. What they have in common with the hon. Gentleman's constituents is that they are tenants of Labour authorities. Can he explain why the vast majority of empty houses, outstanding repairs and uncollected rents are in Labour-controlled areas?
    Mr. Gould: That is a familiar canard. The rate of empty property in local authorities is lower than it is in housing associations and in the private sector, and substantially lower than it is in the rest of the public sector, where Government Departments predominate.
    A housing crisis is building in Britain. Any conscientious Member of Parliament who carries out regular constituency surgeries will have seen the evidence. Those hon. Members who profess to be unaware of the growing housing crisis, the housing time bomb that is ticking away, must be uniquely advantaged and live in the most prosperous parts of the country, because elsewhere a growing tide of humanity is condemned to a miserable, depleted and distorted existence because people do not have proper housing.
    Undoubtedly the most tragic victims of the housing crisis are the homeless. Let no one say that there is no homelessness crisis in Britain. Last year, 117,550 families were accepted on to homelessness lists. That means that 337,369 people are homeless. Even that figure is dwarfed by the 242,000 families that applied for the status of being homeless. Homelessness is not a problem only in London. It is a problem in Gateshead, where homelessness has risen by 27 per cent. in the past year. In Colchester, it has risen by 48 per cent. and in leafy Salisbury by 52 per cent.
    Those appalling figures do not include the most distressing manifestation of homelessness. The young people who are forced to beg by day and to sleep on our streets by night are not included in the figures, yet they are part of the daily experience of everyone who walks the streets of our major cities, particularly our great capital city. They are a blot on the face of this country and in particular on the Government's record. It is a sight that we had assumed had been pushed unmourned into the less salubrious pages of our history. Faced with that problem, the £250 million spread over two years which was announced in the Autumn Statement is no more than a drop in the ocean. It is totally inadequate to deal with the size and the seriousness of the problem of homelessness.

    1001
    This problem has not arisen by accident. Homelessness is simply the most visible sign of a wider, deeper housing failure. A housing failure is not just an ordinary failure of Government policy; it is a failure by the Government to fulfil one of their basic duties to the people. There is something peculiarly shocking about the failure of a rich, self-proclaimedly civilised country that fails to provide a decent roof over the head of each of its citizens.
    Mr. Hugo Summerson rose—
    Mr. Gould: I am about to finish.
    There is nothing more fundamental to human dignity than a house of reasonable comfort and security.
    Sir George Young rose—
    Mr. Gould: I am about to wind up.
    There is nothing more destructive of family cohesion or individual self-respect than condemning people to unacceptable housing conditions.
    The solution clearly requires a fundamental reappraisal of many aspects of policy․the growing regional imbalance, the failure to use planning law to establish adequate new provision of housing, particularly in the south-east, the allocation of resources both between housing and other services and within the housing budget between owner-occupiers and others. Of course the solutions require fundamental reappraisal, but much more immediate steps can be taken․the reversal of the serious and avoidable mistakes in housing policy which have been made by the Government and which have made our housing conditions in modern Britain not just a crisis but a scandal.
    4.1 pm
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
    "welcomes Her Majesty's Government's commitment to home ownership throughout the last ten years which has enabled many more people to own their homes; recognises the benefits which have resulted from the introduction of the Right to Buy for council tenants; further recognises that the Government's sound economic policies have played an important part in facilitating the growth in owner-occupation; and urges the Government to maintain those policies in the interests of home owners, first-time buyers and the nation as a whole."
    In common with speeches that we are accustomed to hearing from the Labour Front Bench, that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was long on a description of problems, much of it inaccurate, and short, almost to the point of non-existence, of any suggestion as to how he and his party would set about tackling those problems. It was so lacking in any substance that, as a serious contribution to debate on housing policy, it was little short of a disgrace.
    We should not be too hard on the hon. Gentleman, because we know what trouble he gets into when he embarks upon the task of suggesting what policies might be used to deal with these problems. We know of his contributions to clarifying the Labour party's policies on housing, even before he was given his present responsibilities. His television appearances on these and other matters have become collectors' items, and we greatly look forward to more.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about our homeless?
    Mr. Howard: I am coming to that. I am interested in dealing with policies. Thanks to Brian Walden's revealing interview with the hon. Member for Dagenham, we know what the hon. Gentleman's policy would be—to target and penalise all those who seek to move to a larger house. People with growing families would bear the brunt of the policies which the hon. Gentleman did not dare mention during his long speech this afternoon.
    The hon. Gentleman even had the good grace during the interview to tell these growing families that, although they would be "hit", they would be "fully warned", and, in any event, his proposal was "in their interests". He finally assured them that their inability to house a growing family would be simply a "fairly marginal impact" of Labour's policies. The hon. Member for Dagenham was advocating direct controls on mortgages.
    None of us should be surprised by such an approach, because it is the approach of the Socialist down the ages. Socialists believe that, if one sees a problem, one should slap on a control and form a queue. The Labour party is never happy without a queue or two, or preferably three or four. It satisfies its natural predilection for the hair-shirt. Its approach has always been that if everyone cannot have something, it should ensure that getting it becomes as painful as possible for those who can.
    Mr. Gould: The Minister mentioned hair-shirts. Has he bothered to ask himself how many of his own constituents are obliged to wear the hair-shirt because of the Government's policy of high interest rates? How many repossessions have occurred in his constituency, or has he not bothered to find out?
    Mr. Howard: I am well aware of the problems. I shall deal with them in my speech, and I shall deal with high interest rates as well. The hon. Member for Dagenham has clearly advocated the imposition of physical controls on those who wish to move into a larger house because they have a growing family. That is his policy, which was announced clearly in the interview to which I referred. It is right that we should all know about it, and that none of us should be under any misapprehension.
    Mr. Gould: I had hoped that the Minister would not pursue this futile course for much longer, but as he insists on misdescribing what I have said․and what many others beyond the Labour party have said, including many Conservative Members․I must make it clear that we have always sought not to prescribe policies for 1991 or 1992, when a Labour Government will at last come to the rescue of the British people, but to rebut the suggestion that is constantly put from the Dispatch Box that there is no alternative to high interest rates.
    There is a huge consensus across the board, embracing hon. Members of all parties, including some of the Minister's hon. Friends, that the Government are wrong to impose mortgage misery on so many people on the pretext that there is no alternative but high interest rates. The last thing that I․or anyone else․has done is to prescribe policies in this respect for the next Labour Government. We are saying that at present, in the dilemma and mess that have been created by this Government, it is simply not the case that there is no alternative to high interest rates.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I have here the full transcript of his interview with Brian Walden, in which he clearly and specifically set out his alternative to higher interest rates. His alternative was the imposition of direct controls on the amount that a person could borrow if he wanted to move into a larger house. I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. His great merit ․although I am sorry to see him resile from it somewhat this afternoon․is candour. He is very open about these matters.
    Some Labour Members find the hon. Gentleman's approach uncomfortable. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could not wait to slap down the hon. Member for Dagenham. He went on to the Walden programme the next week․the earliest possible opportunity․to disown his hon. Friend. He said:
    "there is no way in which we are going to penalise a family which wishes to buy a larger house".
    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was equally unhappy. He put forward his own remedies. He has it in mind to solve the difficulties by entering into a social contract with the clearing banks. He would not come forward with straightforward controls, as the hon. Member for Dagenham did. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East believes that he could achieve the same objective by nudges and winks, and by backdoor deals with the bankers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham on his straightforward approach. It was no doubt his remarks that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) had in mind when he wrote a letter to Roof, the magazine of Shelter, in which he said:
    "Our plans for owner-occupiers are not for the fainthearted."
    Mr. Roland Boyes: If the Minister proposes to speak for the same length of time as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), he must now be more than halfway through his speech, yet he has not touched on the greatest problem of all in our society, which is the large number of homeless people. What attempt has he made to count the number of homeless people, especially in London, and what measures does he propose to take to do something about it? Is he aware that one telling manifestation of this great sickness in the Government's policy is that nearly every evening someone sleeps right outside the Palace gates? Is not that a disgrace, and is it not time that the Minister reached the part of his speech dealing with the subject about which people want to hear?
    Mr. Howard: Homelessness is an aspect of the problem which we must take very seriously indeed and with which I shall certainly deal during my speech. But we do not get anywhere by describing problems without advancing solutions to them. The hon. Member for Dagenham spent his whole speech in an inaccurate description of the problems without giving us so much as a paragaph of solutions.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: You have already said that.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Cryer: The Minister has said that.
    Mr. Howard: That is why—
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, hon. Members must restrain themselves.
    Mr. Cryer: It is on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Oh, it is, is it?
    Mr. Cryer: Mr. Speaker, we have a Standing Order that requires hon. Members to desist from persistent repetition. We have already heard, on four occasions, the Minister's attack on the Labour party, and we are anxious to hear what the Government propose to do. I invoke your support, Mr. Speaker, because tedious repetition is out of order.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little confused. Although I have been in the House for six years, I do not seem to have caught up with things. I thought that today was an Opposition Supply day and I thought that those were the days on which the Opposition, in addition to attacking the Government, helped the House towards a better understanding of their policies. I came here this afternoon in the hope that I would be educated about the Labour party's housing proposals. So far, I have not heard one scintilla of a positive suggestion of what the Labour party intends to do in its housing policy or of how it would cost its proposals.
    Mr. Speaker: That is more a debating point than a point of order.
    A propos tedious repetition, if I had judged that there was tedious repetition, I would have intervened, but I did not judge it. We should get on with the debate. A great many hon. Members wish to participate, and if the Front Bench spokesmen are constantly interrupted, other hon. Members may be disappointed.
    Mr. Howard: It is precisely because of the omissions of the hon. Member for Dagenham that it falls to me to tell the House what the Labour party's policy would be, and that is what I have been trying to do.
    Our policies for owner-occupiers could not represent more of a contrast with those of the Labour party, and our approach has been proved effective by 10 years of success. Since 1979, the proportion of owner-occupied households has increased from 57 to 68 per cent. We have one of the highest rates of owner-occupation in the world—higher than that in the United States․and the number of first-time buyers in 1988 was about double the number in 1979.
    About 6 million people have bought their own homes for the first time over the past 10 years․more than I million of them under the right-to-buy provisions against which the Opposition fought so bitterly. The Labour party would still interfere with the unrestricted right to buy. The housing resolution passed by the Labour party conference in October supported the right to buy,
    "providing that the local authority replaces the stock sold, and those wishing to resell allow the Council first option to buy."
    The Labour party has still to come to terms with the undoubted aspiration of the vast majority of people in Britain to own their own homes. That is an aspiration which the Government unequivocally welcome and will do their utmost to assist.

    1005
    I acknowledge that many home owners find the present level of interest rates very difficult indeed, but that difficulty must be seen in perspective. It would be wrong to make any simplistic links between mortgage interest rates and homelessness. There are many causes of mortgage arrears other than high interest rates. One of the most significant of them is unemployment, and the reduction in unemployment by 1·5 million since 1986 has significantly helped the overall picture on mortgage arrears, as it has helped in so many other ways.
    Clearly, we have nothing to learn from the Opposition about owner-occupation. We promote it, and they obstruct it, and the sooner that people understand that difference, the better.
    When we last discussed housing, the hon. Member for Hammersmith alleged that the right to buy was the Government's sole housing policy. That is also a travesty. During the next three years, total central Government spending on housing and their grants and credit approvals to local authorities for housing will add up to almost £20 billion. That sum of money will largely benefit the minority of the population who are not owner-occupiers. I hope that even Opposition Members will acknowledge that £20 billion is a large sum by any standards. It is worth noting that no sums are mentioned in the Opposition's policy review.
    Opposition Members come to the House day after day, promising to spend more on houses, as well as everything else under the sun, but the shadow Chancellor constantly says that any extra spending would have to await the creation of additional resources. The promises of the Opposition are not worth a row of beans. We do not rely on promises, we rely on action․£20 billion worth of action.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. and learned Friend is talking about resources. Will he bear in mind the need for a balance between new housing and the environment? If my constituents are successful in their High Court battle with Barratt's today, will he remind Bolton's Labour council of its duty to defend covenants and to ensure that Birtenshaw farm remains free from development?
    Mr. Howard: I will not be drawn into making comments about a case that is before the High Court today, but I know how hard my hon. Friend has fought for the cause of his constituents.
    We acknowledge that owner-occupation is not the answer for a minority. Some people do not want, or cannot afford, the responsibility of home ownership. That is why we are working to restore quality, diversity and choice to the residential sector. The deregulation of new lettings in the Housing Act 1988 will help to revive the private rented sector, which was almost entirely killed off by the rent controls introduced by successive Labour Governments.
    Already, some £350 million has been invested in business expansion schemes to provide private sector tenancy lettings. Private sector finance is now being attracted to support housing association projects.
    The Opposition want to destroy that revival. The hon. Member for Hammersmith conceded in the Financial Times last year that some private investors may be
    1006
    frightened of investing in rented houses when they realise that a Labour Government would impose rent controls. Some? All private investors would be frightened, and the revival would be utterly destroyed. Not only would the Labour Government reimpose rent controls, but tenants of non-residential private landlords would be given the right to buy, or to transfer to a council landlord.
    Do Opposition Members believe that any of Labour's policies to penalise the private rented sector would encourage investment in it? How can they endlessly bang on about housing shortages, but at the same time make proposals that by their own admission would scare away much-needed investment in housing? If people who can afford market rents choose to rent privately and withdraw from the market, they will release more subsidised rented homes for those people who are most in need. That is an objective which should be encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Tony Banks: In the private rented sector, there has been an increase in the number of houses available for rent, because people have had to move out when they cannot afford to keep up with the mortgage payments. Estate agents have put houses that are up for sale in to the rented market. That increase has happened by default.
    Can the Minister explain another statistic? Ten years ago, nine families were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Newham; now, the number is 1,151, yet only 3·5 per cent. of our own housing stock is vacant.
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman examines the statistics on repossessions and the causes for them, he will see that the assumption that lay beneath the first part of his question is without any foundation whatever. The facts simply do not support it. It is typical of Labour's approach that its one and only solution to the problem of housing shortage is to increase our municipal housing stock, although we already have the largest in western Europe.
    Mr. John Battle: What about bed-andbreakfast accommodation?
    Mr. Howard: I am coming to that.
    Our approach is to encourage choice in the social rented housing market. We do not want to increase the number of monolithic council housing estates or to strengthen local authorities as the monopoly suppliers of rented housing. That is why we want new provision to come primarily from housing associations.
    In the next four years, we shall more than double the Housing Corporation's main programme, from £815 million this year to more than £1·7 billion by 1992–93. That should permit a doubling of output to about 35,000 dwellings in that year alone. Such steps to increase the supply and diversity of rented accommodation will help to tackle the imbalance between supply and demand, which is one of the causes of homelessness.
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must press on.
    In the meantime, we fully acknowledge that further immediate action is required to help the homeless. That is why we are providing an extra £250 million over the next two years for local authorities and housing associations in stress areas. Those additional resources should provide

    1007
    approaching 15,000 extra lettings. That should be compared with the total number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, who number about 12,000. That is our response to this problem. It is a serious response and on a considerable scale. It will have a considerable impact.
    Mr. Derek Fatchett rose—
    Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
    Mr. Howard: The motion refers to the Government's alleged failure to maintain the condition of the housing stock. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that its condition was getting worse, but he failed to support that assertion with one piece of evidence. He is wrong: nothing could be further from the truth.
    There are 2 million more houses in England today than there were in 1979, and the English house condition survey shows that, between 1981 and 1986, the number of dwellings that lacked basic amenities fell by no less than 41 per cent. That gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Moreover, there has been continued improvement since 1986, so there is not a shred of evidence to support the assertion in the Opposition's motion. It is a typical piece of undiluted scaremongering, and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will have the decency to recognise that and to withdraw it. I give him the opportunity to do that now.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Minister enlighten us by telling us the number of houses that are in serious disrepair?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that matters are getting worse. [Interruption.] I challenge him to produce one piece of evidence in support of his assertion that matters are getting worse. [Interruption.] He cannot do so. His silence speaks volumes. [Interruption.]
    We suggest that more should be done to improve things. Unlike the Opposition we make no apology for concentrating assistance on people in greatest need. [Interruption.] We have acted․ [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to this running commentary. It does not help the debate at all.
    Mr. Howard: We have targeted home improvement grants on people on the lowest incomes. We have almost doubled the amount of money available for home improvement grants, and now we are ensuring that the increased resources go to those who need them. Labour's policy review says:
    "We will review the renovation grant system so that it relates less to people's means."
    That is a typically cockeyed approach.
    We have established programmes for Estate Action and housing action trusts that will provide huge additional resources for the most rundown inner-city council estates. Yesterday in Sunderland I announced the appointment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the first shadow chairman of a housing action trust. I also visited Hartlepool, which I understand is a town of particular interest at the moment to those in powerful places in the ranks of the Labour party. On one estate alone in Hartlepool, we have made available £3·5 million over three years to improve the conditions of the people living there. Those improvements are dramatic and have transformed
    1008
    the lives of those people. While the Opposition table carping, whingeing motions, we are getting on with the business of improving people's housing standards.
    Mr. Gould: The Minister challenged me to produce figures to support my contention that the condition of the housing stock has got worse. If he will look at the figures for dwellings in serious disrepair, he will see that in 1976 there were 859,000 such houses, representing 5 per cent. of the total; that in 1981 there were 1,178,000 such houses, representing 6 per cent. of the total; and that in 1986 there were 2,400,000 such houses, representing 13 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept those statistics. A much more accurate way of looking at this matter is to consider the proportion of houses lacking basic amenities. If the hon. Gentleman looks at those statistics, he will find that there has been a considerable․indeed, a dramatic—improvement in the condition of the housing stock during the lifetime of this Government.
    At the centre of the debate is the issue of high interest rates and the problems that they cause homeowners. I readily acknowledge the hardships that such a level of interest rates causes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has often made it clear that high levels of interest cause difficulties but that interest rates must and will remain high until inflation has been brought back down. Persistently high levels of inflation, such as those that we experienced under the last Labour Government, would hurt everyone in the country, and homeowners would certainly not be exempt. It is wholly in their interests for a tight rein to be kept on inflation, and that we are determined to do.
    As we have seen, the Labour party has no coherent policy to deal with inflation. However, apparently one oil' its few clear policies on housing, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Dagenham and was set out in a letter written to me last week by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, is to allow local authorities to spend all their capital receipts on housing.
    It is an interesting reflection of Labour's long-trumpeted commitment to a regional policy that this commitment would unleash about £8 billion of spending power, which would be concentrated largely in the south-east of England. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hammersmith had the grace to admit at a press conference last week that removing restrictions on the expenditure of capital receipts would produce clear inflationary pressures. It is not surprising, therefore, that that policy is not even mentioned in Labour's policy review. Indeed, Roof magazine noted:
    "Labour's review sadly does little more than express worthy sentiments in a bubble bath of irrelevant platitudes."
    Mr. Clive Soley rose—
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Soley rose—
    Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later.
    Mr. Soley rose—
    Mr. Howard: I am nearly at the end of my speech, and I am not giving way.
    Mr. Soley rose—
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to make his speech in due course— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Soley: If the Minister will not give way, I shall have to raise the matter on a point of order—
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mr. Soley: I regret having to raise this on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not mind being quoted, but I object to not being quoted anywhere near accurately. I said that the £8 billion would not and could not possibly be used in one year. If it was, it would be inflationary, but I said that there was no possibility of that. That is the accurate quote.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's policy is to allow the money to be spent as fast as it can be. That would lead to inflation. It is absolutely clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that the policy would lead to inflation, and that he recognises that.
    It is clear that the Labour party will pursue policies on housing, as on other matters, that will inevitably fuel inflation, and it knows that. The Government will continue to pursue sensible housing policies to improve people's housing conditions. I invite the House to support the amendment.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. George Howarth: It would be interesting for my hon. Friends to read the terms of the amendment, which refers to just one aspect of Government policy․owner-occupation, or the right to buy. That is fairly revealing. The failure of the Government's policy on housing is that until comparatively recently they felt it necessary to have a policy on only one aspect․owner-occupation. That policy started to come unglued in about 1985.
    The housing portfolio changes hands so often in this Government that it is difficult for any Minister to get his feet under the table and become properly briefed before being sent off to do something else. The Minister can therefore be forgiven for not understanding all the statistics because he has not been in his post long and, no doubt, he will not remain there for long. The reason why the Government decided to extend their interest in housing policy beyond owner-occupation was purely economic. Some economists started to advise them that one of the problems that people moving particularly to the south-east, following the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to get on their bikes, was that there was simply not enough rented accommodation available. That was the origin of the Housing Act 1988, and I and many of my hon. Friends served in Committee on that measure. That was the only reason why the Government decided to take any interest in rented housing.
    Several of my colleagues want to speak, so time prevents me from detailing all the objects of the 1988 Act, but the main thrust of the Government's policy was to expand the supply of rented housing outside the public sector as it was then defined. In addition, in relation to local authorities, they wanted to deregulate the housing market and create various devices to break down what they regarded as local monopolies of council housing.
    1010
    However, none of that adds up to a housing policy. The Government have not addressed the real problems in housing, which we shall describe in the debate. Even in their approach to the 1988 Act and the more recent Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Government have not succeeded in achieving any constructive progress towards building up a coherent housing policy. The policies that they have implemented, piecemeal as they are, have not and will not succeed in solving any of the serious housing problems.
    In this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has described some of the problems within the local authority sector and the growing problems of disrepair across the range of tenures. The Minister challenged my hon. Friend to produce figures, which he ably and quickly did, disproving the Government's argument․whether or not the Minister accepts the figures.
    I have the December edition of the Institute of Housing's excellent magazine "Housing". I hope that the Minister will accept that, by and large, the institute is an impartial organisation which looks at the facts and tries to inform professionals and others interested in housing issues. The magazine contained a supplement dealing with the Autumn Statement and the Government's approach to housing, and to some extent I shall rely on that information. The Autumn Statement contains all the Government's proposals for spending on housing, which are set out in great detail. The supplement says:
    "Some £3 billion per annum is needed to deal simply with the backlog of disrepair, defects and modernisation of local authority housing stock, let alone to deal with homelessness, housing needs and the condition of private housing."
    That is an unbiased conclusion about the Government's proposals. The Minister spoke about some of the initiatives that the Government have taken. On occasion I have supported them and praised Ministers and Departments when the initiatives have been usefully applied.
    I mention a constituency matter to illustrate one of the difficulties arising from a piecemeal policy and no coherent approach. Some of the programmes start off well and with good intentions, but changes in priorities are often applied in a state of panic because something has gone wrong and the good intention of the new programme drifts into the sand.
    On the Tower Hill estate in my constituency an effective Estates Action programme supported by the residents, the local authority and the Minister's Department has been running for three or four years. In connection with that there was probably the most detailed consultation exercise ever undertaken there. The consultation revealed that residents wanted improvements in the way that the estate was laid out and wanted some of the design problems put right. However, there are more problems than that on the estate. There is a lack of leisure facilities and economic opportunities for residents.
    The action programme is about 50 per cent. of the way through and many improvements have been carried out. In response to such residents the Government extended the guidelines and I am sure that an application will soon reach the Minister's desk because the residents are looking for what they describe as multi-faceted schemes which involve an economic development initiative and an increase in leisure facilities. We are now told that, because the guidelines have been extended precisely to cater for

    1011
    schemes such as the one at Tower Hill, we will have to compete with other authorities which have applied for similar schemes.
    I repeat that the Tower Hill scheme is 50 per cent. completed but all the pioneering work carried out in my constituency will come to nothing because the rules have been changed and the goalposts moved, so all the benefits of the scheme will be lost. 1 hope that when the application reaches the Minister he will look at it in that light and decide that the pioneers of such schemes should be supported until the job is finished.
    The Minister may be aware that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is in the Chamber, and I have taken an active interest in housing co-operatives. Last year the Government produced an excellent document when the Minister's noble predecessor was in post. That document set out in some detail what should happen to housing co-operatives. My latest information is that because of the use of private finance, on which I have recently tabled questions, and especially in view of the guidelines that the Housing Corporation has recently sent out about how private finance should be tackled by housing co-operatives and associations, housing cooperatives will encounter grave difficulties in securing the private funding that they need to get their schemes off the ground. That is because they have no asset base.
    There is all-party support for housing co-operatives and there is an all-party parliamentary group on the subject. If the amount of private money that the co-operatives can raise is restricted and the grant is insufficient to meet the deficiency, the co-operatives will have to move towards design-build packages. That means that one of the great benefits of new-build and rehabilitation co-operatives․control of the design process ․will be lost. I understand that there has been toing and froing and that disputes have occurred within the Housing Corporation board about how to handle the matter. I hope that the Minister will deal with it at some point. All the benefits and experience built up in the housing co-operative movement over the years could be lost if someone does not take the problem by the scruff of the neck and sort it out so that housing co-operatives can continue to produce the goods and important urban renewal initiatives in inner cities and outer estates. That is what they are good at and what they have achieved.
    We all accept that a high level of homelessness is unacceptable in a civilised society. If one moves around London and other major provincial cities on any night of the week, one sees young people sleeping on the streets. Some may have drug and alcohol problems, which we all accept are difficult to resolve because they fall outside the scope of the main agencies, but many young people from my constituency and from those of my hon. Friends and of Conservative Members come to London because they are unable to secure employment in the north of England in some of the real economic black spots. When they arrive they find themselves in a double blind. If they do not have an address they are not taken seriously when they apply for jobs, and if they do not have a job they have difficulty securing accommodation, so they end up sleeping in cardboard boxes on the Embankment or in other places both in summer and on cold winter nights. It is an appalling condemnation of society that that should happen in this decade.
    What are the Government's proposals on housing the homeless? What do they mean? What will they produce in
    1012
    terms of initiatives? I draw the attention of the House to a submission in the Institute of Housing magazine, "Housing", which says that the Government's proposals do not add up to much. They do not make up for shortfalls in the housing investment that would have been necessary to head off the problem of homelessness in the past decade, so they will not resolve the problem of homelessness. That is the opinion of experts in housing whom the Government should heed and respect.
    I wish to refer to some of the other issues raised in the Housing Act 1988. Much play was made of the fact that problems on housing estates and in inner city areas would be resolved by housing action trusts. The Minister announced such a trust for Sunderland today. Much play was also made of other proposals in part IV of the Act. Yet week by week we read in the housing press headlines such as:
    "Essex tenants vote to stay".
    That article says:
    "Redbridge LBC tenants in Ilford voted by 5,418 to 2,780 against the plans to transfer the housing stock to Oakbridge Housing Association …"
    Brentwood district council also rejected transfer plans, by 2,953 to 708.
    The Government have not realised that although people may quibble and criticise their local authorities they know, as we constantly said in the debates on the 1988 Act, that if they want to change the way in which the local authority housing department is managed they at least have recourse to the ballot box at local elections. They can say, "You have failed, so we shall put in another party." That right of council tenants who opted not to exercise the right to buy is of more worth to them than their trust in any other organisation, no matter how worthy.
    The Government have clearly failed. They have not been inundated with requests from local authority tenants to transfer to housing associations or other organisations. They have not even been inundated by requests from landlords to register as approved landlords under the scheme provided for by the Act and run by the Housing Corporation. That part of the Act, which was almost the flagship of the Government's privatisation plans for housing, has been a complete and utter flop.
    It is about time that Ministers and those who support them accepted that the measures introduced do not add up to a housing policy. There is no strategy. They are just playing politics with housing. They have very little to show for their efforts and that will continue to be so.
    The Government set great store by their dealings with housing associations, but what is likely to happen to those bodies? The Autumn Statement contained some good news. I acknowledge that additional resources were put into the pot, but there are still problems. The Minister must be aware that many small housing associations are suffering the same difficulties as housing co-operatives in that they do not have the asset base to make proper use of the present scheme. The Government's attempts at a de facto privatisation of the housing association movement is likely to drift into the sand. The Government will probably have to increase the proportion of housing association grant, thereby undermining their own strategy to put the movement into the private sector. Their plan does not work for the smaller housing associations. If the Government do not do something to resolve the problems of small associations, they will end up with a series of local monopolies by large associations.

    1013
    The Minister's last but one predecessor heralded small community-based housing associations as a wonderful innovation in inner cities, but if something is not done they will disappear completely. The Government must take action to increase the housing association grants to a level at which the private finance involved is negligible. The Institute of Housing says:
    "Even with such a grant rate increase, however"—
    the institute believes that it should be increased to 80 per cent.—
    "new housing association lettings are likely to be at rents well above the National Federation of Housing Associations `affordability' guidelines."
    Even if the Government increase the level of housing association grants, the amount of rent charged will be too great. The Government have failed across a whole range of policies because they have no policies. Their failure in housing is one of the most important among many failures which, in the near future, will ensure that my hon. Friends are on the Government Benches and the Conservatives on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): This is a short debate. Unless speeches are short, I am afraid that some hon. Members will be disappointed.
    4.48 pm
    Mr. John Heddle: The title of this brief debate is, "Mortgage costs and housing." I shall address my remarks particularly to mortgage costs and the plight of home owners who have borrowed more money than they prudently might have done. Perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-president of the Building Societies Association.
    Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was an exchange of views between myself and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on the imposition of VAT on non-domestic construction work. I take this opportunity to say that it is the duty of all hon. Members who take an interest in the construction industry and the provision of housing to anticipate events. It was in that context that I raised the matter in Question Time today.
    Only six or seven brief years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will recall and confirm, the Government's view was that there would be no question of VAT being imposed on non-domestic construction work. Because of the rules of the European Court that have been passed down to us, we must impose VAT on non-domestic construction work. Post-1992 there is a strong possibility that the European Court will force the United Kingdom Government to impose VAT on domestic construction․whether on non-social housing, such as private sector housing, or across the board, I do not know, but it is our duty to anticipate the possibility of such events. I was encouraged today by the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that together with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer all possible resistance would be presented to our European friends to ensure that that does not happen in the United Kingdom.
    I was encouraged by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee recently and
    1014
    admitted, with the benefit of that great gift of hindsight, that certain actions of the recent past should perhaps not have been taken. One of them was the delay between the announcement and the implementation of the abolition of double mortgage tax relief. The three-month delay in the implementation of that decision by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer undoubtedly increased house price inflation and encouraged people to borrow more than they should. If that had not occurred, the subsequent slump in the housing market, which we are witnessing now, particularly in London and the south-east and to a lesser extent elsewhere, would not have happened. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to learn from those lessons.
    I am worried about the plight of the housing market and those involved in the construction industry. Companies, large and small, are being forced into liquidation. In particular, small companies are having to lay off gangs of bricklayers whom they have employed for years. Homes for tomorrow are not being built today, and I fear that that will cause an increase in house price inflation in two or three years' time. I ask Ministers to consider the matter not simply in the context of the defeat of inflation․I wholeheartedly agree with and support that policy․but in the context of young people who leave school today and look to buy their first home tomorrow. The housing market is in a state of stop-go. When the Government came to power I hoped that we would see the end of stop-go policies.
    Young people and not so young people who are suffering from high interest rates on their mortgages were perhaps encouraged to borrow more than they should from the lending institutions, which include not just building societies but banks which entered the housing finance market. I hope that they will not be tempted to remortgage through some other institution, such as a foreign bank with some so-called product linked to the value of the deutschmark, the yen or the franc. I hope that they will be sensible and will return to their lending institution, lay their cards on the table and say, "We cannot afford to repay what we previously committed ourselves to." I am sure that if they do, they will receive a sympathetic hearing and that their lending institution will try to reschedule their borrowing, whether by extending the loan, freezing the interest or a combination of several levers, to ensure that their hardship is relieved.
    In the Housing Act 1980 the Government introduced a tenants' charter․something which the Labour Government talked about and the Conservative Government have implemented. In particular, the charter sought to impose on local authorities a duty to compile a list of their tenants who would be prepared to sublet part of their accommodation that was surplus to requirements. The hon. Member for Dagenham told us that the majority of cases that he deals with at his advice bureau are about housing matters. I can confirm that from my constituency experience. A large proportion of those who come to my advice bureau are single and for one reason or another cannot or do not want to live with their parents. For them the answer must surely be to find short-term accommodation, perhaps lodgings in the town where they grew up and seek employment. The best way to find short-term accommodation is to search the local authority list to find the houses that are larger than the tenant's requirements.
    Mr. Allen McKay: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman and two

    1015
    points arise on subletting. First, the young single people who come to my surgery want a place of their own. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of suitable accommodation. Secondly, does not subletting interfere with a person's housing benefit? That acts as a disincentive to subletting.
    Mr. Heddle: All of us, from the moment we leave school, want accommodation of our own, but we cannot always have what we want when we want it. Sometimes it is necessary to take what may be second best, but possibly better than the homelessness to which hon. Gentlemen have referred. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned housing benefit. Surely, for a widow or widower in a three-bedroomed house, to sublet a room that is no longer used except for the storage of trunks and other memorabilia will produce an income supplement which could be substantially in excess of what they might lose in housing benefit.
    I wholly reject the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and wholly support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    4.57 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Tory Members have tried hard to put a brave face on the housing problem that the country faces. They have found excuses and ingenious ways of, shall we say, putting the problem into context.
    I agree with many points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), but people's everyday experience is so different. People know that things are wrong as they cancel their Christmas. They know that housing policy has failed as they see the pictures of cardboard city. After 10 years of Tory government they see housing policy in a shambles. They have begun to wonder whether the Government have any answers to the housing crisis.
    Perhaps the most prominent issue is the rise in mortgage rates and repayments, which has been dubbed the Tory tax. The cost of Conservative mismanagement of the economy has been huge: the rise in interest rates from 9·8 per cent. in July 1988 to the present 14·5 per cent.; the increase in the monthly repayments on the average £30,000 mortgage of £75; and the increase in the monthly repayments on the average £60,000 endowment mortgage of more than £200. Those rises dwarf the tax cuts of previous years.
    The Government used to talk about creating a stable financial climate—an environment where businesses and individuals could plan their investments. We presumed that they realised that people do not always plan ahead. We thought that they realised that people cannot always see what is round the corner. When people do not see what is coming, that does not make them imprudent. I invite the House to look at the most sophisticated economic forecasters, whose job it is to guess what interest rates will be in a year's time. In July 1988, when the mortgage rate was 9·8 per cent., none of them predicted rates of 14·8 per cent. at Christmas 1989, and they are the specialists. This Government do not apologise for their mistakes; they simply shrug their shoulders as if to say, "You should not have borrowed so much." So much for providing a stable financial climate.
    The home owners have been hit and they are bearing the brunt of the Government's interest rate policy. They are being punished for this Government's mistakes. The
    1016
    price for house owners is only too real. The number in arrears is beginning to grow. In December 1988, a total of 326,000 individuals were more than two months in arrears.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman and I represent opposite ends of the same local authority area. Is he aware that there has been a fourfold increase in homelessness in the Sefton local authority area, mainly caused by people having to default on mortgage payments? That is putting pressure on the supply of homes in Southport, where Sefton council houses the homeless. Itis also creating tremendous problems at the other end of the borough, in my constituency, where housing problems and homelessness are increasing dramatically.
    Mr. Fearn: The hon. Gentleman is right. We thought Southport was the affluent end of the borough, and that Bootle would be the area to suffer most from homelessness. However, it is the reverse. Indeed, the whole of the Sefton borough has homeless people, including Crosby, Formby and the rural areas.
    In December 1988, a total of 326,000 individuals were more than two months in arrears with their mortgage payments. By July this year, the number had shot up to 400,000, and that was before the recent rise in mortgage rates, before the poll tax demands arrive and before the rise in unemployment that the Chancellor mentioned yesterday. Independent housing experts expect the number in arrears to rise to more than 450,000 towards the middle of next year. That is almost half a million households, many of them families, that have to cut back drastically. That is half a million people living with the fear that they might lose their homes.
    People say that building societies are being understanding and lenient and that few people are threatened with losing their homes. I am pleased to say that, in many instances, that is true and people are being allowed to extend their mortgages, capitalise their debts and take "repayment respite". Such flexibility is welcome, but it is not the whole story. Many of the new lenders are not friendly building societies. Even the high street banks—where I used to work—are not generally thought to be as understanding as the building societies and some of the new financial institutions can be described only as loan sharks. One firm advertised its mortgages:
    "Good news! Up to 35 per cent. saving on interest payments."
    Such a firm will hardly have the decency to think twice about putting pressure on those in arrears, scaring them and then repossessing.
    There is a lack of advice and information. Many lenders either do not give advice or are too busy to give the personal advice that is really needed. The voluntary and local authority finance groups that offer debt counselling are overworked and underfunded. Comments from a debt counsellor, as reported in a recent newspaper article, say it all:
    "Assistance can only now be given in dire emergencies…If we take on any more people we won't be able to fulfil our role as an advisory service properly."
    As the number in arrears mounts, the pressure to repossess increases. It is already clear that the number of repossessions in the south is rising, and that it is likely to become an explosion in the new year. First, many people will not feel the pressure from the recent rise in rates until the new year. Secondly, next year there will be a rise in unemployment—that is forecast. Thirdly, there will be an

    1017
    increase in the number of bad loans sold to professional debt collectors. It puts the fear of God into many people when they realise that debt collectors have hold of their mortgages.
    Many people fear that the housing market may pick up just sufficiently to persuade lenders that it may be worthwhile to repossess. Any leniency by lenders until now may have sprung simply from self-interest. It costs to repossess, and the lender may not be able to sell the house, even at a knock-down price. A slight upturn in the housing market might be good news for estate agents, but for the indebted—those really suffering under present policies who can sell their houses only at prices lower than they paid—it might mean the bailiffs.
    Hon. Members who do not know what repossession means should read last week's The Sunday Correspondent, which gave a description of one family's experience. A brief extract gives the flavour. It said:
    "It took 45 seconds for the man to go from homeowner to homeless. He owed £5,455·31 in mortgage arrears: 'This order means the building society can take possession in 28 days. Have you anything to say?' said the registrar…'I lost my job, but I got a new one, but I'm waiting for the first month's wages and then I'll start to…'But the man did not stand a chance.
    'Can you pay £500 every month on top of the usual payments?…No? Well they'll have to repossess. Next."
    Some hon. Members might be pleased that our judicial system is so efficient that it can deal with an N29 order for repossession in 45 seconds. They might care to reflect on the shame people feel, on their despair and on their futures. We are not unrealistic on these Benches. We do not think that there is a policy that can correct the failure of this Government's economic mismanagement without pain. The problem with the Government's policy is that it does not give anyone hope. People envisage higher mortgage costs carrying on into the distant future. They realise that the Government are divided about what to do.
    People should be aware that there are alternatives that would bring hope to home owners, and the House should be aware that there are alternatives that would restore credibility to economic policy. Early membership of the exchange rate mechanism would allow interest rates to fall relatively quickly. If demand began to get out of control, sensible tax reforms would tighten fiscal policy, preventing the need always to resort to high interest rates. The policy would still be painful in the short term, but there would be hope. People would know that the policy was credible and that it would help to bring down interest rates.
    While economic policy is put right, the Government could alleviate the problems of the home owner in arrears, whose house is about to be repossessed, through other measures. For example, assistance in debt counselling would not cost a great deal. As the Government's economic mismanagement has caused the crisis, the least that they can do is to help in the provision of advice.
    The Government could also tighten control on the misleading advertising of credit. For example, they could extend the Financial Services Act 1986 so that organisations such as FIMBRA could control the actions of its members advertising mortgages in a misleading manner. In that way, investor protection could be extended from the investor in insurance to the investor in
    1018
    property. Surely it is the Government's job to promote consumer protection, especially in an area as important as the housing market.
    The home owners of Britain are not asking for much. Indeed, many of them probably realise that there are many others with far more serious housing difficulties. I do not have time to go into the detail of the many other housing problems facing people in Britain. That is not because the problems are not acute. Other hon. Members have referred to the depth of failure of the Government's housing policy, the consequent rise in homelessness and the poor state of the housing stock.
    The warning that I am giving the Government is that the home owner in arrears today could be the homeless person of tomorrow. They must not make the housing problems of everyone else worse by ignoring the plight of the home owner. The crisis is not only at Christmas; it is with us for many years to come.
    5.9 pm
    Sir George Young: Like the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I read the moving article in The Sunday Correspondent last week. In my brief remarks I want to take up the theme of homelessness on which the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have touched.
    Last week, a number of Members on both sides of the House and in both Houses who feel strongly about homelessness formed the all-party parliamentary group on homelessness. We look forward to working with the many organisations whose work in that area we applaud and who have some exciting and fresh ideas to help tackle the problems of homelessness. We also look forward to talking to Ministers and obtaining further details of the £250 million package, an announcement which I greatly welcome.
    As joint chairman of that newly formed group, I am interested in solutions and practical help for the people who find themselves homeless, rather than in propaganda. Any strategy for dealing with homelessness must start by sending a clear signal to young people who now have somewhere to live but who are thinking of coming to London, or another city, in search of their fortune but who have no clear idea of where they would stay. I hate to cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) but the message for them must be, "Don't get on your bike. Don't come to London in search of work unless you have somewhere to live, because if you find a job you will not be able to hold it down unless you have somewhere permanent to stay."
    I welcome all the initiatives that are being taken, but we must not weaken the strong signal to young people that the situation in the capital is desperate and that they should not chance their arm and come here on the offchance of finding somewhere because the chances are that they will not.
    I want to make two points on the theme of homelessness. The first concerns the tenants incentive scheme. Part of the solution for homelessness in London must be to look at those who are now living in London who neither have to nor want to do so, but who cannot afford to move out—people who may have retired or have children living in other parts of the country and who are

    1019
    local authority tenants. The tenants incentive scheme gives them the opportunity to own their own homes, to move out of the capital and to be near their families.
    The advantages of the tenants incentive scheme is that it is quick; it provides relets without having to build fresh accommodation which can take two years. Not only is it quick, but it is a cost-effective way of getting relets without spending the £80,000 or £100,000 that it would cost to build a new flat. If one gave a dramatic and enthusiastic push to the tenants incentive scheme in London, every family now in bed and breakfast could be out within 12 months. Therefore, I ask Ministers to look again at that scheme to see whether its full potential is being achieved and whether one could put fresh steam behind it to free accommodation and get families out of bed and breakfast accommodation.
    My second point relates to planning, but it impinges directly on the problems of homelessness. There is a shortage of houses in the south-east and that is why we have a problem of homelessness. Even if we do all that we can to encourage local authorities to let property that is empty, to encourage the private rented sector to bring back into use property that is unlet and make full use of derelict land, there will still be a shortage of homes in the south-east for those who are already living here. It is nonsense to say that we should let the market work and let prices in the south-east rise so that people find accommodation in the north-east or elsewhere. That is not a practical solution. It means that nurses, teachers, postmen or bus drivers could not afford to live in the south-east, and that would lead to unbalanced communities. Part of any strategy for dealing with the housing shortage and homelessness is to increase the supply of homes in the south-east.
    I welcome the solution of new villages or new settlements which provide the opportunity to build new balanced communities with accommodation for rent and for sale, but I am slightly disappointed at the lack of progress that has been made by new settlements or new villages in the past few months. There have been some disappointing decisions on appeal and I hope that next year the Government will look again at the new settlement approach to the housing shortage in the south-east to see whether that should form part of the solution.
    The Government need not be ashamed of their housing record. If the Labour party had achieved what the Government have achieved over the past 10 years, bearing in mind the disappointing last three years of the Labour Government, it would be well satisfied.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rightly referred to the number of people with housing problems who present themselves at Members' advice bureaux, particularly those of London Members. But a variety of solutions are now available that simply were not on offer 10 years ago—solutions such as shared ownership; low-cost home ownership; the revival of the private rented sector, which was dying on its feet 10 years ago; the priority estates project, bringing back into use council estates that were impossible to let; the housing association movement borrowing fresh funds from the City, adding to the resources made available to it by the Government. The picture painted by the hon. Member for Dagenham was incomplete. I commend the Government on their ingenuity, initiative and determination in improving the housing conditions of people in Britain.
    5.15 pm
    Ms. Kate Hoey: I am pleased that this debate is taking place today. As a new Member, I may not yet understand the nuances of the House, but it is rather disturbing that the Benches of the House were filled for yesterday's emotional and important debate and yet they are relatively empty today when we are discussing a matter of major importance to the British people. Perhaps we all share some blame for the fact that housing has not become a crusade in Britain.
    I want to talk a little about the impact of high mortgage rates on London in particular. If anything good can come out of high mortgage rate, it is that it has at least brought the shortage of housing and the importance of that to the attention of many of thousands of people who until now may not have seen that as a problem.
    Londoners are particularly affected by the increase in mortgage rates, because London has the highest house prices in the country. The average home in the capital costs just below £100,000, while the national average is a little above £60,000. Average incomes in London are above the national average, but they do not exceed them to that extent. The size of London's economy and its continuing buoyancy compared with other areas mean that demand for housing remains high and prices are determined by what a small section of the population can afford, leaving the rest to struggle with high bills.
    Therefore, it is not surprising that, although some 600 home owners in London have become homeless during the past year, the increase has not been so great in the rest of the country. Until now, the relatively low rate in London has been due to the booming housing market. Many people who have got into trouble with repayments could still sell at a profit and buy elsewhere. With the collapse of the housing market many people will not now be able to do that. Therefore, we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in terms of homelessness which has resulted from people not being able to afford their mortgages.
    It is worth pointing out what a daunting task now faces the first-time buyer in London trying to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. The average mortgage advance for first-time buyers in London is now £70,000. With present interest rates, that means repayments of approximately £850 a month. The Government have told us that high interest rates will continue until such time as they can be cut. Therefore, we may be facing high increases in mortgage rates, and that will mean that more people in London face having to get rid of their homes. As we heard in the moving account in The Sunday Correspondent, they will be forced to go through the stigmatising process of having to sell their home or having it taken from them.
    I share the sentiments expressed earlier about the availability of tax relief for people who wish to buy homes together. The change in August 1988 cut off a further avenue for young people and is to be regretted. There are alternatives to buying in London, but renting from private landlords is expensive, the accommodation is hard to find, and the security is poor. Due to the complete collapse of local authority new home building and the sale of over 120,000 London council homes since 1979, councils now have far fewer lettings. We have already heard that housing associations are currently starting fewer homes in London than in the 1970s, so councils and local housing associations are overwhelmed with meeting the needs of the homeless.

    1021
    Despite an average of over 60 per cent. of council lettings going to the homeless in London—over half as many again as in the rest of the country—there are now 25,000 homeless households in temporary accommodation in London. That would be the equivalent of a sizeable town such as Stevenage.
    Some hon. Members may have seen in a newspaper this week an article on a person in my constituency who was homeless and begging. Attempts were made to prove that he had money and to show that he was not genuinely homeless. The attack was particularly sad. If those reporters had walked through the Bull Ring and spoken to people—although I doubt if many from the newspaper involved would dare to—they would have discovered the type of people who are homeless. It is important to point out that one cannot classify "homeless people" as just one category. Every homeless person is an individual with particular needs, problems and reasons for becoming homeless.
    The "Skipper" is one of the projects from the north Lambeth day centre which is involved with homeless people. The centre is an education project where many young people can go to obtain advice and to practise, learn and improve their writing skills to help them obtain a job. An average young person who visited the north Lambeth day centre said:
    "From June 1989 to September 1989 I had no money because I'd lost my YTS place and my bridging loan had run out. I went to the DSS in September because I had nowhere to live and was under 18, they wouldn't give me any money. I felt like they didn't want to know and didn't care. I tried to get work and told them this but they made me feel as if I was lying. Eventually I went to the Council who found me a room in a hostel. I had somewhere to live so I went to the DSS expecting money. I was given a £6 crisis loan which was to last two weeks. I was only given this because I was in 'Severe Hardship' and would eventually get Income Support because of this. This meant I had to live for 14 days on £6. I went again three days later and was told I wasn't entitled to anything else. Luckily the hostel lent me £4 for food and a social services worker obtained £20 from the Salvation Army for me."
    In this edition of "Skipper" there are other letters from homeless people who are lucky enough to have the benefit of the people working at the centre. That example shows how false it is for anyone to try to say that all the homeless —or a substantial number—are simply people who have left home and could return.
    If I look around my constituency I see people who are living in inadequate housing, perhaps on the seventh floor of a tower block, in great overcrowding and in conditions with an enormous amount of damp or where the flat is obviously in disrepair. Are we saying to those people that they are adequately housed and that they have a home and there is no problem?
    The definition of "homelessness" should be widened to include people who do not live in decent surroundings or an environment likely to improve their well-being and health. Such places cannot be called a home. In some ways, our narrow definition of homelessness excludes the many thousands of people who are living in appalling conditions and who have little chance—in my constituency—of being rehoused' One in 10 households in my borough suffers from extreme overcrowding. They have no chance of finding anywhere decent to live. There is no point saying to them, as the Government would, "Why don't you try to buy?" First, they would not want to buy the flat in which
    1022
    they are living because it usually needs an enormous amount of work and money spent on it. Secondly, they would have no chance of obtaining a mortgage.
    There are many myths about homelessness and housing, and one of the saddest things is that it has not become a crusading issue. All hon. Members rightly feel passionately about the National Health Service, but unless one is suffering directly from a housing problem, it does not reach the top of the agenda. However, at Christmas it does and over the next couple of weeks we will probably see many sad articles in the press about homelessness. But as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) rightly pointed out, after Christmas the problem will still exist.
    I hope that this Opposition day debate will mark the beginning of an increase in awareness—not just in the House but in the country—of the state of housing and how dire it is. There must be choice of housing but, under Government policies, only a tiny percentage of the population have real choice. I hope that today we will show that everyone has a responsibility. People in the country who are well housed and have no problems have a responsibility to raise the issue of homelessness with their Members of Parliament. They should bring it to the forefront, so that, by the end of next year, we will be able to say that something has been done about housing. In London, the position is already dire as we cannot get nurses, teachers, or people to staff buses or transport. The basic reason for that is that people can no longer obtain housing in London or live in a safe environment where they are happy and contented.
    We must see the problem of homelessness as crucial, and we must develop housing throughout the country but particularly in London. We must see it as a major problem that will engulf us in a year or two if something is not done quickly.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. Douglas French: The motion moved by the Opposition "condemns", "deplores", "warns" and "deplores" again. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister made clear, it does not propose any sound solutions.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) called for a "fundamental reappraisal" and "reversal of mistakes", but when pressed to come up with details of Opposition policies he made a feature of not presenting any for fear that they might be scrutinised.
    The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) called for more choice. In the last 10 years, the Conservative Government, to a greater extent than any previous Administration, have endeavoured to provide genuine housing choice.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend defend that statement in the light of the Government amendment to the motion, which does not even mention choice?
    Mr. French: It mentions the right-to-buy, which provides choice for people who might not otherwise have it.
    It is a pity that Opposition Members have not acknowledged the extent to which the Government have sought to provide additional opportunities for people to purchase their own homes, in particular for council tenants through the right-to-buy legislation. That has brought within the grasp of many who otherwise would

    1023
    have been unable to contemplate it both the possibility and the reality of owning the house or flat in which they live. From time to time the Labour party has been slightly more enthusiastic about that policy, but is has never been very keen to endorse it.
    Those who have exercised their right-to-buy have, in my experience, almost always been pleased to have done so. In recent years the scheme has been improved. There are better discounts and the range of properties within the ambit of the scheme has been extended. Since 1979, more than 1 million houses and flats have been sold through the right-to-buy scheme. That is an impressive figure, but it still means that the scheme has been only a qualified success. Only one fifth of the properties which might have been purchased in this way have been bought. Since it represents the bargain of a lifetime for those who decide to take up the option, it is worth asking why it is that approximately 14 local authorities have sold only about 10 per cent. of their local authority housing stock. In contrast, those who have done well have sold about 35 per cent., but even that does not represent a very impressive percentage.
    It is absolutely clear that the success or failure of the right-to-buy scheme in particular areas and at particular times has no connection whatever with interest rate levels. In the last year, the number of flats purchased through the right-to-buy scheme—just under 27,000—has been the highest ever. That coincided with a period of admittedly high interest rates, but they have not deterred people from exercising their right to buy.
    Even at times of high interest rates, it is both desirable and possible that people should still wish to become home owners. For some of them, the arithmetic may look daunting, but even within normal or very low household budgets it is still perfectly possible for people to exercise their right to buy. Nevertheless, the time has come when the scheme should be boosted. I therefore welcome the Government experiment known as the rents into mortgages scheme, which provides an important alternative means of purchasing one's home and additional choice for prospective purchasers.
    There have been two experiments. The first was announced on 30 October by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and applies to houses and flats owned by Scottish Homes. The second experiment, known as flexi-ownership, was announced in September by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and applies to the 1,350 houses and flats owned by the Development Board for Rural Wales. In both cases, the system enables tenants to buy their homes for broadly the same weekly outlay as they currently pay in rent.
    The system combines a discount entitlement with a mortgage and a deferred loan but, unlike many low-start schemes, it does not depend on an increasing burden of accumulating interest. It satisfies the deferred loan from the proceeds of the eventual sale of the property, but the cost of the deferred loan facility is calculated by reference to a proportion of the capital gain which has accrued in the intervening period. To that extent it has the characteristics of a shared ownership scheme, but there is no proper shared ownership.
    It is worth examining the arithmetic of such a scheme, since it is not widely understood. In both cases, the starting point is the rent currently being paid by the tenant. To that rent, for calculation purposes, 10 per cent. is added. Then £5 in the case of a house, or £7·50 in the case of a flat, is
    1024
    deducted from it as a notional allowance for the insurance and maintenance costs that the new owner will have to bear. Taking the average rent in Wales, which is £21·84, if one adds 10 per cent. and deducts £5, that leaves £19·02. That is the amount which the prospective purchaser would have to pay each week under the rents into morgages scheme. The amount of low-start mortgage that £19·02 will buy is the figure that the tenant pays for his purchase. But that is not enough to cover the entire cost: the difference between that amount and the market value of the house is met, first, by the discount and, secondly, by a deferred loan.
    An important feature of the scheme is that the discount is 15 per centage points less than the discount that is applied in the right-to-buy scheme. If it were otherwise, the introduction of such a scheme might be less than welcomed by those who have already exercised their right-to-buy under the existing scheme. Discounts under the rents into mortgages scheme start at 17 per cent. for houses and 29 per cent. for flats. They rise to 45 per cent. for houses and 55 per cent. for flats, which is 15 per cent. lower than the maximum that is available under the right-to-buy scheme.
    The important distinction, apart from the discount differential, is that even after the purchase has been made, eligibility for discount continues to accrue at 1 per cent. per year in respect of the calculation of the deferred loan that later has to be repaid, subject to the maximum percentages. When the time comes to sell the property, the deferred loan is the amount represented by the original percentage, as applied to the sale price, less the additional discount which has accrued at 1 per cent. per year.
    By means of that ingenious formula, the loan is repaid, the mortgage is repaid and the purchaser—who now becomes the seller—is left with a significant capital gain, the amount of which will depend on house price inflation in the intervening period. It is not a dream or a nightmare, as the hon. Member for Dagenham suggests; it is a painless way of achieving home ownership.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to me on 2 November 1989. In his letter he said that the Government had no plans at present to extend the rents into mortgages scheme beyond the two experiments in Wales and Scotland. He confirmed that they are trial experiments for three years and that they will be monitored and evaluated. However, in the 30 days from 30 October to 30 November, at a time of high interest rates, the number of inquiries in Scotland about the scheme amounted to 360. That is a sign that it will be enormously successful—and so it should be because it is extremely attractive. It would be even more successful if it were heavily promoted. Once the early part of the experiment is concluded, I see no reason why it should be necessary to wait three years before the scheme is promoted nationally. It should be promoted for the excellent scheme that it is, and should apply to all local authority tenants in all parts of the country—or, if that is not possible, particularly where there are housing pressures. I should like it to apply in my own constituency of Gloucester. It is an ingenious and a winning formula and I very much hope that the Government will decide to extend it nationally.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. David Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, it is not surprising that the Government amendment makes no mention of rented accommodation. Basically, it is a problem or a crisis in which the Government take no interest. It is also not surprising that the Government amendment does not boast about the provision of private sector rented accommodation. Had the Housing Act worked in the way in which the Government predicted, they would now be telling us about all the private sector rented accommodation that had been provided through shorthold and shorthold assured tenancies.
    In the past few days, I have tried to find out what the position is. I have tabled questions to the Department of the Environment and I have been to the Library where they were good enough to ring up a number of organisations concerned with housing, but hardly any information is available. The general consensus among organisations concerned with housing is that the number of new dwellings available in the private sector as a result of the Housing Act 1988 has been derisory, as Labour Members constantly warned when the legislation was going through the House. The new accommodation that has been provided here and there has been mainly in the high rented sector, and of course that is of no use to the vast majority of our constituents.
    I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). When people go to his surgery, as they come to mine, and tell him about their acute housing plight I wonder whether he gives them the lecture that he has just given the House.
    At present, this country has the largest number of homeless people since the end of the war. Tonight only five minutes from here people will make their homes in cardboard boxes as they have on previous nights, and will in future. A few nights ago, I went to see what was happening outside Embankment station. Any hon. Member who thinks that I am exaggerating should go along there. It is a disgrace that so many people should be living in those conditions in an advanced industrialised country, whatever our economic problems. Many of them do not have drink or drugs problems. Many are perfectly law-abiding citizens who have come to London and simply cannot find accommodation. The Evening Standard provides information about rented accommodation at £150, £200 and £250 per week. What use is that to people coming to London who may find a job paying a modest wage? They will not be able to afford to buy, and nor will they be able to afford rented accommodation. The lectures from the hon. Member for Gloucester are no help to the people who will sleep outside Embankment station tonight. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to go there tonight after the 10 pm vote and lecture those people about the schemes he has mentioned. I am willing to accompany him.
    The crisis is not just among the homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that most people who come to see him have housing problems. Surely that is true for most of us. At least 65 or 70 per cent. of those who come to my regular constituency surgeries or write to me are concerned about housing problems. Because of deliberate Government policy, and not because of the failure by the local authority, my own council has
    1026
    been able to undertake no housebuilding at all in the past 10 years. Of course, as the Government constantly boast, the public rented sector has been substantially reduced. But what should I say to a couple with two children who could wait for years in a small flat? One can imagine what it is like for a mother with two small children in a small flat in a multi-storey block who goes almost daily to the local housing office trying to find a house. People with no children have hardly any chance of finding accommodation; if they have one child they wait a long time to be rehoused from a flat to a house and more recently even families with two children can wait literally for years. All they want is a house. They cannot afford to buy and they certainly cannot afford any of the schemes mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucester. What is their crime? Why should they be penalised day in and day out because their income is low?
    I accept entirely that the majority of people in Britain want to own their own homes. I do not deplore that; I own my own home, or at least I am buying it through a building society. If it is good enough for us, of course other people should have the same opportunity. I do not deplore the fact that the majority of people want to own their own homes. If Tory Members really believe their propaganda that Labour Members are against owner-occupation, so be it. But we have never been against owner-occupation and in many ways we have tried to encourage it through various schemes when we have been in office. But what happens to the people who simply cannot buy? That is the divide between the two sides of the House. We are not divided about whether owner-occupation is good. We accept that and we believe that it should be encouraged. We know, however, only too well the mortgage difficulties faced by so many people who have bought their own homes in the past couple of years as a result of Government policy. We are not divided over the wish that people should buy their own homes if they can. But there is certainly a very big divide about what we should do about more than a quarter of the people in this country —those who need rented accommodation.
    The case against the Government is that through sheer dogma and political calculation, which also comes into the picture, they will not allow local authorities to undertake the work that local councils have been doing for most of the century. Even under previous Tory Governments, council dwellings were built in virtually all parts of the country. Now it is virtually impossible. If it is Government policy that local authority dwellings should not be built, they should provide alternatives. But, as I said, the private rented sector does not provide the accommodation which is so necessary, despite the promises made by Ministers when the Housing Act was going through. What should we do when people who could not possibly afford market rents come to see us? Housing benefit, which has been cut so drastically, does not help. Ministers know that. No matter what fine words they may say at the Dispatch Box, Ministers are callously indifferent to the plight of people who are punished and penalised because they are not in a position to buy.
    Council rents are also a form of punishment for tenants. In the past 10 years, council rents nationally have been forced up by 234 per cent. compared with an inflation figure of 110 per cent. over the same period. So in effect the Government have told council tenants that if they wish to

    1027
    continue as tenants they will he penalised. There is certainly no justification for the exorbitant rent increases that have been imposed in the past few years.
    It is not surprising that the number of people with rent arrears is increasing. For example, the total income of one widower in my constituency who came to see me is £54 a week. Imagine what it must be like to live on that amount. He pays more than £10 a week in rent. I know that rents have increased and housing benefit has been dramatically reduced, but I could not believe that that man should be paying more than £10 a week in rent out of an income of £54 a week. I checked the amount with my local authority, which is not to blame for it. How could it be to blame? The Government's policy has been to force up council rents while drastically reducing housing benefit.
    This country needs a substantial council house building programme. Only local authorities, together with genuine housing associations, can provide the rented accommodation which is so desperately needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) said that there were not many Members in the Chamber, unlike last night. The difference is that last night we were not sure which way the vote would go. As with debates on the death penalty and similar issues, one was not even certain what one's own colleagues would say. Ironically, then, though most constituents write to us about housing problems, there are few Members in the Chamber, whether Tory or Labour. The explanation is quite simple: we know that the Government will not listen. Because of dogma and political calculation, they are not interested in the plight of the people to whom my hon. Friends and I have referred.
    When historians look back at these times they will find it difficult to believe that there could be so many people without accommodation, so many people sleeping in the open and countless families in flats who cannot get a house, and a Government and their supporters who are indifferent—there will be no abstentions in the vote tonight—to the plight of the many people who want accommodation but cannot afford to buy a house.
    5.52 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) accuses the Government of callousness. The Government will spend £250 million in the next two years on tackling the problem of homelessness in London and the south-east. I do not call that the action of a callous Government. They will spend £20 billion over the next three years in grants and expenditure on housing. I do not call that the action of a callous Government. We do not improve the debate by making such simplistic party political attacks.
    To have a serious debate on these issues, we must at least compare alternative strategies. Much of the debate has been artificial. The Government have put forward their view which some may think is wrong headed. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was not prepared to say what the Government-in-waiting—as presumably he considers the Labour party to be—would do about the problem.
    Mr. Soley: He did.
    Mr. Leigh: I deny that, and Hansard will prove that he did not. I invite the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to explain what the Labour party would do in the current circumstances. I suspect that he will not.
    Two years ago, there was a potential world recession and a stock market crash and it was necessary to have reflation through supply side measures, which inevitably resulted in inflation. The only way to curb inflation is to encourage saving and curb borrowing, which can be done only by increasing interest rates. A Labour Government would have done that, just as this Government have.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Leigh: I shall not give way. I shall speak briefly so that other hon. Members can participate.
    Bringing up a young family and having to pay for property with a mortgage, I suffer as much as anyone from high interest rates. Like all people in my age group who are bringing up young families, I urge the Government to bring down interest rates as soon as possible, but not so soon that it would limit the battle against inflation. Some of us suffer from high interest rates, but everyone suffers from inflation.
    We should put the matter into context. Average incomes have increased by £67 a year over the past two years, while the average amount paid on an average mortgage of £22,000 has increased by £58 a year, despite the increase in interest rates. The Building Societies Association has proved that there is little evidential link between high interest rates and the number of repossessions. In the latter part of 1988, the number of repossessions fell to 0·01 per cent. of home loans. Repossessions have more to do with personal financial mismanagement, matrimonial problems or unemployment than with high interest rates. High interest rates are necessary if we are to curb inflation and get the economy running along the right lines.
    We must address the problem of housing for young people. I do not believe that the solution advocated by the hon. Member for Walsall, North was right. We must consider the kind of shared purchase schemes which were advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). I represent a rural area which traditionally has had low house prices. Young people in the villages in my constituency are finding it increasingly difficult to buy cottages and houses. Such housing is no longer within their price range because of the movement to the area of retired people from the south of England. I do not believe that the solution to the problem is to build more council housing in villages and trap people in rural areas subsidised housing from which they will find it difficult to escape in future years. The solution is to develop shared purchase schemes which will capture the imagination of young people. We may have to require local authorities to enter into such schemes.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend, like all of us, is worried about high interest rates. He touched on the prices of houses. Are not higher house prices the down side of lower interest rates? Sometimes a person may be in a Catch-22 situation—as interest rates come down, he still finds it difficult to get on to the housing ladder because house prices have increased as a result of low interest rates. That was the position in 1987.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point. Our economic policies are right and necessary. Much of what must be done in Government is as painful as it is inevitable, but it must be done.
    In our next legislative programme, we must look much more closely at shared purchase schemes and the private rented sector. We have been successful with assured tenancies and shorthold tenancies. Although I am sure that we will not get the Opposition's agreement, we must look at freeing the private rented sector for all future tenancies. The only way to address the problem of homelessness and to help young people, especially in inner-city areas, is to free the enormous supply of private rented accommodation. Such accommodation exists in under-occupied buildings, yet people do not have the confidence, ability or determination to put rooms in their houses on the market and may not be encouraged to do so. With shared purchase schemes, we can start to address the problem of homelessness among the young people in our great cities.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. John Fraser: I cannot express how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the necessity to provide more homes for rent through building by local authorities and—I think that my hon. Friend would agree —housing associations. I listened carefully to the hon. Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It does not seem to occur to Conservative Members that the great transition which has occurred as many tenants have moved to owner-occupation, because of the opportunity to buy on favourable terms and at discounts, was made possible only because of the efforts over the century of local authorities to build homes which were initially for rent. It is only the investment that took place year after year which has now made possible the transition from tenancy to owner-occupation, which most of us welcome. We should welcome it in the inner cities if only houses were replaced or there was an alternative, such as a transferable discount scheme. There is no contradiction between large-scale building for renting and owner-occupation on favourable terms at a later stage. The two are not incompatible.
    I represent Lambeth, an inner-city area, which has considerable problems. It is fair to say that, when I was first elected, the single outstanding domestic problem— because unemployment was virtually unknown and unmeasurable in Lambeth then—was housing. Sadly, that problem has not gone away, although it has been joined by the problems of major unemployment and inner-city deprivation. It is to my deep regret and to the deep shame of the present Government that the housing problem, which was showing signs of improvement in terms of tenure, space standards and repairs, has been getting worse, not as a result of some act of fate, but as a direct consequence of Government policy.
    What has happened in the past few years, and especially in the past year, has been critical for the more recent home buyers, who must now despair about where the money will come from after each interest rate rise. The position is also critical for thousands of people for whom the idea of buying a home is either an unattainable dream or a sick joke. The present cost of buying property will rule them out of the market in places such as Lambeth.
    1030
    I shall give an illustration of my local prices. This morning, I went through every housing advertisement in the local paper, which is a south London newspaper covering Wandsworth and Lambeth. I tried to find out what was the cheapest property available for purchase in the area. The cheapest price for a one-bedroom conversion was £54,500, which was not the typical price. The usual price for one-bedroomed accommodation in the area, which is not the most salubrious part of London, is £60,000 to £65,000.
    Let us consider the cheapest cost, of about £55,000. If one obtains a mortgage at 13·5 per cent., which is under the Government's present base rate, and excludes all policy costs, service charges and ground rent, the interest repayments alone for the cheapest south London house in the newspaper today would be £534 a month, or £6,408 a year. In addition, of course, there would be the costs of fares to work, of the repayment of capital and of insurance.
    Nobody who is earning less than about £18,000 a year net would be able to afford, with any prudence, such a mortgage. Who would enter into a commitment in which the outgoings on the mortgage would be more than one third of net income? I know that some people exceed one third of net income, but it is not prudent when one thinks of the other commitments and other expenditure that are associated with a house, such as repairs and insurance.
    I represent a constituency where the wages for the middle income group are relatively low. People may be doing useful jobs in London, but they are not highly paid jobs and, for most people, the purchase of the cheapest possible one-bedroom flat, which would not be suitable for somebody who had children, is simply out of the question. For a family with children, the price of a home would not be the minimum of £55,000, but about £75,000 or £80,000. For a first-time buyer in my area, mortgage repayments for such a property would be proportionately higher, running to perhaps £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 a year. The idea that the people who come to see my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) or me at our advice bureaux will be able to buy a home on the figures that I have quoted is unrealistic, especially as another mortgage rate rise is still in the pipeline.
    What is the next choice for people which is urged on us? It is to go into the private rented sector. I looked in the South London Press, which has a good list of properties available to let under the new regime, to see whether renting might be possible. In Streatham, there was accommodation that would be suitable for a family with children:
    "3-bedroom flat…can suit ¾ people. £140 p. w."
    That is a rental of £7,000 a year. Yet I am talking about people who will go home with a net disposable income in some cases of only about £8,000 to £10,000 a year.
    I think of a nursery nurse, who works with a member of my family, and who comes regularly to my advice bureau. She has a child to look after and, although she has worked all her life, her income is only about £800 a month net, which is about £10,000 a year. She dearly wants to move out of the one-bedroom flat in which she has to share a bedroom with her child into a two-bedroom property, which would give a bit more privacy. In Lambeth, she would have to pay £7,000 a year in rent according to the example that I have given.
    To show that that is not an exaggerated figure, I can give plenty of others. For a one-bedroom flat—which

    1031
    would be no good for my constituent because she has a child—in Mitcham, which is some way out of the centre, the cost would be £4,500 a year. If she wanted to rent a two-bedroom flat in Brockley, which is not all that posh, she would have to pay £6,000 a year, and on top of that there would be rates, repairs and service charges. I could go through the figures of the premises that are available to rent in south London. The typical figure for a room is between £45 and £60 a week. Another advertisement says:
    "SE15, Double & Single Rooms…From £40 p. w."
    There is no choice for someone with the typical net income of people doing public service work—even relatively highly paid public service work—in constituencies such as mine.
    The third theoretical choice—and this is slightly to bend the meaning of the word "choice"—for someone in housing need who wants better or larger accommodation is to go to the local authority or to a housing association, bearing in mind that most housing association vacancies are nominated by the local authority. However, the depth of the cuts over the past 10 years in the housing investment programmes and the extent of homelessness in London mean that virtually no families without children and virtually no families who are not in priority need of housing will be able to be housed by the local authority.
    Housing investment has declined. Let us consider the forecast completions for Lambeth over the next three years. In the current year, Lambeth expects to complete 165 homes. It expects to complete 120 homes in the following year and 87 homes in 1991–92. That is the consequence of the catastrophic investment programme which has been imposed by the present Government.
    High mortgage costs, high house prices, high rents and the almost total inability to obtain a house by normal means through the local authority mean that in Lambeth we face a devastating problem of homelessness. In 1987, just after the general election, there were 430 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Lambeth borough. On 10 December this year there were 1,177 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—almost three times as many as there were two years ago—and that is in spite of all the efforts that have been made to solve the problem of homelessness by other means.
    In addition to the trebling of the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the number of private sector leasing arrangements—one way in which Lambeth borough council has responded—has increased to 493. We now have more people housed under private sector leasing arrangements than we had homeless people three years ago. We have 137 people in reception centres, 89 people in short-life accommodation and five people in furnished voids, giving a total figure of 1,918 homeless families. I am told that the cost to public funds of keeping one mother and child in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London is now £10,000 a year. It is easy to calculate the enormous costs incurred in boroughs such as mine.
    It is not getting any easier. As the pressure of interest rates builds, and as rents in the public and private sectors continue to rise, the problem worsens. Between 70 and 80 families a week present themselves as homeless, and 600 cases are being considered at the moment.
    Hyperbole begins to lose its meaning. I begin to despair as to how anyone is ever housed. I am deeply angry, because it is not as though the predicament in which the homeless find themselves is an accident, as though their
    1032
    needs are unavoidable or their deprivation inevitable. Their homelessness is the direct consequence of Government policies and Government lack of investment.
    The tragedy is that the problem could be solved. People in London—especially developers—are finding it difficult to sell houses at the moment. In the docklands area, for example, many houses remain unsold when they are completed or in the course of construction. In the docklands area, land prices are higher than construction costs as a result of Government policy. It would be possible to release the massive amounts of money that are available to buy those properties for rent and eventually to facilitate the transition from renting to owner-occupation of which we have spoken tonight.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. Hugo Summerson: I should like to begin with two anecdotes. The other day, I was cycling along Knightsbridge and a man at a bus stop stopped me. I thought for a moment that he was going to ask for a lift. In fact, what he asked for was money. He said that he had been robbed and did not have any money left for his train fare home. Being of a naturally soft-hearted disposition, and perhaps in this case rather foolish, I gave him some money, whereupon honesty broke out across his face and he told me, "Actually, I'm going to take it to the nearest pub and drink it."
    The second story is the one that we saw in the Evening Standard the other day. It concerns a young man who makes an extremely good living standing outside a tube station with one of those notices round his neck saying, "Homeless and starving". He makes about £600 a week, tax free.
    I tell those stories not to trivialise the subject—because homelessness is a very serious problem in London—but because I believe that we must regard it with extreme care. We have to sort the wheat from the chaff. The wheat can look after itself perfectly well, but the chaff obviously needs help and that is why the Government are making £250 million available to attempt to solve the problem.
    Before I was elected to this place, I used to practise as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and as part of my job I used to look in auction catalogues to see what sort of property was coming on to the market. In all the catalogues, there were hundreds of tenanted houses and flats coming up for sale. The reason why they were being sold was that over the years the private rented market has been destroyed by legislation, largely passed by the Labour party. Bearing in mind that Labour legislation, no landlord would take the risk of letting an empty property when he knew perfectly well, first, that the rent would be controlled to the extent that he could not even maintain the property out of it and, secondly, that the sitting tenant and the tenant's successors to two or three generations might have security of tenure. I hope that the Government's policies will put that right, but I am afraid that it will take a long time.
    Should the ratepayers subsidise council rents? I do not believe that they should. I believe that council tenants who cannot pay their rent should be helped, but if one asked the average ratepayer in my constituency—not exactly the richest part of London—whether he thinks that he should give a blanket subsidy to all council tenants, one would get a dusty answer.

    1033
    What about the right to buy? My council, the London borough of Waltham Forest, complains, like many Labour councils, about the controls on spending capital receipts. Yet my council will not push through sales under the right-to-buy provisions. The council cannot have it both ways. If it will not push through the sales, why on earth should it complain that it is allowed to spend only 25 per cent. of its capital receipts? Moreover, it takes some time to build houses. One cannot put up a house overnight. It takes months to get planning permission and months to do the building work.
    Many councils have great assets in the shape of commercial properties. My own council has a rent roll of about £1 million a year from commercial properties. But when I asked, "What exactly are these properties valued at?" I discovered that the council has not a clue what the capital values of the properties are. Surely the council could sell some of those properties and apply the proceeds elsewhere, but that is a point that many councils simply have not taken on board. Look at the GLC, which owned thousands of commercial properties and did not bother to review the rents for years and years. The London residuary body has been selling some of the properties and it has become clear that some rents have not been reviewed for 20 years. Some authorities have had no idea of how to look after their properties.
    I come now to housing action trusts. It is proposed that there should be a housing action trust in my constituency. I know that some Labour Members are not in favour of housing action trusts. I hope that they will make the journey out to Walthamstow to the Boundary road estate and say to the tenants there, "We do not approve of housing action trusts. We do not like the idea that the Government might actually pay to knock down these three horrendous tower blocks and replace them with decent housing." They might also say, "We approved of the scheme of the London borough of Waltham Forest to replace those blocks which would have meant an increase of £15 a week in the rents of all council tenants in the borough."
    I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is shifting anxiously in his place, so let me finish by asking exactly where all the new houses of which the Labour party speaks so grandly are to be built. London is a mature city and has been a mature city for hundreds of years, so where are the houses to be built? Are they to be built, perhaps, in Old Dagenham park? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) would be only too keen to assure his constituents that Ravenscourt park will not be built on, and that we do not want to build in Hyde park or in the green belt.
    I hope that Opposition Members would not advocate a return to the building of tower blocks, which to my mind represent one of the most horrendous forms of housing ever devised. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is laughing. Perhaps he would like to tell his constituents that he is all in favour of building tower blocks. To my mind, they breed hopelessness and despair. I am sure that they breed unemployment and I believe that they also breed housing problems because they breed social problems. Many people leave home because they cannot bear to live there any longer.
    1034
    Obviously the answer is to pull them down and replace them with the sort of housing that was there before—traditional terraced houses with gardens. That is what people want, and I believe that we should provide it.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will see you afterwards.
    The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has a charming and disarming way of addressing the House. It is no wonder that he was voted the most romantic Member of Parliament. He told us an anecdote. As he is the Member for Walthamstow, what was he doing cycling through Knightsbridge? He did not tell us. If he spent more time cycling through Walthamstow, he would see more of the problems facing his constituents.
    The hon. Member for Walthamstow even comes to the House looking like Neville Chamberlain's private secretary. Many of his views hark back to those days, and I shall touch on some of them.
    Personal anecdotes are no way to solve London's massive housing crisis. The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked why local authorities could not use the commercial opportunities represented by their land holdings and assets. They cannot do that, because the Government will not let them: it is as simple as that.
    The hon. Gentleman should learn something more about capital receipts and the restrictions that have been placed on their use by central Government, in particular by the Housing Act 1988. He should know that that Act prevents more than 20 per cent. of receipts from the sale of council houses being used to build in the first year. The rest has to go towards the reduction of debts. At least in the past the whole 100 per cent. trickled through. Now it does not and some £8 billion of accumulated capital receipts cannot be used.
    The hon. Member for Walthamstow wanted to find out why local councils are unable to use accumulated capital receipts, and why they do not release some of their assets. He should have asked why the Government that he supports will not allow them to use those receipts to reduce housing waiting lists, by building new homes.
    I do not want to hear any lessons from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who peripatetically cycles through Knightsbridge, about the problems of tower blocks. Newham has 110 tower blocks—the largest concentration in the country. Members of Parliament for Newham represent more constituents who live above the tenth floor than is the case in any other borough, or any other three hon. Members. Even though they live above the tenth floor, their feet are firmly on the ground.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the vast majority of them do not want to live in tower blocks, but what can we do? The hon. Gentleman suggested the attractive idea of knocking them all down and building nice little town houses. We would like to do that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices with his Front Bench to allow us to do that in Newham.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
    Mr. Banks: I will give way to my good friend, or rather, to my acquaintance.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend and acquaintance for giving way. Is he not aware that in

    1035
    Wandsworth ugly tower blocks have been made into desirable residences by selling them off to young people in the private sector? Now they are lovely.
    Mr. Banks: I agree that they may be desirable residences for those people who earn six-figure sums, but those flats are selling for £100,000. What good is that to homeless people living in Wandsworth? Of course that can be done. Most luxury hotels are tower blocks but conditions in them are nothing like the conditions found in tower blocks in Newham. The hon. Lady, despite her red dress, should be more practical when she expresses her views to the House.
    The situation is fairly clear. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who is not in his seat at the moment, said that people get into problems with mortgage arrears because they cannot manage financially, that they mismanage, and that that may result from the family breaking up.
    Someone who had an average mortgage advance in London in spring 1988, when interest rates were 9·5 per cent., paid £520 a month. Now, with interest rates at 14·5 per cent., the same home owner is paying £740, a difference of £220, or a 42 per cent. rise. That is not mismanagement by the individual householder, but mismanagement of the economy by the Government and that has caused the ludicrous rate of interest that is now being imposed on home owners and on businesses. That is why people find it difficult to meet their mortgage repayments.
    It is not broken marriages that lead to difficulty in paying the mortgage, but difficulty in paying the mortgage that leads to broken marriages. I know that from the personal experiences of some of my constituents, and not, I hasten to add, from my own experience.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) also gave a good description of the situation that we have had to face at our surgeries. We have not made it up. The Minister tried to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) had made it up. Somehow, we had created a problem that does not exist except in our vivid imaginations, but the reality is there every day in our offices, and every week in our advice surgeries. People come in and break down crying, "What are we going to do?" All we can do is offer them a tissue and a shoulder to cry on; local authorities cannot solve their problems because of the restrictions placed on house building by the Government.
    How has the problem arisen? One does not need a PhD in housing administration to work out why homelessness has doubled since 1979, when that wretched party was first elected to government. It has doubled because the housing investment programme has been slashed by almost 100 per cent.—I think by about 70 to 80 per cent. in real terms.
    Ten years ago, Tory and Labour local authorities in London were building 25,000 accommodation units a year. Now they are building around 2,000. That is where the housing problem comes from—the failure of the Government to allow local authorities to use their own resources to try to solve their housing problems.
    I could get exceedingly angry, and I regularly do get angry, when I am confronted with problems that I cannot solve. The only way those problems can be solved is to get rid of this wretched Tory Government and get a Labour Government elected who are committed to doing something about the scandal of homelessness in Britain.
    1036
    In 1989, despite 10 years of Government economic ineptitude that has reduced us to a sideline position in Europe, we are still one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Yet people are sleeping in cardboard boxes a few yards from this place, and thousands of families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, with all that that means in human misery. It is a scandal that should be hung round the necks of the Government until they are booted from office. Homelessness is one of the issues that will ensure that we get rid of them.
    6.28 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: When a Minister gets the kind of reception at the Dispatch Box at the beginning of a debate that the Minister for Housing and Planning got today, it is normally because people feel angry or because the Minister is not dealing with the issues seriously and in depth. Today both situations apply. Hon. Members are justifiably angry, and people right across the board are angry about the growing housing crisis in Britain.
    The Minister does not have a good case, and that was why there was such a vacuum in his speech, and why there is a vacuum in Government policy. That is why we do not have a proper housing Minister. The Minister spends most of his time privatisating water and his junior spends most of his time privatising the Property Services Agency. Housing is a second-rate issue for them. For the welfare of thousands of people throughout the country, however, it is vital.
    The Government have gone seriously wrong. I must tell the Minister and other Conservative Members who have spoken that Labour is not alone in accusing them of having a disastrous policy; nor are housing organisations alone in accusing them of having a disastrous policy.
    When the Minister criticised, or rather tried but failed to criticise, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the state of repair of the housing stock, he ignored a report produced by the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, which could not have put it more clearly when it said:
    "But neither of these estimates take into account the need for resources to tackle additional dwellings falling into disrepair in the private sector or the further deterioration, while awaiting attention, of stock already in poor condition. It is therefore clear that at the current level of public expenditure the bulk of the stock condition problem cannot be tackled within the next decade."
    The ADC called for an increase of a minimum of £35 billion, although the upper end of its proposed scale was £50 billion. Its view is seconded by the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and most Conservative councils throughout the country.
    On what is the Government's reputation built? They came up with one or two policies in 1974 which, stupidly, they have stuck to. They said of helping first-time buyers:
    "The first part of our programme for doing this is to reduce the interest rate charged by building societies to home buyers to 9½ per cent. and ensure that it does not rise above that figure…Our second proposal is to give first-time purchasers of private houses or flats special help in paying the deposit."
    In 1979, they backed off a bit from saying that they would keep mortgage interest so low. They were not specific but, when it came to it, the first thing that they did, in November 1979, was to increase the mortgage interest rate from 11 to 15 per cent. On only two short occasions during

    1037
    the past 10 years has the mortgage interest rate been below 10 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's economic policy failure.
    The hon Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who was the Conservative spokesman on housing at the time, said just before the general election:
    "as soon as we are in office we shall introduce a scheme that we announced not just today but as long ago as three and half years ago.
    Under that scheme, the first-time buyer will receive a tax-free bonus of £ 1 for every £2 saved. Therefore, if he saves only £300, he will receive a bonus of £150 when he buys his house".—[Official Report, 20 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 1047.]
    The hon. Gentleman spelt the scheme out in more detail. Neither of those promises was kept. They were both clearly broken.
    The Prime Minister said in 1980:
    "I recognise that the Government are borrowing too much. The interesting correlation is that when the Government borrow less…interest rates go down. I shall be delighted to have the support of the right hon. Gentleman"—
    a reference to the then Leader of the Opposition, now Lord Callaghan—
    "and those who sit behind him to get down Government spending and borrowing, because interest rates will then go down."—[Official Report, 22 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 554.]
    What went wrong with the theory? It is a disastrous failure. Interest rates are still incredibly high. The failure has been unique.
    Recently, something important in housing happened. The former Secretary of State for the Environment was moved to the Department of Trade and Industry, much to the regret of that Department, and we now have a new, green Secretary of State who does not understand much about housing but knows that he has a crisis on his hands. He is much more in the mould of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Significantly, for the first time in 10 years, as a result of the appointment of the new Secretary of State, instead of going down, the housing investment programme is to go up next year. But what the poor new Secretary of State does not know is that he has already been kiboshed by his predecessor, who put through the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which will mean that there will still be a cut of no less than 24 per cent. in the HIP.
    I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning who, although he may have misquoted me several times, did me the courtesy of quoting me almost word for word when he lifted my Labour party press release in which I spoke about rents going through the roof. One of the things that I recommended to the Conservative party, and have done for a long time, is to enable local authorities to extend the lease-back scheme in the private sector to bring into use the thousands of privately-owned empty properties. Lo and behold, the Minister has done that, using almost my very words. He has, however, done it late, and it appears that there is still no policy because only in November, under the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government said that they would not extend the lease-back scheme.
    Those of my hon. Friends who served with me on the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will remember that we were told that the lease-back
    1038
    scheme would not be extended, although we pleaded for it. More of a crisis was brought on when the Government put out their new rent guidelines, based on the capital value of houses. That was guaranteed to send rents rocketing.
    I put out a press release saying that rents in Mole Valley, which is represented by the chairman of the Conservative party, would increase by a fantastic £5·20 a week in the first year, and by 115 per cent. over a longer period. Then, in a letter dated 8 December 1989, local authorities were told that the Government seemed to have misjudged the situation and that they would like to review it before Christmas. They do not know what they are doing because they do not have a policy. That is the reason for the crisis.
    I said years ago what Conservative and Labour councils throughout the country said—"For heaven's sake recognise the fact that you are creating an enormous housing crisis." I repeat, for the benefit of hon. Members who have said that they did not hear any policy statement, that one way in which to tackle the problem is to allow local authorities to use capital receipts. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wanted to do that. He claimed, possibly correctly, to be the first Conservative Member to invent the right to buy. He also said that local authorities should keep the receipts and use them for housing. As I said in Question Time, when the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green pushed for that he was moved to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said I was insulting Northern Ireland by saying that. I do not agree. The Prime Minister insulted Northern Ireland and her housing Minister, because he was right.
    Sir George Young: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was the housing Minister? Perhaps he would like to give the dates.
    Mr. Soley: I am referring to the first years of the Conservative Government—1979 and 1980.
    Sir George Young: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, in 1979, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) was the housing Minister and remained such throughout that Parliament.
    Mr. Soley: My dates might be marginally wrong.
    Mr. Howard: I can help the hon. Gentleman. The time which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is when my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was shadow housing spokesman. He was indeed moved to Northern Ireland, not in any sense for the reason that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but because the late Airey Neave was assassinated.
    Mr. Soley: The latter assertion is not the case, I am sure. It would be much more impressive if, instead of worrying about the dates when the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke on housing matters, the Minister concentrated on the issue, which is the use of capital receipts. If they were used now, we could allow local authorities and housing associations to start building, repairing and renovating again. That would not be significantly inflationary because, as I said to the Minister earlier, the skill crisis in the building industry would not allow us to use the money quickly. It could only be used over several years.
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so certain that capital receipts would not have inflationary consequences and has succeeded in persuading his colleagues of that proposition, why is there no reference to that policy in his party's policy review?
    Mr. Soley: In the policy review process, there was never intended to be any detailed statement of that policy— [Interruption.] That is right. We were reviewing the thrust, direction and aims of party policy, not the detail. That is coming along and has been given in many of my statements—and the Minister knows it. He need not worry about that.
    I turn now to some of the comments made by other Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is a classic example of why the Government have got housing so seriously wrong. He talked about extending the right to buy and about what a marvellous idea it was. He suggested doing it this way, and extending it that way and talked about all the things that we could do to increase it. However, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that he has not answered, asked himself or even thought of. If we sell all the rented properties, where will the sons and daughters of the people who have bought those homes, or the local people, find somewhere to rent? In the hon. Gentleman's own area the local people cannot find places to rent. Those local people, their sons and daughters, the postmen, teachers and others cannot find anywhere to rent because about 1·25 million houses have disappeared from the rented sector in the past 10 years. Half have been sold and not replaced in the council sector and the other half have disappeared from the much-loved private sector. Why? Because the Government have failed to address the issue of housing finance. It does not pay to replace houses for councils, housing associations or the private sector. Therefore, they are all selling their properties. Even now, housing associations are not back to the position they were in in the mid-1970s. How on earth can the housing association movement, which has recently made public statements on this aspect, make up the difference that has come about because of the cuts in local authority housing?
    The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that repossessions are not caused by interest rates, or not to any great extent. That would be laughable if it was not so tragic. He said that repossessions were caused mainly by unemployment and marital breakdowns. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) dealt with the point well. Someone with a £40,000 mortgage on which the interest rate was 9·75 per cent. when the mortgage was taken out but which then increased to 13·5 per cent. would have to pay an extra £1,016 per annum. If we are not saying that that can lead to economic distress, what are we saying?
    The figures given by the building societies are phenomenal. The figures for repossessions have escalated dramatically. In what was effectively the last year of the Labour Government—the figures carry over to the following year—there were 3,020 repossessions. That was in 1980. Every year thereafter the figure has risen until in 1987—the last year for which figures have been given—repossessions numbered 22,630—a sevenfold increase, which is a far larger increase that that for house purchase and, of course, that figure will increase even more. The
    1040
    dream of home ownership is being turned into the nightmare of bed and breakfast, paid for by the ratepayers who are soon to be the poll tax payers.
    Instead of silly schemes and the Minister trying desperately to react by saying, "Take in a lodger to help pay your bills", without recognising that he must change the law to enable that to happen, he should call in the lending societies, including the banks and the other finance companies and say, "One in 10 of all homeless families are homeless because they cannot pay their mortgages. It is unacceptable that such families with children should go into bed and breakfast. Let's call them in and have a system whereby the local authority or the housing associations could buy the property from you, the lending organisations, and convert it into a rented property." I accept that some funds will be needed for that, but the amount would not be enormous.
    Alternatively—the Halifax and other building societies are prepared to consider this—we could have the system that I understand was used in the 1930s in which the ownership was converted and the property became a rented property with the lending organisation either managing the property or paying a housing association to do so. There are many other innovative schemes, but all that the Minister can suggest is, "Take in a lodger" because, he says, if things go wrong, it is easier to get them out under the provisions of the 1988 legislation. He says that such people should simply be put into the street—
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mr. Soley: I shall give way to the Minister in a moment. The Minister said that the Labour party wants to create queues. Well, we did not create the queue for the cardboard boxes, did we? We did not triple, quadruple or whatever the housing list queues, did we? The Conservative party did all that and those queues are a disgrace.
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mr. Soley: Yes, I shall give way to the Minister on one last occasion.
    Mr. Howard: On the subject of lodgers, is it the hon. Gentleman's position that building societies should be encouraged to place obstacles in the path of those who wish to take in lodgers? That was the only point that I addressed in my speech on this matter, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us his position.
    Mr. Soley: Subject to satisfactory safeguards, I have no objection to the Minister, the building societies and the other lending organisations getting together to allow that to happen. However, any such provisions must not mean that when the home owner wants to get rid of an individual or when the building society has to repossess because that idea does not work, those people then become homeless almost overnight, adding to the cardboard box queue.
    The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) should be ashamed of himself for using the example that he did. He is one of those Conservative Members who represent the dinosaur tendency. Anyone who believes that all those homeless and hungry kids who are begging on the streets can get £600 per week for doing that must be out of his tiny little mind. I emphasise that teenage children are begging in the streets and that most of us are

    1041
    seeing that for the first time in our lives, because one would have to be 60 or 70 to have seen it before. The vast majority of those young people are desperate.
    Prior to being elected to the House in 1979, I was a probation officer in one of the most difficult areas of London, but even with homeless youngsters being unloaded at King's Cross and Euston, I could always find such people a roof over their heads unless they were violent or drunk. That cannot be done now. They have to be told to take their place in the queue for the boxes or to take their place in the queues for council homes—
    Mr. Summerson rose—
    Mr. Soley: I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Government have created a major and drastic housing crisis, the like of which no one in this country has seen since the end of the second world war. That crisis is hitting the home owner, those who rent in both the private and the public sectors, and it is even hitting the Government. They own no fewer than one dozen homes in my constituency where we have one of the worst housing problems in the country. Those properties have been empty for up to 10 years, yet the Government refuse to let the housing associations take them over. I am talking about three and four-bedroomed houses and flats. The Government say, "We are keeping them empty because they are near Wormwood Scrubs prison and in the long term we want to knock them down to provide car parking and landscaping." That is a measure of the Government's disgraceful policy and it will be thrown out with the Government.
    6.46 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): What a disgraceful display of synthetic indignation—[Interruption.] This three-and-a-half hour debate has been the Opposition's chance to tell us about their housing policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has only got half a sentence out.
    Mr. Chope: The Opposition have blown their chance. They have shown that they do not have any coherent housing policy—
    Ms. Armstrong rose—
    Mr. Chope: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
    The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is not normally as muddled and incoherent as he has been today, but today he has had to clutch at straws and to rely on some dubious statistics. I shall take just one example of his dubious statistics. I refer to the number of people accepted as homeless by local authorities as a result of mortgage arrears. That number has remained stable over recent years and months—
    Mr. Tony Banks: What is it?
    Mr. Chope: The proportion of homeless due to mortgage arrears is only 6 per cent., which is down from 10 per cent. three years ago.—
    Mr. Battle rose—
    Mr. Chope: I know that Opposition Members do not want the facts to interfere with their argument—
    Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way on those figures?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
    Mr. Chope: I shall give way a number of times, but first I wish to stress the positive side. The Government believe that this has been a successful decade of sustained success in housing. We have won the argument today, as we have throughout the decade. We have increased the quantity and quality of the nation's housing stock. There are now 2 million—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a well-conducted debate. The Minister has a right to make his speech in his own way.
    Mr. Chope: This takes me back to just over 10 years ago, when I was the housing chairman in Wandsworth. The Labour party adopted the same tactics then and tried to shout me down and pour cold water on the Conservative housing policies. I am pleased to say that, in a decade of Conservative control in Wandsworth, the proportion of owner-occupation has increased from 27 per cent. to 54 per cent. This year we have seen capital investment by the local authority in Wandsworth of about £100 million. That Conservative council now has control over the best housing stock in inner London as a result of Conservative policies.
    I know from experience that the Labour party does not like Conservative policies, because it has not come to terms with the demand for home ownership.
    Mr. George Howarth: A few moments ago, the Minister said that this had been a decade of great success for the Government's housing policy. If that is so, why are none of these successes mentioned in the Government's amendment?
    Mr. Chope: I know that, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, achieving a massive increase in home ownership and responding to people's demands to exercise home ownership does not constitute a success. The Government have increased the percentage of home ownership to 68 per cent. We still have not gone as far as we would wish, because we know that, of those people under 55, about 90 per cent. still aspire to becoming home owners. However, we are entitled to take stock in this debate and say that our home ownership policies have been extremely successful during this decade.
    It is not only in the owner-occupied sector that we have responded to the people's needs and aspirations; 160,000 more units of sheltered accommodation have been made available in the past decade through local authorities and housing associations. There is also a healthy private sector market in sheltered accommodation. Shared ownership —almost unheard of a decade ago—is flourishing under this Government. More than 124,000 houses have been sold under the low-cost home ownership scheme since 1979. We have begun to deregulate the private rented

    1043
    market. We have shorthold and assured tenancies and a business expansion scheme that has attracted much more private investment into the private rented market.
    We have been pursuing a host of other imaginative policies during the past 10 years—none more so than the tenants charter, tenants choice, the priority estates project and Estates Action, on which £190 million was spent this year.
    We are still coming forward with new ideas—Conservative-controlled councils are coming forward with most of them. One such idea, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), was cash incentives, pioneered by Conservative councils and taken up by the less imaginative Socialist councils. Those cash incentives have a part to play in solving the homelessness problem.
    We have revised the proposals so that we shall now be able to allow generous payments—sometimes more than £20,000—to people who wish to move from their existing council accommodation into the private sector. As has been said, that immediately creates a vacancy that can be used for somebody with a real housing need. That positive policy was put forward by the Government and is being emulated by some of the Socialist housing authorities. Next year, we hope to extend that scheme into the housing association sector, and we hope that about 2,500 lettings will arise from the similar tenants incentive scheme for housing associations.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Minister urging other authorities to follow the example of the loony Right Westminster council and its barbarous decision to sell graveyards and try to turn them into building blocks?
    Mr. Chope: It is apparent from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he has not been in on this debate. If he looks at Westminster city council's housing record, he will find that the council spends more on the repair and maintenance of its council stock per unit than any other council in the country, bar one. That shows that it has a sincere concern for improving the housing conditions in Westminster.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) gave some wise advice to those facing difficulties with their mortgages. He advised them to seek their building society's advice before going into the secondary mortgage market. I hope that his advice will be carefully heeded.
    The proposal to extend lodgings and encourage more people to take in lodgers has also been mentioned. I find it amazing that Opposition Members do not think it a good idea to make the best use of the nation's housing stock by encouraging and facilitating the taking in of lodgers by those who wish to do so. There are many people who would like—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly to shout across the Chamber in this way. The Minister must be given a fair chance to answer this debate.
    Mr. Terry Patchett: In view of the Minister's enthusiasm for lodgers, how many lodgers is he willing to take?
    Mr. Chope: That must be a decision for each individual householder. I have been a lodger in the past, and I have an unsolicited testimonial which says that I was quite a
    1044
    good lodger. I have also taken in lodgers in the past and would do so again. Whether I would take the hon. Gentleman as a lodger is a more difficult question.
    It is most important to encourage maximum investment in housing. The Government believe that we should bring public capital investment and private capital investment together to solve the nation's housing problems. During the past decade, there has been a massive increase in private capital investment in housing. Last year it was £14·8 billion—up from £4·7 billion in 1979, a threefold increase. That means that since 1979 public and private capital investment in housing has gone from £8 billion to over £18 billion. The way to provide better quality housing is to get the public and private sectors working together. Good housing flourishes under a Government who recognise that the public and private sectors work together. It also needs a Government who work with the market rather than against it.
    We must ensure that our housing stock is used to the full. I am amazed that the scandal of empty properties presided over by Labour councils up and down the country still exists. Hon. Members who represent Lambeth had a cheek to respond in the way that they did, given that Lambeth council presides over so many empty properties.
    We must ensure that taxpayers' resources are directed to those in the greatest need. Above all, we want realistic solutions to housing problems. The Opposition have failed to tell us their policies. Their attitude is totally negative. We had the right policies for the 1980s, and we have them for the 1990s as well. I ask the House to reject the motion and accept the amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 279.

    Division No. 17]

    [7.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Allen, Graham

    Canavan, Dennis

    Anderson, Donald

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clay, Bob

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Clelland, David

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashton, Joe

    Cohen, Harry

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Coleman, Donald

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Corbett, Robin

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Battle, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cox, Tom

    Beith, A. J.

    Crowther, Stan

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cryer, Bob

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

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blair, Tony

    Darling, Alistair

    Blunkett, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boateng, Paul

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Boyes, Roland

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

    Bradley, Keith

    Dewar, Donald

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dixon, Don

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Doran, Frank

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Douglas, Dick

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Buchan, Norman

    Eadie, Alexander

    Buckley, George J.

    Eastham, Ken

    Caborn, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    1045

    Fatchett, Derek

    Michael, Alun

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fisher, Mark

    Morley, Elliot

    Flannery, Martin

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Flynn, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Foster, Derek

    Mullin, Chris

    Fraser, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Fyfe, Maria

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Galloway, George

    O'Brien, William

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    George, Bruce

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Patchett, Terry

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Pendry, Tom

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Pike, Peter L.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gould, Bryan

    Prescott, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Radice, Giles

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hardy, Peter

    Reid, Dr John

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Haynes, Frank

    Robertson, George

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Rogers, Allan

    Henderson, Doug

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Home Robertson, John

    Salmond, Alex

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howells, Geraint

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Short, Clare

    Hoyle, Doug

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

    Illsley, Eric

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Ingram, Adam

    Snape, Peter

    Janner, Greville

    Soley, Clive

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Stott, Roger

    Kennedy, Charles

    Straw, Jack

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lambie, David

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Lamond, James

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Leighton, Ron

    Turner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Wall, Pat

    Livingstone, Ken

    Wallace, James

    Livsey, Richard

    Walley, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    McAllion, John

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McCartney, Ian

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McFall, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    McGrady, Eddie

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Wilson, Brian

    Maclennan, Robert

    Winnick, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Madden, Max

    Worthington, Tony

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wray, Jimmy

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Martlew, Eric

    Maxton, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Meacher, Michael

    Mr. Frank Cook and

    Meale, Alan

    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Amos, Alan

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Amess, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    1046

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Ashby, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Atkins, Robert

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Atkinson, David

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Baldry, Tony

    Gow, Ian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Gregory, Conal

    Bellingham, Henry

    Grist, Ian

    Bendall, Vivian

    Grylls, Michael

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Benyon, W.

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Hannam,John

    Body, Sir Richard

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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Harris, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hayward, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Heddle, John

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Brazier, Julian

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Bright, Graham

    Hind, Kenneth

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Howard, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Burns, Simon

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Butcher, John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Butler, Chris

    Hunter, Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Irvine, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Irving, Charles

    Cash, William

    Jack, Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Janman, Tim

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jessel, Toby

    Chope, Christopher

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Churchill, Mr

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Key, Robert

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Colvin, Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Conway, Derek

    Knapman, Roger

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Knowles, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Knox, David

    Couchman, James

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Cran, James

    Latham, Michael

    Critchley, Julian

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

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

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Day, Stephen

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Devlin, Tim

    Lilley, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Dover, Den

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Durant, Tony

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Dykes, Hugh

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Maclean, David

    Fallon, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Favell, Tony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Madel, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Malins, Humfrey

    Forman, Nigel

    Mans, Keith

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maples, John

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Marlow, Tony

    Franks, Cecil

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    French, Douglas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    1047

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Speed, Keith

    Mellor, David

    Speller, Tony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mills, Iain

    Squire, Robin

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stern, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stokes, Sir John

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Sumberg, David

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Summerson, Hugo

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Thorne, Neil

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Paice, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tredinnick, David

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Trippier, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Trotter, Neville

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pawsey, James

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Viggers, Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Walden, George

    Redwood, John

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Waller, Gary

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Ward, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Warren, Kenneth

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Watts, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wells, Bowen

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wheeler, John

    Rost, Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wilshire, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Shelton, Sir William

    Yeo, Tim

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Shersby, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sims, Roger

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House 'welcomes Her Majesty's Government's commitment to home ownership throughout the last ten years which has enabled many more people to own their homes; recognises the benefits which have resulted from the introduction of the Right to Buy for council tenants; further recognises that the Government's sound economic policies have played an important part in facilitating the growth in owner-occupation; and urges the Government to maintain those policies in the interests of home owners, first-time buyers and the nation as a whole.'.

Famine (Ethiopia)
Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.13 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the totally inadequate response of Her Majesty's Government to the immediate threat of famine in Ethiopia.
I am sorry that the Minister for Overseas Development is not present. I understand that she is ill. On behalf of Opposition Members I send her our good wishes for a speedy recovery.
As I talk, people are dying in Ethiopia. Everyone now recognises that it is possible to save lives if emergency aid is given swiftly and generously. It is in that context that I open the debate. Britain spends far too little on overseas aid. The United Nations asks all developed countries, including Britain, to spend 0·7 per cent. of their gross national product on overseas aid each year. Some countries meet the target. In 1988 the Governments of Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and France all spent more than 0·7 per cent. of their GNP on aid. The previous Labour Government were moving steadily towards that target, despite the international economic circumstances of the late 1970s.
When my party left office, United Kingdom aid as a percentage of GNP was 0·52 per cent. Under this Government, the figure has fallen to a meagre 0·32 per cent., less than half the United Nations target and one of the lowest ever recorded for the United Kingdom. So-called Government wets such as the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), for Bath (Mr. Patten) and for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) have been happy to preside as Minister for Overseas Development as the Government have slashed the aid budget as a percentage of GNP year after year since Labour was in office in 1979.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Governments invariably have a record of increasing GNP very little or not at all, whereas Conservative Governments increase GNP considerably? Is not that a statistical influence on the trend that she suggests? Should we not debate the absolute figures for aid and the direction in which they should go?
Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the points that I make. If I read out the figures, he will find that they are deeply embarrassing for the Government. It would be useful to put them on record. In 1977, under the Labour Government, United Kingdom aid as a percentage of GNP was 0·444 per cent. In 1978, it was 0·46 per cent. In 1979, it was 0·52 per cent. in subsequent years under a Tory Government, it was 0·35 per cent., 0·43 per cent., 0·37 per cent., 0·33 per cent., 0·33 per cent., 0·31 per cent., 0·28 per cent. and 0·32 per cent. That is the position under the Tory Government compared to the position under a Labour Government.
Mr. Arnold rose—
Mrs. Clywd: No, I shall not give way again.
As a result of the Government's cuts in aid, the Third world has lost at least £6·4 billion of aid. Yet the scale of the problems facing developing countries today is massive. Almost 1 billion people in Africa, Asia and South America —a quarter of the world's population—live in absolute

1049
poverty without hope of adequate food or shelter. Millions more face malnutrition, unemployment and disease, often without basic health or social services.
For the poor in the Third world, life is a constant struggle for survival. Third world Governments have had to run to keep up with the need for economic growth. The last few years have not been years of plenty for the Third world but years of suffering and austerity.
In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the United Kingdom net aid programme will increase by 6 per cent. in 1990–91, by 6 per cent. the following year and by 4 per cent. the year after that. In real terms that means that the aid programme is likely to decline even further over the next three years. It is unlikely to keep pace with inflation, unless one believes the Treasury's constant optimistic forecasts. Meanwhile Britain continues to pay lip service to the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. During the 1983 general election campaign, the Prime Minister pledged:
"When economic circumstances permit, we shall move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP."
Earlier this year, she told the House:
"we now have a higher standard of living than we have ever known. We have a great budget surplus."—[Official Report; 28 February 1989; Vol. 148, c. 154–55.]
It is so great that we have now fallen further and further behind the United Nations target and the levels of aid given by other major industrialised countries. In the league table of all 18 western aid givers, Britain, to its shame, dropped to 14th place last year. As a result, Britain was singled out for criticism by the other western donor countries when a committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development argued:
"the time has come to reverse the downward trend in the UK's Overseas Development Aid/GNP ratio…and to make sustained progress towards the 0·7 per cent. of GNP, ODA target."
In 1988 the Foreign Affairs Select Committee recommended that the aid budget should increase in line with the nation's increasing wealth and that the Government should set a timetable for achieving that target. However, in reply to my question of 7 December, the Secretary of State was extremely coy and referred me to an earlier reply from the Prime Minister dated 6 June. She was asked:
"when Her Majesty's Government expect to achieve the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. gross national product for overseas aid."
Her reply was:
"The Government accept this target in principle but like previous Administrations and many other donors are not able to set a date for achieving it. Progress towards it must depend upon developments in the economy and other claims on our resources."—[Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 129.]
I am pleased that aid to eastern Europe has been additional to the aid budget. I hope that the Minister can give us specific assurances tonight that all future aid to eastern Europe will be additional to aid levels currently planned.
The threat of widespread famine is sweeping northern Ethiopia again. It is the third famine in the past 10 years. The average yields from this month's grain harvest in Tigray and Eritrea are only 15 per cent. of the normal level. Grain prices have more than doubled and starvation has already claimed its first victims among small children and the old.
1050
The threat of famine is again the result of droughts in Eritrea, Tigray and Wollo, and the civil war which has been continuing for the past 25 years—exactly the same combination which led to the massive famine of 1984–85 and the near famine of 1987–88. Many people who gave so generously in response to the famine of 1984–85 through Band Aid, Live Aid and Sport Aid must have hoped that such a terrible situation would never happen again. Why is it happening again? The continuing war has devastated food production, dramatically limited long-term agricultural programmes and forced significant migrations of people even in times of good harvests. Failure of the rains in all but three of the past 10 years and a severe drought this year have meant that between 60 and 100 per cent. of crops have been lost in some areas.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its excellent report on famine in the Horn of Africa predicted in 1988 that there was a serious danger of a major catastrophe in northern Ethiopia on a far greater scale than the famine of 1984–85. The report stated:
"An impression may have been created in the donor countries that, since so many lessons have been learnt, the horrors of 1984–85 would not recur. This would be dangerously false optimism…But droughts will occur again —the rains have failed or been inadequate in 3 of the last 4 years—and with a fast-growing population, poor farming techniques, widespread deforestation and land degradation, the consequent famines are likely to be increasingly severe…And by each successive drought the resilence of the people and of the land is diminished. It is a spiral which, if unbroken, must result in tragedy."
There is still time to avert that tragedy and ensure that as few people die as possible of the 4 million whom the aid agencies say are now at risk.
Ethiopia needs more than 600,000 tonnes of emergency food over the coming months, on top of the 450,000 tonnes it needs every year to cover its chronic food deficit. The United Nations world food programme, which estimates overall needs, urgently contacted aid agencies on 9 December saying that world donors have pledged only 30 per cent. of the total food requested. In theory, Ethiopia and the international community are both physically better prepared to face the emergency than in 1984, but in practice the awful reality is that thousands could die as the innocent victims of war, famine and indifference.
Although the country's main ports of Assab and Massawa have steadily increased their capacity since 1984–85 and can handle as much as 800,000 tonnes of food a year, the problem is that food shipped to the ports for distribution through Government channels cannot, as things stand at present, reach more than a quarter of the people in need. Outside Government-held areas are 2·5 million people in Tigray which is entirely controlled by the Tigray People's Liberation Front. A further 1·5 million of those most seriously affected are in Eritrea, mainly in areas held by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. In both Tigray and Eritrea there are local aid organisations whose track record on distributing food and other aid is acknowledged by Western aid agencies. The two organisations are ERA and REST. This morning I received a telex from REST which states:
"The latest expatriate monitor to visit the affected areas has reported that some people are already foraging for food, digging up wild bulbs and roots. He has confirmed that individual food stocks are nearly exhausted in many areas and that funds are urgently needed now for internal purchase as the timing is all important. More food shipments are desperately needed as soon as possible."

1051
At present several western aid agencies are involved in channelling food through these local agencies from Port Sudan, because it is absolutely imperative that the people most in need must be reached now. Obviously, that can be done best through an open-roads policy, using the northern route of Massawa, which is Government held, in Eritrea to supply a route from Government-held Asmara down the main road to Mekele and Tigray and to Weldiya in Wollo and intermediate points. The Tigray People's Liberation Front is said to he only 90 miles from the capital, Addis. President Mengistu is thought likely to take the view, as he has in the past, that food aid would only strengthen his enemies. While the British Government and others must urgently renew their appeals for an opening up of the supply routes, it must be somewhat unrealistic to expect that to happen quickly.
Reports from Kenya yesterday claim that Ethiopia has agreed to open up the corridors in the north of the country to allow food aid to reach the 4 million people threatened with starvation. But there is no confirmation yet that terms have been agreed. The fear is that hunger will continue to be used as a weapon of war. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could tell us whether he has any news about whether the Ethiopian Government and the rebels have agreed a policy on that. Several calls to the Ethiopian embassy and elsewhere today have failed to obtain official confirmation. According to all the aid agencies, in the event of the Ethiopian Government continuing to refuse access or of the rebel groups refusing to stop fighting, a cross-border operation from the Sudan will be essential.
Some food comes from eastern Sudan and some from abroad through Port Sudan and on to Eritrea and Tigray. As many hon. Members know, that means relying on truck convoys, late at night to escape Government aircraft bombing them, travelling more than 600 miles on rough roads. One accepts that it is politically difficult for donor Governments to bypass the Ethiopian Government in this way, but a cross-border operation from the Sudan must be used as fully as possible. I am glad that the British Government now accept that argument.
What, then, are the needs of the people inside Ethiopia? Everyone agrees that aid is needed now to avoid a repeat of the harrowing scenes of 1984, when hundreds of thousands starved to death and the nightly pictures on television of babies dying in the arms of their widowed mothers brought home the full horror of the tragedy. At least 600,000 tonnes of food and other essential supplies are needed as soon as possible, but already people have begun to emigrate from the areas where there is no food. One lesson that was learned the last time around was that it was uneconomical and socially destructive for people to leave their homes and their land. Thousands of people died on their way to feeding centres or through the spread of contagious diseases in refugee camps and feeding centres.
A doctor responsible for health care in Eritrea came to see me yesterday. He said:
"Anyone who can walk, walks away from death if they can."
The truth is that many people would not have died last time if food had been brought to them in time. It is, therefore, vital to take food to the people as soon as possible.
The war is going badly for the Government. They have been involved in negotiations with the rebels. Jimmy Carter and Julius Nyerere have both become involved in negotiations with the EPLF and the Government. Talks
1052
have been held in Atlanta and Nairobi, but as yet have reached no conclusion. The Italian Government are mediating in talks between the TPLF and the Ethiopian Government and one round of talks has taken place in Rome. It is clearly in everyone's interest for a monitored ceasefire to be negotiated as soon as possible. The talks require all the backing that they can get.
What can and should the United Kingdom do now? It can call for a speeding up of peace discussions between the Ethiopian Government, the TPLF and the EPLF. It can press the Ethiopian Government and the rebels to accept an open-roads agreement. The United Nations must play a leading role in negotiating that. It can support the cross-border food and agriculture rehabilitation programme. It can make money available for internal purchase of food where that is possible. It should obtain maximum support from the EEC member states for those objectives.
As a direct result of the famine crisis, the United Kingdom has pledged a meagre £2 million, and that was only the day after the BBC reports on Ethiopia began to appear on television. I raised the matter on a point of order on 27 November and called for a statement from the Government. The fact that the Government have been indifferent and very slow off the mark is illustrated by a letter that the director general of the Save the Children Fund sent to The Independent on 29 November. He said:
"We welcome the publicity from Michael Buerk on BBC Television on the possibility of famine recurring in parts of northern Ethiopia. A number of voluntary agencies in Britain, including ourselves, have been warning of this problem for the past two months. It is sad, but perhaps not surprising, that it requires dramatic pictures on television to propel our own government into a response."
What does that £2 million actually mean? It would not be quite fair to say that the Government do not care tuppence for the starving—they actually care three and a half pence, the amount from each person in the United Kingdom that makes up that £2 million, which itself will buy only I per cent. of the emergency food aid so desperately needed. Yet at the same time, the Government quite easily found £40 million to spend on advertising water privatisation in pursuit of their own dogma.
Only last week War on Want applied for £300,000 to buy food inside Tigray. Its application was turned down by the Government because, they said, there was no money in the kitty. That may be true, but the Minister for Overseas Development and the Minister who is here to speak on her behalf tonight must know that if they had the political clout they could obtain the money from the Government's overall contingency fund, which exists for precisely this sort of emergency and which this year stands at more than £2 billion.
Mr. Jim Lester: One of the recommendations of the Select Committee has always been that when there is a disaster the Treasury's contingency fund should be used. Would it not be better if the hon. Lady was fair with her figures? The £2 million is an additional £2 million, and brings the total this year to £13 million, which is a rather more generous figure than that suggested by the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Clwyd: The point that the hon. Gentleman obviously missed, even though I stressed it forcefully, was that in direct response to the famine crisis the Government gave only £2 million.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I had intended to respond to this point in my speech. The hon. Lady is digging herself into a pit. The dates will easily show that what the hon. Lady said is not true. The £13 million is a response to the famine, and the Government responded long before she raised her point of order and long before this debate.
Mrs. Clwyd: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to prove his point. A press release from the Overseas Development Administration, in response to the threat of famine in Ethiopia, makes it clear that the £2 million relief aid was a direct response to the worsening position in Ethiopia. The other money would have been given in any event, and was not provided in direct response to the famine crisis.
What sort of world do we live in that we, in the rich developed countries, can turn our faces away from the suffering of the Third world? We spend £500 million each year on special diets to lower our calorie consumption while the world's poorest 400 million people are so undernourished that they are likely to suffer stunted growth, mental retardation or death. As water from a single spring in England is shipped in bottles to the prosperous around the world, 1·9 billion people drink dirty and contaminated water. More than half of humanity lacks sanitary toilets.
Are we again to depend on the generosity of the British people to put their hands in their pockets once more for the starving of Ethiopia? They have already contributed £1 million in response to the television broadcast last week. Is it too much to expect the British Government to make the proper response to the 4 million people who are so desperately crying out for our help? Whatever the Government do or do not do, the next Labour Government will reverse the cuts made in aid spending since 1979. We shall aim to more than double the aid budget to reach the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product within five years, the lifetime of a single Parliament. We shall also review the procedures for emergency relief.
The disastrous famine that hit much of Africa in the early 1980s showed the need for much more effective emergency relief within our programme for aid and development. We shall discuss contingency plans and early warning systems with other donors and the Governments of countries vulnerable to famine and other disasters. Unlike the present Government, we shall also be prepared to use money from outside the aid budget—from the overall contingency reserve—to provide urgent emergency relief during a major crisis such as the Ethiopian famine. That is because we believe that sharing our wealth and feeding hungry people is part of our wider responsibility as citizens of the world. It is a view which we believe is shared by the majority of the British people.
7.39 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'welcomes the speed and effectiveness with which Her Majesty's Government has responded to the threat of famine in Northern Ethiopia through the provision of food and emergency aid; and strongly endorses its diplomatic action
1054
aimed at persuading the parties to the civil wars in Ethiopia to seek a negotiated end to these conflicts and to facilitate the transport of food to those at risk of famine.'.
1 had hoped that on this, of all subjects, we would not go straight into a political argy-bargy. Such points can be easily made. A Labour Government could easily have increased aid as a percentage of GNP simply by making the GNP smaller. However, it is easy to show that in absolute terms the Government have done extremely well.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for her kind words about my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I shall pass those on to her. I found little to disagree with in the hon. Lady's political analysis, but one point on which I shall disagree relates to the local purchase of food in Tigray. However, I am afraid that she was either misled by those who have done her research for her—
Mrs. Clwyd: I do my own research.
Mr. Waldegrave: In that case, the hon. Lady is mistaken about what is happening this year.
We are deeply concerned, with the other donor countries, to prevent a repetition of the appalling suffering that we witnessed five years ago. I had hoped, although it may be impossible with the Leader of the Opposition on the Front Bench, that there would not be any party political point-scoring this evening. Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, know a great deal about the subject and we had hoped to hear from them positive ideas and practical suggestions to which we could respond.
We welcome the debate for two reasons. First, it enables us to put right some of the misunderstandings in the speech made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. Secondly, as the hon. Lady said, the British people will no doubt again wish to respond generously, and this debate, along with the many other activities taking place around the country, will help to focus the nation's attention on the situation. There is nothing wrong with that. As the hon. Lady said, the first £1 million has already been raised. I see nothing to complain about in that. It is admirable.
Let us consider what the Government have been doing. Rather before the hon. Lady took up the subject, we were sending aid, and that is important. About 3 million people in Eritrea and Tigray face the threat of famine over the coming months. The organisations concerned estimate that about 600,000 tonnes of food aid will be needed between now and next October—that is also important to rescue those people. The hon. Lady is incorrect to say that about 30 per cent. of that has been pledged. She may not have noticed that the Americans have added a further 100,000 tonnes, which means that more than 50 per cent. has been pledged. In the immediate situation, that is probably enough because, as I think the hon. Lady will agree, the 600,000 tonnes will be needed between now and next October.
The hon. Lady's analysis rightly focused on the real problem of getting the food to the people who need it against a background of civil war. As she rightly said, at least half the people at risk are in rebel-held areas.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the first calculations of how much aid would be needed during the previous famine were under-estimates and that as the famine developed it became clear that rather more would be needed? Is the

1055
Minister satisfied that the estimate that he has given is correct and that the 50 per cent. that he claims has been pledged is 50 per cent. of the amount that is really needed rather than of an initial estimate?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. The estimates will be revised if the situation worsens. I think that he will agree, however, that the last famine was the one that did not happen. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley rightly said, the international effort three years ago averted a famine. It is worth paying tribute to the aid organisations and to the Governments involved. Since then, the civil war has worsened and created further problems, which we are now trying to address. The rebels —the EPLF and the TPLF—hold a much greater area of country, particularly the TPLF which has much greater control over the roads and, as the hon. Lady said, is 80 or 90 miles from Addis Ababa.
Channels exist for the transport of food into the rebel-held areas of Eritrea and Tigray from Sudan, but, as the hon. Lady recognised, there are formidable logistical problems in view of tonnages and distances involved, the shortage of transport and the bombings. However optimistic one is about the 1,000-mile round trip, it will not be possible to meet all Tigray's needs in that way. We shall have to see what can he done using that route. The hon. Lady will understand if, for obvious reasons, some of the methods and routes used by the international organisations with British Government support are not described in too much detail.
The Government's objective is simple, now as in the last famine—the famine that never was. The objective is to avert the famine. We are taking action on two fronts. We are providing food and relief assistance for the aid programme and we are acting through diplomatic channels in concert with European partners and others to try to ensure that the flow of supplies to those at risk of starvation is not hindered by the continuing war. That is the crucial aspect, as the hon. Lady recognised.
The hon. Lady was unfair, however, when she said that our response was belated or that it came only after television coverage or her points of order on 27 November. If the hon. Lady had listened to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 4 December, at column 19 of Hansard, she would know that the £2 million of emergency aid announced at the end of October was by no means our first response to the famine. For example, the allocation of nearly 7,000 tonnes of cereal, which my right hon. Friend approved for Eritrea as early as August when the first signs of impending famine became apparent, was one of the first to arrive in the country—almost the first part of the international response. Since then, we have provided further food aid, bringing our total to more than 27,000 tonnes. Nor is the latest contribution of £2 million likely to be our last. We shall continue to play our part. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rightly said, as the dimensions of the famine and the possibilities of getting food to the people are further assessed, the British Government, along with other Governments, will respond.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Getting from A to B in Tigray is difficult. Even money may not achieve that and people may die if something is not done. It may be difficult to get from Sudan. It may take many lorries,
1056
but are the lorries there? However much money there is, without lorries the food cannot be taken to those unfortunate people. Are arrangements being made to ensure that lorries will be there to transport food to the people within weeks rather than months?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. Part of the recent extra money went specifically towards trucks and lorries for the cross-border routes, about which we do not want to go into too much detail, and inside the country. That has been a particular part of the British effort.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Minister has said that it is unlikely that the last money has been allocated and I, like everybody else, am encouraged by that. In any future expenditure, will money be provided directly to the Relief Society of Tigray and to the Eritrean Relief Association? That may be an unusual action for a Government, but those bodies are best placed to purchase such food surpluses as exist within Eritrea and Tigray and to ensure that the food available in those provinces is allocated in the shortest possible time. Otherwise, people will starve. Will the Minister give an assurance that that difficult but necessary initiative will be taken?
Mr. Waldegrave: We certainly do not rule out anything but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are real difficulties. If one provides money for local purchase, particularly in the Tigrayan area, there is the danger that the TPLF, which controls the area, will use it to buy arms. Worse than that, we may create an incentive for the TPLF to obtain local food supplies and then sell them. However, if we can be assured that we are doing good, we do not rule out any mechanism.
Mr. Jim Lester: We have looked at the problem several times in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The real difficulty is not just providing the money, but monitoring whether the money provided is used for food and whether that food is then distributed.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend confirms my point on the basis of his considerable experience. It would be dreadful if we were inadvertently allowing money to go directly or indirectly into the coffers of those whose civil wars are creating a large part of the disaster.
The £13·5 million committed so far this year in Ethiopia includes assistance for refugees and our share of the cost of relief aid provided by the European Community. That shows the other side of the case put by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. Britain has provided nearly £150 million in aid since the onset of the last major famine in 1984. That includes more than 200,000 tonnes of food aid. The programme is not niggardly.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps I had better continue, as this is not a long debate and I have given way many times.
A senior Overseas Development Administration official visited Ethiopia in October to assess the situation at first hand. In the light of the information that he brought back, we took immediate action to alert our European Community partners and others—including the United States and the Soviet Union, which is an important player having at one time or another supported all three of the organisations involved and which still has a close

1057
relationship with the Ethiopian Government—to the likely extent of the problem. We urged them to use all possible influence with all the parties in the civil conflict to allow relief supplies across the lines without hindrance.
I was in Addis Ababa on 8 November for a briefing from our excellent ambassador, Mr. Walker. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development gave a detailed account to the House on 4 December of the subsequent steps which she took in Rome, Brussels, Washington and Paris to reinforce the earlier message through the diplomatic channels. Last weekend, at the European Council in Strasbourg, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined the other Community Heads of Government in the Community in issuing a clear statement of the Community's deep concern. I am glad to say that that was largely a British initiative.
The Soviet Government were approached in London and Moscow and have also directed the attention of the Ethiopian authorities to the seriousness of the problem. Probably no other Government carry so much weight with the Ethiopians.
I have stressed the importance—as did the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—of access across the lines for relief supplies if food in the amounts required is to reach those who need it in the rebel-held areas. Hon. Members will have seen reports, to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred, that President Moi of Kenya told an independence rally in Nairobi yesterday that President Mengistu had agreed to open the roads. We have been in close touch with Nairobi and Addis Ababa to see whether that is so. However, like the hon. Lady, we have not secured clear confirmation of it yet, although we have indications that it is under serious and genuine consideration in Addis Ababa. If it is, let us take this opportunity for the House to add to the international pressure and say to the Ethiopians that it is essential that they should open the roads. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will say that with all the passion at our disposal. In the pressing time scale and because of the logistical difficulties of the cross-border routes, that is the only way to bring real hope to the large numbers of people involved.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is an expert.
Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Surely it would be much easier to give a strong message to the Ethiopians and others concerned if the House did not have to have a Division on a foolish motion. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what the European Community is doing in terms of food provisions as it has enormous stocks and its role is essential?
Mr. Waldegrave: I hinted that I agreed with my right hon. Friend in what I said earlier. If the non-governmental organisations had a genuine case showing that the Government were failing disastrously, it would be legitimate for the Opposition to press us, but that is not the case. We have had meetings today—which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development would have chaired if she had been well but which were chaired by an official—with all the principal NGOs, and they are not
1058
saying that there is something dramatically wrong with the Government's programme. They welcome the steps that we have taken and we are working closely with them.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister not think it unusual for the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to complain about the Opposition's view on this when in his open letter to his successor—now the Secretary of State for the Environment—he said that the only discussion that he had with the Prime Minister on these issues was on the day she sacked him? Surely it is appropriate that when there are clear divisions in the House they should be expressed.
Mr. Waldegrave: There are bound to be arguments about the total level of the aid programme. On this programme, as on every other, the Opposition will say that they would spend more. Over the past few years, however, there has been no serious criticism from the experts about the organisation of emergency relief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development have so improved the arrangements for emergency relief that that area of criticism is not the right one on which to launch a division in the House. However, I would not say that there are not areas in which any Government could do better.
The ODA is in regular daily contact with the main British voluntary agencies working in Ethiopia. I have reported on the meeting that took place today. The NGOs were appreciative of the Government's efforts so far. The voluntary agencies have a vital role to play in channeling emergency aid—that which we provide and the funds that they raise—to the hungry. Their expertise and experience are vital. They are an asset to which hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute.
I have spoken of what the Government have done and are doing. I offer no apologies for our record of response to the intense danger of famine which we hope can still be averted. We have done what I am sure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley would have done if she stood in the place of my right hon. Friend the Minister. We have acted promptly and effectively in response to the signals of approaching famine and it did not require television pictures or public pressure to stir us into action.
Mrs. Clwyd: I read the letter from the director general of the Save the Children Fund in which he specifically argued that the Government's response had not been prompt and that they had responded only after the BBC films by Michael Buerk. Does the Minister have an answer to that? Surely it is not correct to say that the aid agencies are happy with the speed and quantity of the Government's response.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady has perhaps not read the response given by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 4 December. She was prevented from being at the meeting today and although I was not there I have had reports from the officials who were. The attempts to allege that there is a campaign by the NGOs against the Government will not run. It is not commensurate with the scale of events to try to make them run.
The hon. Lady's main point, although she spoiled it a little by her factionalism, was that we in this House passionately wish to do all that we can to avoid the threat

1059
of widespread famine and starvation in Ethopia. She made a good point—that it is essential to try to prevent people from moving. There is an additional reason for that, which the hon. Lady did not mention—that if people move they do not sow crops for next year in places where they may grow, thus possibly creating a further cycle of crop failure.
The immense generosity of people in the West, the British people among them and the formidable response of Western Governments, who succeeded in averting the last threatened famine and, pray God, will do so this time as well, must not disguise the fact that the key to the problem lies in the hands of the Ethopians, on both the Government and the rebel side. Civil war does not cause drought and crop failure, hut it is a serious and unnecessary obstacle to efforts to alleviate the effects of natural disasters.
Bob Geldof was right when he said that if there is a famine this year, it will be man made. In the long term, the civil war is a drain on the country's meagre resources of money, energy and talent which would be far better devoted to the task of working to provide the infrastructure and conditions necessary to break the cycle of famine.
We therefore welcome the opening of talks between the Government and the two main rebel groups. Peace is still beyond the horizon and the process is a fragile one. We, on both sides of the House, can but urge the parties to the talks to persevere, to be flexible and, above all, to keep talking in a way which leads to action. Lives—millions of them—ultimately depend on that.
8.1 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is difficult to believe that it is five years since famine in Ethiopia first hit world headlines. At that time I went to Sudan and Ethiopia with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Despite the fact that the Committee had, and still has, a Conservative majority, our report was very critical of the Government's inadequate response to the famine in Ethiopia. We referred to the generous response of the British people, which was due to people such as Bob Geldof and the public appeals that were made by non-governmental organisations and other voluntary organisations. However, our report stated clearly that, sad to say, the generosity of the British people had not been matched by the British Government.
The Committee went to Ethiopia again last year. In our updated report on famine in the Horn of Africa, we said that there was serious danger of a major catastrophe in northern Ethiopia and that it would be on a far greater scale than that in 1984–85. The Government and the House cannot, therefore, claim that they were not warned, yet in Tigray alone approximately 2·5 million people are threatened with famine.
Many people who put their hands into their pockets five years ago and gave generously deserve an answer to the question, why are people still starving? Some people have attempted to blame it on the weather. There are many climatic problems in that part of the world, but we cannot hold up our hands in horror and blame it all on the weather, as though famine were an act of God. It is not. It is a consequence of man's inhumanity to man. It is up to us to find a solution. The developed countries have a particular responsibility to find a solution. The many climatic difficulties in that part of the world could and
1060
should have been overcome had the developed countries invested more money in long-term agricultural projects to regenerate the economy.
The Relief Society of Tigray said that it received only 6·2 per cent. of the budget that it requested for agricultural programmes. Wars continue in Ethiopia as a whole. They have reached the stage where Mengistu, backed by the Soviet Union and, apparently, by Israel and North Korea, is spending over 50 per cent. of his national budget on military and related expenditure. Even worse, he is apparently using famine as a weapon of war. He is trying to starve the people into submission. His forces are in control of the Red sea ports of Assab and Massawa, which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for food to reach the people who are most in need. The only reasonable alternative is to use the Relief Society of Tigray to get food into Ethiopia from Sudan by means of a cross-border operation.
What can the British Government do? I understand that there are those in Government circles, including Ministers, who believe that for diplomatic reasons it is difficult, if not impossible, for the British Government to become over-involved in Ethiopia's internal affairs. That is a strange position for the Government and the Prime Minister to be in. It would be ironic if the iron lady, the erstwhile scourge of Communism, was prepared to stand by while people starved to death because she was afraid of causing offence to a discredited, self-styled Marxist regime.
It is about time that a tougher line was taken in public against the Ethiopian Government. Mengistu should be told bluntly that we are not prepared to stand idly by while thousands of people die. We should get off the fence. We should give financial help and all the other assistance that we can give to the Relief Society of Tigray's cross-border operation from Sudan.
I accept entirely the point about the need to monitor the exercise. There is no hard evidence that the Relief Society of Tigray is using money to buy armaments. If, however, it is feared that the money that has been given to alleviate starvation is being misdirected towards the purchase of arms, efficient monitoring would help to alleviate that fear. It seems to me from our contact with the Relief Society of Tigray, through the Select Committee and personally, that REST has the organisation, the track record and the proven experience to carry that out. Since 1984–85 REST has been involved in the repatriation of 170,000 people from Sudan to their homes in Tigray. It achieved that without riot police with riot helmets, riot gear, truncheons and everything else we have seen in Hong Kong recently under the auspices of the British Government who are treating people like caged animals,
Once again Christmas is approaching and the Prime Minister would have us believe that we are living in a Christian country. Given recent events, it appears that Britain's reputation throughout the world is heading for the gutter. Perhaps we should try to salvage something of that reputation by showing a more humane attitude in our treatment of people elsewhere in the world, particularly in Ethiopia where they are starving. I hope that the message that comes from tonight's debate is that the whole House demands urgent and firmer action from the British Government.
8.11 pm
Sir John Stanley: I suppose that for all of us occasional sights are so etched in our memories that they will remain with us for the rest of our lives. One such sight for me is the visit I made almost exactly five years ago as Minister for the Armed Forces to the children's hospital at Mekele in Ethiopia at the height of the famine. The press dubbed the children there as the "Belsen babes". For once the press may have indulged in understatement. I suspect that at Belsen the SS, with their grim attention to efficiency, would have ensured that the children there did not suffer malnutrition to the point at which they were no longer able to walk to their deaths.
The children that I saw in Mekele had long since lost the capacity to walk. The malnutrition that they suffered had resulted in the total wastage of their body muscles to the point at which they could no longer move. The worst cases lay there unable to turn over, raise an arm or a hand or even move their heads. Children of 10 and 11 lay there with faces of 70 or 80-year-olds. They were living, inert skeletons. One wondered at the appalling pain and agony that they must have suffered to reach that state of total body decay yet still be alive.
Happily, during the same visit, I saw many other children in a very different condition. Those were the children in the food distribution centres. They ran about, shouted, jostled and played and they had laughter instead of agony in their eyes. For those children relief had come in time. In 1984–85, when the relief arrived, the distribution was carried out extremely well and eventually the food arrived in abundance. I do not accept the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the scale of the British contribution when the relief arrived five years ago. Our operation was carried out with conspicuous skill and efficiency by our armed services.
The inescapable fact was, however, that five years ago our contribution and that of every other western developed country came too late for the many who died and for the very many who will suffer permanent handicaps in their bones and joints for the rest of their lives as a result of serious malnutrition in childhood.
What will be the outlook for the children and adults of Ethiopia in the weeks and months ahead? In the early months of 1990, will we see large numbers of so-called "Belsen babes" as I saw at Mekele hospital five years ago, or will we see children who have been spared the ravages of malnutrition as a result of a satisfactory programme of food aid? Hon. Members on both sides of the House fervently trust that we will see only the latter group of children and adults.
I urge Ministers to make every possible effort to ensure that the British contribution is sufficient and do everything in their power to ensure that it gets through. In our modern world of affluence in Europe, North America and Australasia, with speedy delivery of food supplies, there should be no question but that famine should be part of the history books. There should be no place for mass famine in the modern world. It is unacceptable and intolerable that any group of people in any country should be allowed to starve to death.
8.17 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an extremely moving speech which was compelling in its honesty and force. I have not seen the sights that he described, except on television, but I can well believe that they must leave a deep scar which nothing can remove. If the right hon. Gentleman had been talking with the authority of a Minister, I would not be contemplating voting for the official Opposition motion tonight.
I understand that a fair estimate of the position in Ethiopia is that some 4 million people are at risk of starvation between now and the end of March, and, more urgently, between 800,000 and 850,000 are at risk of starvation between now and the end of January. That is the scale and proportion of the problem. As a number of hon. Members have said, that is pretty horrific.
What can we effectively do? The Minister referred to an article in The Independent today about the statement by President Moi of Kenya that he had
"asked President Mengistu … of Ethiopia to accept opening the corridors … He has accepted."
The Minister said that the Government have no firm confirmation of that. Obviously, it is difficult to press the Minister further. As an opposition Member, I find it difficult to understand how the Kenyan head of state can be reported as making that categorical statement without our Government being able to confirm whether it is true. Obviously, if it is true, it is excellent news.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understood the reports, it was a question of its being conditional on other things happening. The problem is whether those conditions are being met.
Sir Russell Johnston: The report, which inevitably has been abbreviated, said that President Moi had asked the "rebel" leaders in Tigray and Eritrea to do the same—whether one should call them rebels is a matter for discussion. In other words, there would be a ceasefire, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said. The overland routes can be opened without a ceasefire.
The Minister of State said, as has the Minister for Overseas Development previously—I hope that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will soon recover from her flu—that the Government had been using a lot of diplomatic pressure. On 4 December 1989, the Minister for Overseas Development said that Britain was stepping up
"our continuing diplomatic efforts with the United States, the Soviet Union, our European Community partners, certain Arab countries."—[Official Report, 4 December 1989: Vol. 163, c. 19.]
and so on. How seriously are the Government pursuing those efforts? Are they simply official-to-official talks or are they Minister-to-Minister talks? What is the objective of this pressure? The Minister was right to say that the Soviet Union was central to the matter. The Soviet Union is in a much more responsive mood than she has been since perhaps the war.
Mr. Jim Lester: When the four of us visited Ethiopia to produce the report, which has been widely quoted, we talked to the Soviet ambassador in Addis Ababa and made the same remarks that had been made consistently year in, year out, about applying pressure to all three protagonists. The ambassador said, "We do all that we can, but you

1063
must remember that the Ethiopians are a proud people." No one can instruct a sovereign Government to do what we want, even though all of us are willing these changes to happen.
Sir Russell Johnston: I take that point. The Ethiopians are a proud people and it is not possible to instruct them on what to do. But we can turn off the weapons tap. President Mengistu needs the weapons and he gets them from the Soviet Union. We should remember the involvement of other eastern European countries. As I understand it, the police services are run by the Bulgarians and military intelligence by the East Germans. Other eastern European peoples are involved. The Saudis are the essential people to the Tigray People's Liberation Front and the Eritreans. It is a matter not just of having discussions with the individual Governments involved but of finding a way to bring them together. The British Government would make a valuable contribution if they tried to get the interested parties together—the Russians, the eastern Europeans, the Saudis and the European Community—to offer a guarantee on the movement of food into these areas. One should not forget that in 1984 or 1985 a United Nations convoy was blown up by the Tigray forces because they suspected that it was an armed convoy, although it was not.
Mr. Lester: It was 1987–88.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry—that happened in 1987–88. Although inevitably we are concentrating on President Mengistu, free movement depends not just on him but on the co-operation of others, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said. Obviously, a monitored ceasefire would be much better, but a solution can be found in other ways.
The hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that people were determined that the famine would not return after 1984–85, but that it has. The civil war is the main reason—if it is a civil war, because it can be argued that it is a liberation war—but there are other contributory factors, one of which is the British Government's reluctance to use the internal distribution system in Tigray and Eritrea. It has been argued that the money could be used for other purposes and the food used in the wrong way, but the circumstances are such that risk should be taken. Indeed, it should have been taken.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West said that there was insufficient investment following the 1984–85 famine. Rehabilitation of the areas was inadequate. There was no proper replenishiment of, for example, the oxen stock. I am told—I do not know whether it is right or wrong—that one reason was that the Overseas Development Administration persuaded the European Community not to back any such scheme. If that is true, I should like confirmation.
I believe that refugees are pouring into the eastern region of the Sudan and that the Sudanese commission for refugees believes that 2,000 people have crossed during the past I 1 days. There are supposed to be 1 million refugees in the region, which has a total population of only 4 million. Although aid agencies are helping, United Nations aid has been cut dramatically from £52 million in 1985 to £8 million this year. Are the Government apprised of the situation and what are they doing to alleviate the problem?
1064
I am not saying that the British Government have done nothing—that is untrue. In many areas, they have done a great deal. Nevertheless, their response has been inadequate in both financial and political pressure terms—1 suppose for all the reasons of the heart which were expressed so vividly by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. For that reason, we will support the motion.
8.26 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), and I echo every sentiment that he expressed. Some of us have had the sad opportunity to follow the subject of famine in Ethiopia since the first famine there. I well remember scenes similar to those that my right hon. Friend described. I remember the way in which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs first drafted its report. It is not fair to say that we criticised the amount of money that the Government gave or the way in which they gave it. Our principal criticism of the Government was that that £90 million came from the ODA's contingency fund. We recommended that it should have come from the Government's contingency fund.
We criticised the speed of operation, the inability to co-ordinate, and the European Community's long-winded procedures. I am satisfied that, as a result of those criticisms, we now have a much better system. The report from which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) quoted referred to the way in which famine was averted because things had changed and the delivery systems worked.
Until recently, all four members of the group who went to the area were in the Chamber. The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and I travelled widely in Tigray and Eritrea. We saw how a food distribution system can work on a sensible basis. People were encouraged to collect food on a once-a-month basis and stay in their villages, so that they could take advantage of the upturn when it came. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley quoted, we warned in stark terms that this was only a temporary position and that it could only be a temporary position. We also warned that another famine would occur because of the reasons that we spelled out in that telling paragraph.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, we use the relief organisations of both the Tigray People's Liberation Front and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. They are the people who receive the food that comes down the route from Port Sudan. We are talking not about the fact that they have food to distribute, but about the fact that we are not giving them money to buy food within their own communities unless we can monitor it satisfactorily. It would be wrong, therefore, to say that we do not use every possible method to meet the need.
In our first report, we gave the greatest credit to the Overseas Development Administration, and especially to its disaster relief operation, because of its knowledge and its ability to move quickly. I am sure that that ability has become greater rather than less recently. I reject the criticism that we are not competent, that the ODA cannot move quickly enough and that we do not care. We care

1065
enormously about ensuring that the mistakes of the past have been learnt and that we can operate quickly and efficiently.
We saw food distribution as it should be carried out in 1987–88, but we warned that nothing had changed basically and that if nothing changed, there would be a greater famine in future years. It is a great tragedy that we now see that prospect. However, some things have changed. There has been an overall change in the strategic position, as other hon. Members have mentioned, and the rains have failed for three years out of the past four. However, in Tigray and Eritrea, one basic element has not changed. I want to draw the attention of the House to our last report in which we said that the three protagonists made the relief operation second to their military and political objectives. That remains the most critical matter. However much the world bleeds and however much we try to find ways to get food to distribute, until that is changed we are doomed to difficulty.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West and I travelled on the aeroplane from Mekele to Asmara. There was an available road and there was food in store coming from Massawa to Asmara, but the last bit of road was part of the war zone. The international community mounted at enormous cost—with money that could far better have been spent in rehabilitation, in building micro dams and in helping the local community to grow food—a massive airlift. We sat on the aeroplane that was bringing food down so that Mekele would not starve. Mekele is now part of the TPLF territory, as is the whole area. It is not possible to mount such an operation again.
We are all anxious to know whether there has been a breakthrough as a result of the efforts of President Moi. I want to pay a special tribute to the President of Kenya and to his officials who have done a great deal of background work to try to bring the talks in Nairobi to a successful conclusion. We should try to do everything we can to assist and to build on what President Moi said, so that we can see whether corridors can be created through which to bring food. From what has been said already, I understand that none of us has up-to-date information, but I am sure that President Moi would not have made a statement if he had not achieved something.
I talked to representatives of the EPLF yesterday. It was a difficult interview because of the suspicions, the qualifications and the issuing of counter-reports, which are always in their minds, and the situation is still fraught with suspicion. We have only to consider the efforts of ex-President Carter in Nairobi. He achieved a declaration, the establishment of a co-chairman and the establishment of seven observers, but immediately after he had achieved all that and made an announcement, one of the protagonists issued a counter-statement saying that he did not agree with everything that he had just signed with ex-President Carter. I use that example to show how fraught with difficulty the problem is and how the suspicions run deep among the three protagonists.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned the convoy. We saw the convoy that was supposed to be being used by the Ethiopian Government as a military convoy. The convoy consisted of white lorries with the United Nations flag painted on the doors. The convoy could not have been used—or even been seen to
1066
have been used—for military purposes, yet it was shot up and the food was burnt for purely military, tactical reasons. Nobody can claim that that was a mistake or that the Mengistu Government were using those lorries for false purposes. I use those examples to show that, however much we care and however much money we vote, the position on the ground, the degradation and the problems of the infrastructure are still the major difficulties in solving the problem.
I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that one of the ways in which we might make progress is to use the International Red Cross, which has done sterling work in Ethiopia. If it was not for its efforts, the problems of the first famine in Eritrea and Tigray would never have been met. The International Red Cross was quiet about it and we still have to be careful about such sensitive matters, but it carried the principal weight and fed the cross-border operation.
The irony is that in the potential second famine, which was averted, the International Red Cross saw that the best place from which to operate to feed the people was on the other side of the border. As a result, it was immediately called a traitor and condemned. How can anyone say that of the International Red Cross? It has done a marvellous job in the Sudan in a similar civil war, with the help of James Grant. I hope that if we cannot bring about a ceasefire, which is a dream in a sense, we can at least, following the initiative of President Moi, achieve an agreement on food corridors and for food to be carried by the International Red Cross. No one in the world could imagine that the International Red Cross would be allowed to be used for tactical or military advantage.
I am sure that the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers, whom I recognise to be involved and caring people, will do all that is necessary to match the British effort to the need. I am sure that the fact that our own ambassador in Addis Ababa co-ordinates the European effort is important. He has been there a long time and he is incredibly knowledgeable. I am sure that we shall meet the need in every possible way that we can within the physical limitations.
However, we must bring home clearly the fact that, however much we realise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, that nobody should starve in our world of plenty, we cannot rely consistently on the most costly form of relief which is, of course, the cross-border operation involving bringing food into Port Sudan, shipping it down through the Sudan and carrying it over the most immensely difficult terrain that anyone can imagine. If any hon. Member had seen the Mercedes lorries that had been driven for only six months in the relief operation, he would have thought that they had been driven for 600 years as a result of the battering in the terrible terrain which they had to cross.
We cannot rely consistently on providing the most costly form of relief while the protagonists carry out an internecine war with military objectives that override their people's welfare. That is the real message of the Select Committee report, and that is the real message that we should still pass on to the three protagonists, whatever and from wherever the diplomatic effort.
I know that, as a result of our previous report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent out about 35 telegrams to try to mobilise all possible international diplomatic effort to bring the three groups together, as we now know, in two separate parties. When we were in Rome

1067
only 10 days ago, one of the major subjects that we discussed with Senator Agnelli, who is responsible for this area, was how the talks would be conducted in Rome between the TPLF and the Mengistu Government.
We have seen a change in the British aid effort as a result of our report. Until we went in 1987–88, we had a firm policy of giving no assistance other than humanitarian relief. Our report suggested that that was a nonsensical approach. The lack of water was the main reason why agricultural communities could not grow food. We said that, if we could guarantee that the money would not go to the Government or to the protagonists, it made a lot of sense to support non-governmental organisations in building micro-dams and in small projects to bring relief to communities. I am happy to say that the Minister accepted that argument and we have been pursuing that policy ever since—subject, of course, to the overall military consequences of bombing and fighting, which undo the work of the communities, who build the dams themselves, realising that it is in their interests to do so.
There are two other causes for concern in Ethiopia. The first is the situation of the Somali refugees in Hararghe in the south-east. Their circumstances have become increasingly difficult and their state increasingly unsatisfactory. The second is the plight of the Sudanese refugees in the south-west. Some of us have visited the camps there and have been greatly disturbed to find 350,000 people living in such inadequate conditions.
This is an important debate, and its message is a good message—that we are genuinely concerned. I do not join the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in her criticism of the Government and their operation. I am sure that they have learnt a great deal and that this debate will ensure that they are very much on their toes as events unfold.
I have one last message to leave with the House. One of Ethiopia's tragedies is that is has remained one of the five poorest countries in the world, just as it was one of the five poorest countries in the world in 1960. Yet, given a civilised Government with the desire to liberate the talents of their people, Ethiopia would have tremendous potential. In spite of deforestation and the terrible problems in the north, 82 per cent. of Ethiopia is capable of profitable and full development. It is on such development—and away from the internecine war—that we should try to focus the Ethiopians' attention.
8.42 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I sympathise with the Minister of State, who is not in his place at the moment, because this is the second time in just a few weeks that he has been dragged to the House to defend the indefensible. On the first ocasion he sought to defend the Government's policy in Cambodia, which we regard as beyond belief. On this occasion, he is defending the Government's response to the famine, which could be described as "too little, too slow." I shall deal in detail with the extent to which it is too little and too slow, but first I give the Minister my sympathy, because his is one of the more acceptable faces in this hard-faced Government. That is why he is dragged out to do the dirty work, in the hope that he may be able to place some kind of gloss on the situation.
In response to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), let me say that this is in no sense a criticism, of the Minister for Overseas Development, still less of the
1068
officials at the Overseas Development Administration. The Minister and her officials do their very best within the prison of parsimony in which the Government's hard-faced approach has them well and truly incarcerated. Let no one say that we are criticising the fine officials in the ODA who are doing their best within severe limitations to put all hands on deck.
Like the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I am a veteran of the previous famine in Ethiopia. I went to the Library to dig out some articles that I wrote for the Spectator and The Sunday Times on my return from a visit to Ethiopia. Only then did it strike me that it is virtually five years to the day since I walked among the carnage that that famine visited on those in the killing fields not only of Ethiopia but of Eritrea, Sudan, Chad, Mali and other countries in the belt of Africa that suffered the drought of 1984–85. The memory of those events is seared on the mind of anyone who has stooped and held the hands of children who have died for want of a crust of bread a matter of hours later. It is a greatly humbling experience.
Let me make a positive point. I hope that one of the effects of this debate will be to concentrate the minds of the British public and the media on the desperate need to give in this Christmas period. Whatever the Government's response may be, we shall need the public to dig as deeply into their pockets as they have in the past if we are to ensure the necessary response.
As I reread the articles that I had written, I was struck by the dreadful and grim familiarity of the events that are now unfolding. We have the same place names, the same dreadful routes down which aid lorries have to trundle in the night to avoid the bombing and strafing that the war involves. We have the same numbers of people, and we hear of the same crops being necessary. There is a grim sense of deja vu for anyone who was involved in 1984–85.
There seems to be some surprise—I suspect that it is feigned—from Conservative Members at the fact that the Opposition have tabled a motion that is critical of the Government. I believe that that motion should be supported because it is fully justified. The Minister made much of the figures—whether £2 million extra or £13 million—and of what had been done in a particular week after a particular point of order had been raised. The Government say that they have presided over what the former Chancellor used to call an economic miracle. A Government who make such a claim must find it difficult to come to the House and justify a steady reduction in the percentage of our GNP that we are giving in oveseas aid. Any Government who seek to pay off the national debt and give tax handouts to the best-off in our society, as this Government have, must find it difficult to justify giving such small sums—whether £2 million or £13 million—when millions of people are in danger of dying of starvation.
It is useful to look at the figures. Last year Ethiopia received a grand total of $15 per head of population in development assistance from the world community. Compare that with Botswana, for example, which received $92 per head of population and Somalia, which received $94 per head. Yet those countries can hardly be regarded as rolling in money or as being over-generously treated.
Ethiopia is a special case in a number of ways, one of which is the abysmally low level of development assistance that it has received from the international community. The Minister rightly praised the response of the public to the

1069
previous famine. It is true that people voted with their cheque books for Africa and Ethiopia during that famine—in unprecedented numbers and to an unprecedented extent. But, at the same time, the Government voted with their parliamentary majority steadily to reduce the percentage of gross national product that goes in overseas aid. That is a disgrace.
Other hon. Members have sketched the scale of the danger, and I shall not reiterate their remarks except to say that it is estimated that by January—only a few short weeks from now—4 million people will be in need of emergency food. Some 600,000 tonnes of food aid is required, but only a third of that has been pledged. Wealth and food in abundance exists in the North and West and the situation must be tackled urgently.
The need for trucks has been mentioned. Some 700 trucks will be needed to carry food, and I hope that the British can do something about that. In the past, they have been generous. I hope that we can step up that aid.
Above all, we must stop the flight away from the land, over the borders and into refugee camps. One of the worst scenes that I have ever witnessed was at the refugee camp at Wad Kowli in Ethiopia, near the Sudanese border. I visited the camp twice in 1985. Some 40,000 people were living and many were dying there. It was a sea of tuberculosis, coughing, disease, malnutrition and death. When people fled from their land in the hope of receiving some meagre relief in such camps, the seeds were sown for such disasters, or rather the seeds were not sown, because they had fled from the land. If water came, nothing could be done with it because the people who husbanded the land had been forced to flee to survive.
During the last famine, I was the general secretary of War on Want. That organisation was one of the most strident voices in the whole world, saying that we should lay a substantial proportion of the responsibility for those events at the door of the Mengistu regime. That remains true today. The disastrous policies of the Dergue and its failure to resolve the outstanding questions of nationalities and the Eritrean people are a major cause of the problem. However, the Dergue is not the only cause.
I should like to disabuse some of my hon. Friends, because the columns advancing on Addis Ababa under the banner of the TPLF are not knights on white chargers who will radically alter the course of events in Ethiopia for the better. The political programme of the TPLF is, if anything, worse than that of the Ethiopian Government.
In an excellent report in The Independent on 28 November 1989, Richard Dowden was told by the chairman of the TPLF that the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries have never been truly Socialist:
"The nearest any country comes to being socialist as far as we are concerned is Albania".
Anyone who thinks of swapping the Stalinist school of agriculture of President Mengistu for the Albanian school of agriculture and economics of the TPLF is making a serious mistake. Peace and negotiations are needed in Ethiopia. No one should be giving blank cheques of any kind to the TPLF.
The Eritrean case is different, as it is not a civil war. Ethiopia is occupying the territory of Eritrea and it should be given independence as soon as possible.
I am conscious of the need to be brief, so I shall bring my speech to a close with a couple of reflections. While
1070
Mengistu and drought are major problems, the fundamental cause of the famine, as in the rest of the Third world, is not dictatorships or the weather, but grinding poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, one quarter of the world's population is afflicted by what the United Nations describes as absolute poverty. I read a striking article in The Guardian entitled "Children 'die as money goes on debt and arms'", which said that, in its annual statement on the world's children, UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—reported:
"40,000 children are dying each day—nearly one every two seconds. Of those, nearly 8,000 die because they have not been immunised, nearly 7,000 from dehydration caused by diarrhoea, and nearly as many again from pneumonia."
At the same time Third world countries are paying out enormous sums of money on armaments to fight petty grim little wars, which are often fuelled by the superpowers—or less than superpowers like us—who sell them the armaments and on debt payments.
It is worth remembering that in the year of Band Aid Third world countries paid back more in interest than they received in total overseas aid from all the Governments and all the people of the world.
Grim, unrelenting fatally desperate poverty afflicts Ethiopia and is a fundamental problem in the Third world. Until we solve that problem we shall return to debates like this time and again.
8.55 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: This debate has been characterised by the fact that almost everyone who has taken part has spoken with real knowledge of the subject and some first-hand experience of Ethiopia. I welcome the opportunity to take part as I went to Ethiopia in 1985 with the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). We went under the auspices of the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam. Like anyone who visited Ethiopia that year, and like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I was struck by the need to express the dimensions of the catastrophe which faces thousands of people in Ethiopia. However, I am not confident that we can find the right words to express the disaster that they face.
Anyone who visited Ethiopia during the last famine has memories that are for ever etched on their minds. For me, the picture that almost gives me nightmares is a plain which, as far as the eye can see, is brown and arid, covered with rocks rather than green and verdant. The plain is not empty but full of people who are literally bones and rags. Thousands of them were camped out on the plain at Mekele with little or no food or shelter. During the day, the sun beats down remorselessly, but at night it is near freezing. There is an even more poignant and horrific memory. UNICEF has had a feeding programme in Mekele for a long time. It had enough food only for a limited number of children, who were kept in a compound and fed daily. Outside a large number of children looked over the wall, watching the children who were part of the feeding programme. The children outside the wall were without food, shelter or comfort. That memory was not a nightmare—unfortunately, it was the truth, and it was called Mekele.
As we have heard today, those circumstances will almost certainly return, and thousands of men, women

1071
and children will die unnecessarily of starvation. When we went to Mekele, Cardinal Hume by chance was with us, and I remember him, or perhaps someone else, saying as we looked numbly at that plain full of people:
"The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but these people have absolutely nothing."
Some two million people are again threatened with famine. It would be comforting to be able to assert that the problems could be solved by a massive injection of food aid in the short term, and by further increases in development aid in the longer term. Heaven knows, Ethiopia's problems are bad enough when the harvest does not fail—even in a year of good harvest there is a substantial food shortfall. Per capita food production has declined steadily as the rate of population growth has substantially outpaced improvements in agriculture. Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world, if not the poorest. Food production lags further behind food needs. Even when the harvest succeeds, Ethiopia has problems. Worse than that, not only is Ethiopia gripped by famine, but it is gripped by civil war, and by a cruel twist of fate the area where the civil conflict is worst is the area where the drought is most intense. There have been total crop failures in large parts of Eritrea and Tigray this year.
It would be comforting in such circumstances to look for heroes and villains. Mengistu is a tyrant who has spent more than 80 per cent. of his country's pitiful income on ever more arms to prosecute civil wars. Some £3 billion worth of arms has been bought from the Soviet Union in the past few years. It is worth contemplating that figure. Insanely, ports such as Massawa and Assab, which could be used to import food, are closed on Mengistu's orders. The Ethiopian air force Mig fighters regularly bomb and strafe the roads to Tigray and Eritrea—the very roads on which the relief convoys should be travelling. This is not a story of villains and heroes because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said, the other protagonists in these conflicts are not completely innocent. Tragically, all the protagonists in the internal conflict have used food aid as a military and political weapon.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced an excellent report which I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will read. It went to Ethiopia in 1988 and reported 1,500 men of the EPLF attacking a United Nations convoy carrying food supplies on the road from Asmara. The trucks were clearly marked and painted white, but they were destroyed by grenades and rockets and the food was burnt. That and other attacks were clearly carried out to tie the Ethiopian army to protecting the roads and to attempt to force the United Nations and other relief agencies to accept the EPLF's proposals for carrying out relief work in Eritrea. The same can be said for the TPLF, which wants to demonstrate de facto control over certain areas by the use of food aid, just as the Ethiopian Government want to use hunger to force people out of what they regard as rebel-held areas.
No headway can be made until the civil wars come to an end. No side can hope to achieve military victory. Using food as a political weapon will not provide any solutions. Tragically, the Ethiopian army, the EPLF and the TPLF have all put politics before relief, and the prospect of military advantage ahead of the lives of their own people. It is time to end that insanity.
All possible civilised international, diplomatic and political pressure must be brought to bear, through the
1072
United Nations, from the Soviet Union and from the European Community, to prevent further arms sales to the protagonists in Ethiopia, to persuade the Ethiopians to open their ports and adapt an open-roads policy which would allow the free passage of food throughout Ethiopia, and to enable the United Nations world food programme and the relief agencies to get food as urgently as possible to those who need it.
I appreciate that it is the role of the Opposition to oppose, but by tabling the motion that they put down for this debate they have chosen the wrong target and the wrong arguments. Through bilateral and Community channels, Britain's emergency food aid to Ethiopia has totalled more than £54 million since January 1987 and more than £138 million since January 1985. So far this year, 17,000 tonnes of food aid have been pledged. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that further emergency contributions would be made in response to the worsening situation.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) sought to make play of a letter published in The Independent from the director of the Save the Children Fund. I am president of the Banbury branch of the Save the Children Fund and a keen supporter of its work. When I read that letter in The Independent I was disappointed because, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made clear to the House on 4 December, it was in the offices of the Save the Children Fund that she and representatives of other non-governmental organisations drew up their contingency plans for how the Save the Children Fund and other members of the Disaster Emergency Committee could help in the unfolding situation in Ethiopia. I recently met the secretary of the Disaster Emergency Committee at the annual meeting of the Anglo-Ethiopian Society and there was no scintilla of criticism about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Overseas Development Administration had been handling the situation so far.
As my right hon. Friend made clear on 4 December, Britain has been at the forefront of numerous diplomatic initiatives to improve the situation in Ethiopia. My right hon. Friend has clearly taken every opportunity here, in Rome, in Washington, in Brussels and in Paris to seek to persuade the international community to act together. That was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the recent summit in Strasbourg where the Community Heads of Government made it clear in their communiqué to the Soviet Union that they very much hoped that the Soviet Union would use all its power and influence and apply pressure in Addis Ababa to help to end the civil conflict and to stem the flow of arms to the protagonists.
The problem cannot be solved by Britain or any one country alone. It has to be solved by the whole international community. I very much hope that, having heard the debate, the Opposition will decide not to divide the House because this is not a subject upon which we should be divided. The subject is so tragic and horrific that the House should be united. If the House is united, the various diplomatic and other initiatives that this country takes will have a far greater chance of succeeding. If we are seen to be divided, it will be far easier for those in Ethiopia and elsewhere who choose to be deaf to what we say to turn a deaf ear to what we want to tell them. We want to

1073
tell them and the world that there is no reason on God's earth why, in the latter part of the 20th century, millions of people should face starvation.
9.10 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall try to be brief, because I realise that several other Members wish to speak in this short debate.
I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in his defence of the Government. It seems indefensible for the Government to have been cutting the proportion of our gross domestic product that goes in overseas aid. I find it extremely difficult to justify that to my constituents or to anyone else in the civilised world. If the Government want us to have any sympathy with their problems, they should take the earliest possible opportunity to restore the proportion of our aid at least to its 1979 level, and should steadily aim towards the United Nations' target.
I accept that the hon. Member for Banbury was in Ethiopia at the same time as me. I recognise the pictures that he has recounted to the House, as I did those drawn by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I still have nightmares about the scenes I saw in Ethiopia at the height of the famine.
I have another memory. I also went to Ethiopia in 1981. I went up to the north, in Karin, and visited the British war graves there. Like most war graves, they reminded me of those who lost their lives in the second world war. I was struck by the fact that they were scarred by bullets from further conflicts. Since 1981, those graveyards in Karin have been fought over another four times.
Ethiopia has suffered 60 years of almost continuous conflict. It is scarred by famine, but it is also scarred by those 60 years of war. Almost all those wars have been not totally Ethiopian affairs but affairs encouraged by people outside Ethiopia. Large world powers have fought out their battles in Ethiopia. It is one of the tragedies of Ethiopia that so often the wars fought there have been fought either directly by world powers or in proxy for them.
I hope that we can bring some relief to the people in Ethiopia. However, the only possible relief for Ethiopia will be if we can bring peace to that country. When a war is being fought, it is impossible to persuade people to fight nicely so that they do not use starvation as one of the weapons. Starvation is just another nasty example of the weapons of war.
My message is firm: the only way to improve the position in Ethiopia is to achieve peace. I would argue strongly that the Government should place much more emphasis on diplomatic efforts to bring about peace in Ethiopia. We should try to ensure that there is an arms embargo. No country should be prepared to supply arms to any of the protagonists.
We cannot apportion blame or virtue to any of the people in Ethiopia. They are all to blame, because at some point each group of people in Ethiopia has had the opportunity to negotiate for peace. However, almost every time, some group has felt that it was on the verge of
1074
outright victory and has therefore been reluctant to participate in negotiations. Then the tide of war has swung against it, and it has been in no position to negotiate.
We must find a solution in Ethiopia which produces some federal forum to give all groups the opportunity for independence and self-government for their part of the country, but also gives them an overall pattern to establish a position in which the three or four major groups can live peacefully without resorting to conflict, and without people from outside encouraging conflict. I hope that the Government will use all their powers to encourage an arms embargo and will encourage in every possible way the talks that are taking place between the three protagonists to bring about a lasting peace.
If the open-road initiative that was announced by the President of Kenya is embarked upon, we must see it only as the first step to a lasting peace. If that open-road policy is accepted by all the parties, it must be backed by getting food through quickly. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important to encourage people to stay in their own villages and not to go to camps or elsewhere in search of food. The only way to encourage people to stay in their villages is to convince them that food will arrive. The only way to do that is for people to see the food being moved quickly. If the open-road policy is implemented, it should be possible to move food quickly by road. The world powers will also have to look at the possibility of an air lift, at least in the short term, in order to convince people that food will arrive.
Ethiopia is a beautiful country; as Conservative Members have said, it has great potential; but while it suffers from war and famine, there will be no opportunity to realise that potential. The first priority is to stop the war. When that is done, there will be a chance to tackle the famine in the short term. After that, we must look at long-term aid which can release the potential of the country.
9.16 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: I must declare an interest in this sad project. I was director of fund raising for the Save the Children Fund in the last major famine in 1984–85. My brother-in-law is the overseas director of Oxfam, and my father-in-law is generally credited with having founded the Overseas Development Administration.
The Government have given generously so far in this latest Ethiopian crisis, but whether the amount is £2 million or £13 million, more is needed. Of that £2 million, £800,000 went to Oxfam and I think that a bit more went to the Save the Children Fund. However, in the next three months Oxfam has budgeted to spend £5 million and the Save the Children Fund budgets to spend approximately the same. Those are the largest United Kingdom agencies in Ethiopia at the moment, but of course there is also Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and the Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere. Other tiny agencies are also putting in the largest amounts that they can. That, of course, is linked to the enormous expenditure of the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
The public response in Britain to the latest appeal is fascinating. It is the most generous response ever to the Disasters Emergency Committee. In the first seven days of

1075
the appeal, £1·3 million has been counted and that is the largest amount ever raised by the committee. Much of that came by way of credit card donations. The Save the Children Fund is the co-ordinator and there are sacks of cash waiting to be counted. That means that the total for the first seven days will be much larger than £1·3 million.
The generosity of the public is amazing, especially in the light of the huge response to the recent BBC Children in Need appeal and, of course, the phrase, "Charity begins at home" is very compelling. In addition, there are all the normal Christmas appeals that occur in mid and late December. It is worth remembering that British people are the second or third most generous individual donors in the world, beaten only by people in the Netherlands and the United States of America.
Raising money always seems difficult at the beginning, but the generosity of the British people makes it relatively easy. However, spending it is a truly difficult task. In the 1984–85 famine 60 per cent. of the European Community grain donation rotted on the docks in Djibouti. Food aid is notorious for devastating local farming. That is why our simple method of teaching Ethiopian farmers how to alter the plough to use one ox instead of two, which was a British innovation, may mean more in the long run than any great tonnage of food.
Food aid is also notorious for encouraging people to flee from their homes to where the food is being distributed. At present people are not in camps in northern Ethiopia, but they certainly were during the previous famine and a cholera epidemic started as a result. Afterwards they do not return home or they return to untilled land. It is worth remembering that two thirds of the fertile land in Ethiopia is not farmed at all due to the political problems.
Also food aid irrevocably alters people's dietary tastes. Ethiopians have gained a taste for wheat which is far more nutritious than the grain that they previously ate. Wheat is contra-indicated in high, wet areas such as Ethiopia, which is mountainous, too. That is why the Israelis and the Weissmann institute have developed a grain which will grow in those climatic conditions.
Food aid is difficult to manage in a way that is helpful to the people at whom it is aimed. A country at war offers irrevocable logistical difficulties.
It was said earlier that the British people had been generous in giving to Band Aid, but Band Aid expenditure—and that is what matters—was immensely difficult to organise. Hon. Members will recall the pictures of rusting trucks. Where did that money go? Was it honestly well spent as the Ethiopian people would see it? Hon. Members will recall that even non-governmental organisations have not been effective spenders. Why is War on Want no longer a member of the Disasters Emergency Committee? The answer is that it, too, had massive difficulties in managing good expenditure of Disasters Emergency Committee funds.
The political difficulties are seemingly impassable. I suggest that unless the Soviet glasnost effort is extended to eradicating Mr. Mengistu from the Ethiopian Government, there will be no open road. It will remain as mythical as the golden road to Samarkand. Between 40 and 60 Save the Children and Oxfam trucks waiting to use those open roads will still be waiting.
Nothing that the Ethiopian Government have done since the first famine of 1973–74 has helped. Each time the effect of the famine on people worsens. This time the
1076
famine is worse than in 1987 but not as bad as 1984. It enters a country that has suffered centuries of land neglect and where the drought is worse each time against a particularly impoverished environmental backdrop. People's resistance is lower each time and their response to starvation is more feeble. All that is in the context of a gross national product for all black African countries south of the Sahara which is identical to that of Belgium. Spending wisely in that context of total poverty is not easy.
The Government are to be congratulated on their intelligent application of funds. It has started well. The Overseas Development Administration is an extremely efficient, world-renowned organisation. We are most fortunate in the tremendous service that is given by that part of the Government.
The Government must now adopt a Morton's fork approach. On the political front they must pursue an open-roads policy by all the means available. I suggest that they get in touch with the Soviet Government as fast as possible. However, on the practical side they must recognise that it is unlikely that the open-roads policy will come about. The cross-border tactics that NGOs have had to use so often in these recent miserable years will once more be the only way to get food to Ethiopia. The Sudan offers a poor, dangerous, expensive and inappropriate route for the Government to use. That must mean more funding of agency work through the large voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom which can achieve it and less bilateral aid. The British Government cannot spend through the Ethiopian Government in their current political circumstances.
It is easy to stir consciences. Britain has a great history of generosity. But it is difficult to walk the tight rope of combining our outpourings of comparative wealth with care and appropriate expenditure, and with personal sensitivity to the great suffering that we continually witness in Ethiopia. We must allow these unfortunate people, who are crippled by warfare, to keep their dignity. Do not let us become vultures of compassion, peering at poverty on the small screen from comfortable armchairs. That is the challenge.
9.24 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: Comfortable armchairs and the opinions expressed from them may not always be acceptable, but the same is true of comfortable debates in this Chamber. When the reality of famine in Ethiopia faces us, it is absolutely right for my right hon. and hon. Friends to table motions such as this one. I proudly support it.
Christian Aid, not a politically motivated body, recently published a pamphlet in which it said:
"For the last ten years official aid has been consistently lower in real terms than the level achieved in 1979."
What loyal Opposition could possibly accept that, pretend that there is consensus and do nothing? Problems of infrastructure undoubtedly exist, the war in Ethiopia is undoubtedly a great scar and the problems of food distribution undoubtedly exist, but we cannot allow the Government to get away with a fairly miserable contribution. We cannot endorse that.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is no longer in his place. I was more than surprised by his intervention. After all, it was he who argued in his famous open letter that time after time his Department was in opposition to the Treasury which, he

1077
gave the impression, was mean-minded and at one with the Prime Minister. I should have thought that he would welcome this opportunity to criticise constructively the limited contribution that the Government are making.
Obviously, there have been harvest failures, droughts and war. Alas, they are not new. They were both predictable and predicted. Although I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to remember my speech, he will recall that in 1984 he and many other hon. Members drew attention to the appalling problems which then existed in Ethiopia. Since then the problems have scarcely changed. People, including those who were so generous and who will continue to be generous, must be asking why they are seeing on their television screens in 1989 the pictures which besmirched the international community in 1984. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) repeated the need for a successful appeal.
We in the Labour party cannot go along with the Government's attitude. Spending cuts in the Department, reflecting Government policy, have been even more severe than elsewhere. We cannot pretend that the Prime Minister's attitude, popularly known as Thatcherism, is being applied to every Department except overseas aid, especially when the reality suggests that that is not the case.
The narrow political approach—which I regret is the attitude, although we would all wish otherwise—is evidenced by, for example, the figures that show that we give 40p per head to the people of Bangladesh as against £2,000 per head to people who happen to live in the Falklands. How can the Opposition accept those priorities? The Minister said that the gross national product was small under the Labour Government. We are entitled to argue that as the wealth of the nation grows, and as the GNP increases the national cake—and no one would dispute the fact that the standard of living has, on average, increased since 1984—it is reasonable in a caring society that a larger amount of that cake should be given to the millions of people in need.
The Henley Centre says such is the thrust of Government leadership in these matters that in its recent survey only 10 per cent. of people viewed world poverty as one of the major issues being faced today. Many view green environmental issues, important and profound as they are, as transcending other issues. Surely it is possible for all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, to have a well-based concern for the future of the planet while also being concerned to show commitment to the millions of people already living on this planet who are suffering from malnutrition, poverty and disease to an unacceptable extent in the modern world.
Some 750 million people experience absolute poverty, illiteracy, disease and malnutrition to an extent well beyond any standards of human decency acceptable to the British public. Therein lie the seeds of hatred and wars that could contaminate the future and which I believe could be so easily avoided. We are seeing on television the starving Eritreans, the ghost of Christmas present, but that need not be the case. It could be avoided and it represents a challenge to the consciences of all those in this modern world. It has been predicted; it can be dealt with.
1078
I do not believe that apathy need always triumph. Starvation in Ethiopia represents the sort of lifestyle that, sadly, so many of our fellow citizens in this universe are now experiencing. We know of the unspeakable misery in the south China seas. We know that by 1992 the number of infants infected by AIDS in the sub-Saharan region will rise to 250,000. We know that now; there are things that we can do now. We should reflect the spirit and the generosity that I believe is shared by the British people.
Because I am passionately convinced that the Government, in their rather squalid approach to these matters, do not reflect the views of the people in this country or those of the international community towards international poverty, I shall vote against their amendment and, with pride, support the motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
9.34 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has struck the right sombre and challenging note, as so many other hon. Members have done today. The debate has been based on the deep concern at the scale of the mounting tragedy in the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia in particular, with some poignant speeches, particularly from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
There has been frustration at the lack of progress and at the fact that after the awful experiences of 1984 and 1985 yet another famine is looming in that sad part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) expressed so well the anger felt at the human reasons for the tragedy—the scale of the armed conflict, the civil wars that seem to go among elites over the great mass of the people, the victims of the tragedy in the area. There has also been perplexity at the way forward because of the multiplicity of problems in the area, natural and man-made.
If we are tempted to switch off and say that we are fed up with the fact that the tragedy is likely to recur, how much more reason do the victims of that tragedy have to be fed up with the fact that famine is with them yet again?
We cannot discount the fact that the problems in Ethiopia are now taking place in a harsher international context, with some evidence of compassion fatigue, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about her experience and the evidence of the generosity of the British public in their response to the current appeal. I think not only of the recent UNICEF report mentioned by some hon. Members but also of the World Bank report with Mr. Conable's speech, not just drawing attention to the collective breast beating of the western community, saying that it is all our fault as a result of past colonialism, but pointing out factors relating to the countries themselves such as the vast expenditure on arms. For example, Ethiopia owes the Soviet Union in excess of $3 billion for arms purchases. In addition, there were rumours in the press on Sunday that, because of a deal on the Falashas, Israel may well be ready to replace the Soviet Union as a major arms supplier of that sad country. I hope that the Minister will say whether that rumour has any basis.

1079
The World Bank report in September criticised what it elegantly called the "governance" of the countries of the Third world. But who can doubt that in Ethiopia, in addition to the natural problems of drought, so much blames lies at the door of Mr. Mengistu—a point made so graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West? Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead pointed out that the leaders of the TPLF are no great exemplars of human rights and the wish for democracy.
The basic facts are well known. They include the climatic factors, the erratic rainfall in the area, the increasing population, which adds to the pressure on land, the increase in soil degradation and the deforestation which has gathered pace since the turn of the century so that now Ethiopia's forest cover has been reduced from 40 per cent. at the turn of the century to 14 per cent. in 1970 and to but 4 per cent. today. In addition, there are the great sociological factors—the danger of community disintegration as people go to the food centres and farmers are unable to plant for the next year. There is an ever-increasing frequency of famine to the point where famine is not a cyclical problem but part of the chronic condition of that sad country.
We have heard the World Food Programme's estimate that 4 million people are threatened with famine by the end of January. I understand that the Minister suggested that there might be a large time scale, but if anything like that is threatened by the end of January, when we work back from January and look at the lead times in terms of procurement and delivery, we must surely recognise that the problem is with us now. If we are to make a serious impact on that problem, we must make the relevant decisions now.
The World Bank figures for 1987 show that Ethiopia is possibly the poorest country in the world. Clearly, long-term work needs to be done and that was shown in the Select Committee report last year. It is well known that work needs to be done on food security and storage, an improved distribution system, reforestation and water conservation. The key factors of time scale and transport were highlighted by the Minister. Knowing that people are facing almost immediate famine, how are we to get the necessary foodstuffs to them in the relevant time scale?
Will the Minister comment on the rumours over the past 24 hours or so about the open routes and the alleged speech by President Moi of Kenya? If President Moi is confident that there has been a substantial change by the Mengistu Government, it is puzzling that in the 24 hours that have elapsed the Government have not used the available communications to Nairobi to obtain further particulars for today's debate. Did President Moi make that speech, and what, if anything, was said about the small print and conditions? Given the track record of President Mengistu and the leaders of the rebels, can we believe that this is not just a stalling tactic in the civil war programme? I hope that the Minister who replies will tell us a little more about the speech of President Moi as it is fundamental to the possibility of getting food speedily to those in need.
We accept that as a country our leverage is relatively limited in that area. However, there is a widespread feeling that in this conflict, as in others in the Horn of Africa, the Government are being too traditional and are working only through the Governments of the day and in this instance through Addis Ababa. Surely, if the aim is to help those in dire need now, we have to use less orthodox
1080
methods and be prepared to take all the risks that the Minister pointed out. We have to be prepared to work through the Relief Society for Tigray and the Eritrean Relief Association—the agencies on the spot with a good track record. We have to be prepared to work through the British agencies—the non-governmental organisations—which have such a good record on reaching those in need.
Hon. Members have already pointed out the difference historically and in terms of need of Eritrea, Tigray and to a lesser extent Wollo. They have pointed out that Eritrea can be reached through cross-border routes and that Tigray needs a more adventurous policy and the co-operation of the Governments concerned. The question is whether the food will get to those areas on time.
We have no doubt about the Minister's commitment and we regret that because of flu she is unable to be here today. We know that she is working within a cage imposed on her by the Prime Minister's policies over the past decade. Ministers for Overseas Development may have pressed at the bars, but the bars have been set by the Government's policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) pointed out that the figures on the reduction of aid over the decade are well documented. They were given by my hon. Friend and speak for themselves as a measure of the reduction in the Government's commitment. The aid budget has been consistently sidelined at a time when the Government have been indulging in economic triumphalism and talking about economic miracles. Perhaps the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is less prone to indulge in talk of economic miracles, but that was his predecessor's theme.
We do not criticise the Government as strongly as we did in 1984–85. So much depended then on the generosity of the British people. It shamed the Government's niggardly response. However, what is beng done has to be set against a reduction in the overall aid budget. Hungry people need to be fed now if another major human tragedy in Ethiopia is to be averted.
We hope that the Government will follow a several-track policy and say something about what is being done by the Soviet Union. President Mengistu's position has been weakened. Is there evidence of pressure being exerted on President Mengistu by the Soviet Union? We have to work through our non-governmental organisations. We remain to be convinced that the Government will be able to respond in time and according to the scale of the need in that area.
9.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The debate has highlighted the deep concern of all hon. Members about the threat of famine in Ethiopia. The contributions to the debate have been of a high quality, accompanied by a remarkable degree of personal knowledge of the area and its problems.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked a question that many people in the country are asking: why is it happening again? It was a powerful question. Subsequent contributors to the debate sought to provide an answer to it. However, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is not easy to find the right answer to that question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) spoke movingly of his visit to

1081
Mekele in 1984 when, as he so poignantly pointed out, the relief arrived too late. It was a stern reminder to us all of our duty to ensure that that does not happen again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who also has great knowledg of the area, referred to the fact that the three protagonists in the major civil wars, who believe that relief is secondary to their military aims, make it more difficult to find a solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who has direct personal knowledge of the problems in the area, made important points about the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front and its likely effect on the food and relief programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who also knows the area, referred to his terrible memories of 1984. He said that it will be difficult to make the kind of headway that we need to make if that tragedy is not to be repeated. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who is a former director of fund raising for the Save the Children Fund, spoke with great knowledge of the valuable work being done by the voluntary organisations. I was glad that she referred to the Government's intelligent use of funds. She also drew attention to the great importance of teaching people how to make better use of their resources of land and food to solve the problems.
The House has shown a common determination that the threat of famine referred to in the motion and in the amendment must be averted. We must not allow a repeat of the tragic events of 1984. That concern and that determination are, I am sure, an accurate reflection of the way in which people all over Britain are already responding to appeals for assistance to the region. The Government welcome the fact that today's debate will have helped to focus public attention even more closely on the problem, as the hon. Member for Hillhead said.
I hope that this debate will also have shown clearly that the Government have already done and are continuing to do a great deal to alleviate suffering. We are determined to make sure that it does not get worse. The general public may understand this better than some Opposition Members. A humanitarian problem of this nature should not be addressed on purely party lines. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends made that point strongly. I accept that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are sincere in their concern, but I stress that the Government are also sincere.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Minister a very simple question? To his knowledge, is any REST transport available in the Sudan to carry famine relief food supplies to Ethiopia? Does the Minister know whether any trucks are available right now?
Mr. Sainsbury: As has been mentioned in the debate, there are a very large number of trucks in the region. The problem is not so much trucks as opening the corridors to the food convoys. That it the key issue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry, but we have a very limited amount of time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer my question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the hon. Gentleman must not persist.
Mr. Sainsbury: No one should be in any doubt about the scale of the problem. As hon. Members have pointed out, the risk of famine is compounded and complicated by a web of related factors. First, there is not one but two civil wars. In Eritrea, the conflict has been in progress for 27 years. In Tigray, a hard-line Marxist regime is opposed by rebels who believe that Albania is the ideal to which their citizens should aspire. Incessant fighting would challenge any Government's ability to run the country. Secondly, misguided economic policies, particularly in the agricultural sector, have reduced the country's ability to feed itself even in non-drought years.
There are, however, some signs of hope. Peace talks aimed at ending the civil wars are now taking place. We continue to urge all parties to keep the process going in a spirit of compromise and flexibility. We shall do all that we can, in association with our European Community partners and through direct and indirect contact with all the parties concerned, to give those talks the best chance of success. There are also signs that the Ethiopian Government have begun to moderate the worst aspects of their economic policies. That is a result of representations made to them by the donor community, including the EC and the World Bank.
The conflict obviously has a direct bearing on the success of the aid effort. Convoys must be able to get through. As hon. Members have pointed out, the logistical problems are enormous. The tonnages of food required and the distances over which they have to be moved are very great, particularly in Tigray. There is a shortage of transport and a fuel problem, particularly in Sudan, which means that it has to be imported at great expense and difficulty. The terrain is particularly problematical and there is a constant threat of bombing of the food corridors. Some food certainly can be moved through Sudan and into the areas of need. If free access across the lines cannot be agreed, it will be necessary to move as much as possible through that channel, but it certainly will not be possible to meet all the requirements.
That is why it remains vital that food corridors should be opened to allow relief supplies through the ports of Massawa and Assab, which are controlled by the Ethiopian Government. If confirmed, President Moi's announcement that President Mengistu has agreed to this is welcome. We can confirm that President Moi made the speech in the terms quoted, but we cannot confirm independently that President Mengistu has specifically agreed to the proposal. As I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will appreciate, the key to progress is not President Moi's announcing an agreement but the protagonists accepting and adhering to that agreement.
The recurrent droughts affecting the Horn of Africa are the prime cause of famine, and they are beyond anyone's control. The effects are worsened, notably in northern Ethiopia, by over-grazing, poor agricultural techniques and deforestation, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred. All of this causes great environmental damage and weakens Ethopia's long-term capacity to feed itself. Those are problems which can be tackled in the longer term. We are helping to do that under our technical co-operation programme, as are the multilateral donors such as the European Community and the World Bank.

1083
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the need for developmental aid, and that is certainly recognised.
There are further important steps that the Government of Ethiopia can take. First, they can negotiate an end to the fighting—a number of hon. Members have recognised that as the prime task—thereby releasing the resources needed to tackle the problems of drought and under-development. Secondly, they can move further towards more liberal and market-oriented policies, particularly in the agricultural sector. This will do much to increase food production and enhance the security of food supplies, even in years of drought.
The scale and complexity of the problem are daunting. I hope that we would all accept that humanitarian issues such as this must be dealt with on a non-party basis. I echo my hon. Friends' call. It is not a matter of accepting the motion or the amendment—it would be much better if both were withdrawn and the House could agree with one united voice on the need for help. I assure the House that we work closely with all the NGOs, although I find that expression a little off-putting—I refer to the voluntary organisations and charities which do such excellent work. They have a tremendously important role to play in the relief operation and we shall stay in close touch with them. The voluntary agencies have long experience in ensuring that aid reaches those who need it on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible. That is why we channel the bulk of our emergency aid through them. The European Community has already committed significant contributions of emergency relief aid. We fully support that and our share of that assistance is substantial. The United Nations' role, too, is vital.
The United Nations emergency planning and preparedness group in Addis Ababa, which the United Kingdom helped to establish, co-ordinates the efforts of the various United Nations agencies, such as the World Food Programme, in coping with the emergency. It is a mechanism which has worked extremely effectively. We should very much like to see the International Committee of the Red Cross resuming a fully active humanitarian role in Ethiopia, as it did before April 1988, when it was asked to leave the country. I understand that negotiations are in hand and I wish them well.
I pay tribute again to the response of the British public. Their typical generosity was no doubt given an additional spur by the distressing and disturbing television reports transmitted last month. The Opposition have suggested that what we offered was a wholly inadequate response to a tragic situation, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made it clear that that is totally unjustified and wrong. We have been aware of the risk of famine in northern Ethiopia for some time, and we have been working to prevent it. This year we have given nearly £13·5 million to Ethiopia. We have given £67 million since 1987 and £150 million since 1984.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 262.

Division No. 18]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Allen, Graham

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Alton, David

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Anderson, Donald

Ashton, Joe

1084

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gordon, Mildred

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Gould, Bryan

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Graham, Thomas

Barron, Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Battle, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Beckett, Margaret

Grocott, Bruce

Beith, A. J.

Hardy, Peter

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Harman, Ms Harriet

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

Haynes, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Henderson, Doug

Bidwell, Sydney

Hinchliffe, David

Blair, Tony

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Blunkett, David

Home Robertson, John

Boateng, Paul

Hood, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Bradley, Keith

Howells, Geraint

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hoyle, Doug

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hume, John

Buchan, Norman

Illsley, Eric

Buckley, George J.

Ingram, Adam

Caborn, Richard

Johnston, Sir Russell

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Lambie, David

Canavan, Dennis

Lamond, James

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Leadbitter, Ted

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Leighton, Ron

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Litherland, Robert

Clay, Bob

Livingstone, Ken

Clelland, David

Livsey, Richard

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cohen, Harry

Loyden, Eddie

Coleman, Donald

McAllion, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McCartney, Ian

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Corbett, Robin

McFall, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

McGrady, Eddie

Cox, Tom

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Crowther, Stan

McLeish, Henry

Cryer, Bob

McNamara, Kevin

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Madden, Max

Cunningham, Dr John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dalyell, Tarn

Mallon, Seamus

Darling, Alistair

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Martlew, Eric

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Maxton, John

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

Meacher, Michael

Dewar, Donald

Meale, Alan

Dixon, Don

Michael, Alun

Doran, Frank

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Douglas, Dick

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Morgan, Rhodri

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Morley, Elliot

Eadie, Alexander

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Mullin, Chris

Fatchett, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Faulds, Andrew

Nellist, Dave

Fearn, Ronald

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

O'Neill, Martin

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

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fisher, Mark

Paisley, Rev Ian

Flannery, Martin

Patchett, Terry

Flynn, Paul

Pike, Peter L.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Primarolo, Dawn

Foster, Derek

Quin, Ms Joyce

Fraser, John

Radice, Giles

Fyfe, Maria

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Galloway, George

Reid, Dr John

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

George, Bruce

Robertson, George

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Rogers, Allan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Rooker, Jeff

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

1085

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dennis

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Salmond, Alex

Wall, Pat

Sedgemore, Brian

Wallace, James

Sheerman, Barry

Walley, Joan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wareing, Robert N.

Short, Clare

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Skinner, Dennis

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

Wigley, Dafydd

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

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Snape, Peter

Winnick, David

Soley, Clive

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Spearing, Nigel

Worthington, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, Jimmy

Stott, Roger

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Straw, Jack

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mr. Ray Powell.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amess, David

Cormack, Patrick

Amos, Alan

Couchman, James

Arbuthnot, James

Cran, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

Ashby, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Aspinwall, Jack

Day, Stephen

Atkins, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baldry, Tony

Dover, Den

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dunn, Bob

Bellingham, Henry

Durant, Tony

Bendall, Vivian

Dykes, Hugh

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fallon, Michael

Benyon, W.

Favell, Tony

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fishburn, John Dudley

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fookes, Dame Janet

Body, Sir Richard

Forman, Nigel

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boswell, Tim

Gill, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Goodlad, Alastair

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bowis, John

Gow, Ian

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Grist, Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Grylls, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bright, Graham

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hanley, Jeremy

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

Hannam, John

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Buck, Sir Antony

Harris, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Haselhurst, Alan

Burns, Simon

Hawkins, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Butcher, John

Hayward, Robert

Butler, Chris

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butterfill, John

Heddle, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carttiss, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cash, William

Hind, Kenneth

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Churchill, Mr

Holt, Richard

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

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Colvin, Michael

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

1086

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Michael

Jack, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Janman, Tim

Redwood, John

Jessel, Toby

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rhodes James, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Key, Robert

Rossi, Sir Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rost, Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Knapman, Roger

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knowles, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shelton, Sir William

Lawrence, Ivan

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shersby, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lightbown, David

Speed, Keith

Lilley, Peter

Speller, Tony

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stanbrook, Ivor

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Madel, David

Sumberg, David

Malins, Humfrey

Summerson, Hugo

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maples, John

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maude, Hon Francis

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thornton, Malcolm

Mellor, David

Thurnham, Peter

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Miller, Sir Hal

Tredinnick, David

Mills, Iain

Trippier, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Viggers, Peter

Mitchell, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moate, Roger

Waldegrave, Hon William

Monro, Sir Hector

Walden, George

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Ward, John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Moss, Malcolm

Warren, Kenneth

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Watts, John

Mudd, David

Wells, Bowen

Neale, Gerrard

Wheeler, John

Nelson, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Neubert, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wiggin, Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Wilshire, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Winterton, Nicholas

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wolfson, Mark

Page, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Paice, James

Yeo, Tim

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Tellers for the Noes:

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the speed and effectiveness with which Her Majesty's Government has responded to the threat of famine in Northern Ethiopia through the provision of food and emergency aid; and strongly endorses its diplomatic action aimed at persuading the parties to the civil wars in Ethiopia to seek a negotiated end to these conflicts and to facilitate the transport of food to those at risk of famine.

Education Reform (Northern Ireland)
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
This draft order contains provisions which represent the most far-reaching changes to education law for almost half a century. Such changes are not undertaken lightly, and while the order reflects the Government's general education policy, it is a uniquely Northern Ireland piece of legislation.
The Government first published their proposals for reform in March 1988. In the 21 months since then, there have been two formal periods of consultation—first on the original discussion document, and secondly on the order itself. In practice, however, the consultative process has been continuous over the period. I said at its outset that the consultation would be genuine—that we would listen, discuss, and change where appropriate. That commitment has been honoured.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. I congratulate him on the extent of the consultation, which has been real and widespread, in marked contrast to that which preceded the Education Reform Bill. Will he please tell us why, bearing in mind the importance of integrated education, he has not taken the trouble to meet the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education?
Dr. Mawhinney: I shall come to integrated education later in my speech. I have met many groups who have been involved with integrated education, and representatives of the schools and of the original two trust groups which were set up and are, as it were, the parents of those trust groups. The council is a much more recent group. It had an opportunity to make representations during the consultation period.
The order is the product of more than 5,000 written submissions, a large number of oral presentations and numerous discussions in other forums. It contains many changes from the proposals that were originally put forward and reflects as broad a consensus of support in Northern Ireland as we can achieve. I am grateful to all who recognise the importance of these reforms and who contributed of their knowledge and experience.
The Government have two main objectives in introducing this legislation. The first is to raise educational standards. Northern Ireland's young people are its greatest natural asset. Some of them achieve A-level and general certificate of secondary education examination results which are among the best in the United Kingdom, but at the other end of the academic spectrum, Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of pupils who leave school without any formal qualifications. We intend to preserve the best. We must secure improvement elsewhere.
Our second objective is to give parents more choice and involvement in the education of their children, on terms similar to those enjoyed by their counterparts in England and Wales. These twin objectives are reflected throughout this order.
1090
Giving effect to the first objective, the order will set in place a common curriculum to be followed by all pupils from the age of five to 16. This will guarantee them a broad education based on common programmes of study and offer a common basis for assessing what progress they are making. The order lays down that the curriculum must include six areas of study within which pupils will follow a number of compulsory subjects. In addition, hon. Members will note the inclusion of six important educational themes which will be interwoven with, and taught as part of, the compulsory subjects. This framework will leave adequate room in the timetable for schools to add to the common curriculum those subjects most appropriate to the children in each class. In future, no child will be disadvantaged because his or her school does not offer an educationally balanced programme, or allows its pupils to opt out of essential areas of the curriculum.
The continuation of a selective system of secondary education will not present a barrier to achievement for those outside the grammar school sector. I firmly believe that, in the long run, secondary intermediate schools will benefit most from these proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All schools will have the same basis for their common curriculum and will, in addition, be able to develop their own particular strengths. These curriculum reforms will present secondary intermediate schools with an unprecedented opportunity to achieve increased status and, in the opinion of many of us, long-overdue public esteem.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he not recognise that many secondary intermediate schools already have enhanced status, which was granted to them by the education and library boards when they were allowed to change their names and call themselves high schools because of the distinctive courses and qualifications that youngsters attending them could achieve?
Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, I do, and I am confident that the reform proposals will enhance not only their status, but that of other secondary schools also.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way and apologise for intervening so early in his speech, but my point may clear up something. What exactly does he mean by "enhancing the status" of a school?
Dr. Mawhinney: As Northern Ireland Members know, I mean that there is widespread perception in Northern Ireland that, if at all possible, parents wish their children to go to grammar school. That is unfair to a significant number of secondary schools which deliver good education now and which, as a consequence of these proposals, will he enabled to deliver even better education—and will be seen by the community to be delivering better education—
Mr. Mallon: They will do the opposite.
Dr. Mawhinney: The people of Northern Ireland fiercely defend the many positive values in their society, the moral and social well-being of their children, and the preservation of their traditions. At the same time, they are

1091
increasingly receptive to changes which will strengthen those values and play a part in bringing together the two communities.
Historically, Northern Ireland's children have been educated separately—by religious belief and tradition. An increasing number of parents are now demanding a third option. They want their children educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community, in a school which values both traditions. So this order contains new arrangements to help establish integrated schools. It also places a duty, for the first time, on the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to encourage and facilitate integrated education.
That does not mean that we intend to impose integrated education. We do not. It will happen only when and to the extent that parents themselves choose it. This order also enables Government to offer greater and earlier help to those seeking to establish new integrated schools. It signals our commitment to afford integrated education equal legitimacy alongside the controlled and voluntary sectors.
Mr. Eddie McCrady: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is obviously going to use the term "integrated education" and "integrated schools" considerably during his speech, so for the benefit of the less well informed, such as myself, will he define what he means by those terms? Does he mean 50 per cent. Catholic plus 50 per cent. Protestant, or 80:20 or 10:90, or does he mean to include other religions as well?
Dr. Mawhinney: No, it does not mean 16 to 90. It means exactly what the order defines it to be. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a few minutes, I shall come to precisely the point he raises.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to have three types of schools in Northern Ireland, they should all be treated equally? Is it not a fact that the order discriminates in favour of what the Minister calls integrated education and will mean the reduction of money to other schools which have previously achieved good work in the education system?
Dr. Mawhinney: No, I do not accept that. The capital arrangements in Northern Ireland to which the hon. Gentleman referred are exactly the same as those in England and Wales. Schools with no predominant majority of one particular group on the governing board, such as controlled schools, receive 100 per cent. capital funding. The schools in which one group retains an overall majority on the board of governors receive 85 per cent. That applies to Catholic maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland, some of which would be perceived as Protestant voluntary grammar schools. That is exactly the same as in England and Wales. The new proposed integrated schools will not have any group holding a majority on the board of governors. Therefore, they qualify, as does a controlled school, for 100 per cent. capital funding.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Minister prepared to give the precise percentage given to Catholic schools in England and Wales?
Dr. Mawhinney: Not without notice, but I can obtain the information for the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about Northern Ireland here.
Mr. McNamara: The Minister drew a comparison between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Dr. Mawhinney: The arrangements between those schools which have no overall majority in control of the governing body and those which have are similar in Northern Ireland, England and Wales.
Mr. Beggs: There are more Members present tonight than there have been for some time. Will the Minister clear up the confusion over the extent of interest and enthusiasm in Northern Ireland for integrated education? Does he agree that in a recent survey carried out in the Coleraine area—a likely spot for developing integrated education—only 4 per cent. of parents interviewed considered that they might send their eldest child of pre-school age to an integrated school? That is a reflection of the level of interest across the Province. It will take much promotion by the Minister and financial inducements to develop integrated education.
Dr. Mawhinney: I have no idea whether those figures are well based. If I understand the implication of the hon. Member's question, he seems to hint that, because only 4 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland are interested in integrated education, the option should not be available to anybody because that is not a big enough percentage to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The basis of the order is that an option will be made available of equal legitimacy to parents in Northern Ireland. It will be up to them to decide whether integration should take place, to what extent and how quickly.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Minister take comfort from the poll conducted by the Belfast Telegraph which shows that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland from both parts of the community want to see the integration option made available? In Lagan college, the numbers increased from 28 at its inception to nearly 600 pupils today. About 1,700 pupils are now in integrated education, and ultimately that must be a matter for parents.
Dr. Mawhinney: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his robust and long support for the concept of integrated education in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him far drawing that reference to the attention of the House, thus saving me from having to do it. Perhaps I may now make some progress with my speech.
Mr. Mallon rose—
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech. I shall come back to integrated education.
I spoke about equal legitimacy and I stress the word "equal". Assistance to this group of schools does not imply a lessening of esteem for any other type of school; nor is integrated education a panacea for Northern Ireland's future. It is a legitimate education option and will be treated as such. Its legitimacy is no more and no less than other existing school options.
We recognise, however, that for the foreseeable future the majority of children in Northern Ireland will continue to be educated in schools which reflect the two different traditions. Given that reality, it is vital that our young people learn early that differences do not have to lead to division but can become the strength of a society. We

1093
intend, therefore, that the school curriculum should play its part in fostering greater understanding, tolerance and respect across the community divide.
Therefore, for the first time, all children of all ages in all schools will study two new cross-curricular themes—education for mutual understanding, and cultural heritage. In addition, they will learn from a common history curriculum. Those changes are designed not to produce a homogenised Ulster man or woman, but to allow all in the community to live comfortably with cultural diversity and differences of aspiration, without threat to their own beliefs and identity.
Religious education occupies a central role in the curriculum. The order will strengthen the quality of religious education teaching by opening it to inspection by the Department's inspectorate, where a board of governors so wishes. The order also enables arrangements to be made for the provision of a core syllabus for religious education, and to that end constructive discussions have already taken place between the main churches.
For some, an important element of their identity is the Irish language. The Government recognise the important place that the language occupies in the educational and cultural life of a significant proportion of the population, as well as its place in the curriculum of many schools. The order therefore enables children to study Irish in addition to, or instead of, one of the major European Community languages which the school must also offer, in accordance with their parents' wishes.
If parents are to be constructively involved in their children's education, they need more and better information about how well their children are performing at school and how the schools themselves are performing. Schools, too, need to know how their pupils are progressing so that they can gear their teaching to each child's needs. Therefore, the order will set in place arrangements for the regular monitoring of pupil achievement. It is anticipated that the arrangements will follow broadly those being introduced in England and Wales. The aggregated assessment results of all the pupils in a school will form part of the annual report which each school will produce. The report will be available to parents and will contain a wide range of information about the school's activities and educational opportunities.
Among the most important provisions in the order are those in part IV, which relate to the admission of pupils to grant-aided schools. The Government consider it unacceptable that parents who wish to send their children to a particular school which has places available to accommodate them are prevented from doing so by artificial quotas. We intend that admissions will be constrained only by the physical capacity of the school. Parents will be able to choose the school they wish their children to attend, and the school will be obliged to admit them so long as it has places available.
Hon. Members will already be familiar with the concept of the local management of schools, which was introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988. Schools in my constituency have been managing their own budgets for several years, and I believe that none of them would wish to return to the old system. The new delegation
1094
arrangements in part V of the order give those directly involved in the day-to-day operation of the school much greater financial control over their own priorities.
I now turn to Part VI of the order, the provisions of which are intended to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education, mainly through the establishment of integrated schools. These provisions are introduced in direct response to public demand. The integrated education sector is as yet small, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said. It comprises eight primary and two secondary schools, with some 1,600 pupils in all. But its growth has been rapid, and I pay warm tribute to the determination and perseverance of parents who have achieved this, at some personal sacrifice.
The Government's consultation paper included a proposal for a new category of schools to be known as grant-maintaned integrated schools. Responses were strongly supportive of the proposals and advocated that they should be extended, in particular, to provide the means for assisting new integrated schools with strong growth potential to get started. Both these proposals are reflected in the order. Grant-maintained integrated schools will be established by parents choosing, through secret ballots, to transfer a school from its existing structure to GMI status.
Throughout this part of the order there are key references to the need for the enrolment of an integrated school to include "reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils". A number of representations have been made that this provision should more strictly define integrated schools as having an equal balance in the numbers of pupils from each tradition.
We have carefully considered these representations. It is axiomatic that an integrated school should have a reasonably substantial representation of pupils from both backgrounds, and Governments will seek to ensure that this is always the case. However, we also want the aspirations of as many parents as possible for integrated schooling to be realised. The harsh reaity is that, in Northern Ireland, only a few schools could hope to achieve rough equality of balance and maintain it over a period of time. In our view, therefore, the end result of imposing such a rigid definition would be to reduce the number of eligible schools to unacceptably low levels.
Physical numbers are important, but they are not the sole determinant. Indeed, the key features which are likely to distinguish integrated schools from others will transcend considerations of mere arithmetic. The perception by parents of the character and ethos of an integrated school will depend on how the school operates day by day, and how effectively it respects and accommodates the cultural identities of all its pupils. The central responsibility for offering these guarantees to parents must lie with the managers and teaching staff of the school.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Many Conservative Members support the order as a genuine attempt to break down sectarianism in Northern Ireland. However, I am worried about the governing bodies of the schools. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, although there is nothing in the order, there will be a balance between the two communities on the boards of governors? At present, nothing in the draft order requires those making nominations to have regard to the balance between the two communities.
Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the general principle of integrated schools. Integrated schools are defined in the order in terms of their management, control and ethos. If they do not reflect some element of balanced representation of the two communities in all three of those attributes, they will not qualify under the terms set out in the order. I believe that that is the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Ashdown: Like the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), I support the order. The Minister has provided what we seek. He talked about a rigid equation. However, no one has asked for a rigid formula. We want some statement that will allow for a balance; something that might be left for the courts to decide in the last analysis. By no means do we want a 50:50 analysis. He used the words "a rough balance". That is exactly one of the characteristics that we seek. If he can say that in his speech, why can he not enshrine it in the Bill?
Dr. Mawhinney: For the reasons which I have already given the House. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that the Government recognise the importance of having significant numbers of pupils from both Protestant and Roman Catholic backgrounds if the ethos and character of the school is to be truly integrated. The Government will seek to achieve that when development proposals are submitted, subject to parents choosing to opt the school out of an existing structure into a grant-maintained integrated structure.
Mr. John David Taylor: If a school opted to become an integrated school and was accepted as such, but after a time failed to comply with the conditions and criteria which the Minister has just described, what kind of school would it be? Could it convert back to being some other form of school?
Dr. Mawhinney: The order covers entirely those circumstances. The board of governors ultimately has legal responsibility, and if it did not carry out that responsibility under the order, it would be replaced.
In Northern Ireland, unlike in England and Wales, it is proposed that a school can change its character at the time of acquiring grant-maintained status. There have been some representations that special arrangements, similar to those made in the Education Reform Act 1988, should be made in this order to protect the existing ethos of a school acquiring GMI status. However, they ignore the fundamental difference that, in Northern Ireland, a grant-maintained integrated school can only have an integrated ethos, and if a school was not formerly integrated there must of necessity be a change of ethos.
Let me also emphasise that schools do not just proceed automatically to integrated status following a ballot. Applications will be decided by the Department of Education having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including whether or not the school would be likely to be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils. It will also be possible for a proposal to be approved subject to certain conditions.
Part VII of the order deals with further education. The further education sector in Northern Ireland plays an important role in the training of suitably qualified young people who have the knowledge and skills to support the economic life of the Province and create new areas of enterprise. Colleges will henceforth be given delegated
1096
budgets which will enable them to meet more effectively the needs of the communities which they serve. They will also have new governing bodies in which local business and professional people will have a major involvement. Education and library boards will be given new specific responsibility for the strategic planning and the preparation of schemes for the overall further education provision in their areas.
The Catholic maintained school system is an important element in Northern Ireland's education system. This sector will benefit from the creation of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, described in part IX of the order. Both Government and the Roman Catholic Church authorities saw the need for a central body which would promote effective management in Catholic maintained schools, as well as advising the Department and the education and library boards on matters relating to these schools.
The Government welcome the creation of the council, not in any sense as a sixth area board, but as an important element in its objective to raise educational standards in all parts of the system. The statutory responsibility to provide curriculum support for all types of schools, including Catholic maintained schools, will fall to education and library boards.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Roman Catholic council a public body in the same sense as the education and library boards, and therefore subject to scrutiny by the ombudsman and the Fair Employment Commission?
Dr. Mawhinney: It is a public body, the members of which are appointed either through the Church or the Department of Education.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will it be subject to the ombudsman?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I shall double-check the answer.
Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister, who has given way a number of times. On the issue of the reorganisation of schools within the Catholic sector, where there is some need to reorganise in any event, can he give an assurance that capital expenditure and grant rate will be reconsidered and that he will be open to representations on that issue and on that about governing bodies?
Dr. Mawhinney: We always take seriously a request from all sectors of the education community for capital expenditure. That is foremost in our thinking on reorganisation and rationalisation schemes when, each year, we decide how to disburse the capital programme. I hope that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
I can tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the council will be subject to the ombudsman procedure.
Rev. Ian Paisley: And to the Fair Employment Commission?
Dr. Mawhinney: Education does not come under the auspices of the agency, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Another feature of this order that has been welcomed is that it clarifies the responsibilities and roles of each of the major partners in the education service in Northern Ireland. At a time of radical change, it is important that each partner in the education service knows its role and

1097
that that role is valued. In particular, the education and library boards will have a central role in supporting the implementation of the reforms. They are to have major new statutory duties relating to curriculum support and in-service training. As major partners in the delivery of the education service, their views, as well as those of the CCMS and others, will continue to be sought and to influence education policy in the Province. It will be essential that the close partnership that already characterises our system is both maintained and strengthened to permit a smooth transition to the new arrangements. I am committed to ensuring that that will happen.
Teachers are at the forefront of these changes. One of the prime objectives of this partnership must be to support them, both professionally and with resources, as they discharge their duties. We all admire their professional commitment and are grateful to them for their dedication to the children we place in their charge every day. The Government have already shown that support for teachers by the decision to phase the proposed introduction of the programmes of study, so as not to overburden them or their schools.
I do not under-estimate the size of the challenge ahead as we implement these reforms. Meeting that challenge will, I believe, be exciting for everyone involved. It will also be costly. Major programmes of in-service training for teachers and boards of governors have been initiated. Large capital and equipment expenditure will be required. The Government are committed to providing the necessary resources and additional money has already been allocated. I intend to make a further announcement soon about the future levels of increased support that we shall be making available. That will demonstrate our commitment to the classroom.
Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend has told the House that this is a measure of massive importance for the reform of education in the Province. Does he really believe that it is satisfactory for such a measure to come before Parliament that is unamendable and with no opportunity for any debate in Committee or on Report? Can my hon. Friend reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and me that this measure has the approval of the Government of the Irish Republic?
Dr. Mawhinney: I shall begin with the last point. This measure has not been presented to the Government of the Irish Republic, so I have no idea of what their views might be. It certainly does not come to this House with their approval, as it has never been presented to them for their approval. Indeed, it has not been presented to them for comment.
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point—
Mr. Gow: Honourable Friend.
Dr. Mawhinney: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.
As my hon. Friend knows, his first point is a matter not for me, but for the Leader of the House. He also knows that Northern Ireland business on transferred matters is conducted through the Order in Council procedure in the House. It was at least partly with that in mind that we conducted an extensive consultation during 21 months in
1098
Northern Ireland. Like my hon. Friend, I would wish to see the order in as good shape as possible and as sensitive to the needs of the children of Northern Ireland as it is possible under the circumstances to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we have sought to do that in presenting the order to the House.
Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Mawhinney: No. I have almost finished, and I have given way generously.
Hon. Members will recognise that the order is a major piece of legislation. To permit hon. Members as much time as possible to comment on its provisions, I do not intend to go into more detail. All legislation that comes before the House is important, but that which affects the education of our children, and thus the future quality of our society, is particularly important. The fact that the legislation concerns Northern Ireland, with its unique combination of social and economic problems, gives the order an added significance. It deserves our special attention. I am honoured to commend it to the House.
10.51 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) took the words out of my mouth when he asked a simple but important question. I have been a parliamentarian for a considerable number of years, but I come to my present position as Opposition spokesman for Northern Ireland in some kind of virginal innocence.
We have before us a document which is hardly insubstantial. It is a weighty tome. It contains what the Minister has described as the most fundamental revolutionary changes in Northern Ireland's education system since the war. The sadness is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said last night, the matter would have been best dealt with in some devolved system of government where Northern Ireland representatives could at least have had the opportunity to debate and amend what is being proposed. In the absence of any devolved Northern Ireland Parliament, the order should at least have been debated in Committee so that we could have subjected it to the test of scrutiny and tabled amendments.
I should have preferred that to the further centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, whose presence we note. I am sure that he has read article 158 which further enhances his plenipotentiary powers in Northern Ireland. We should have preferred a different method of dealing with the order.
The Labour party welcomes some elements of the proposals. The Government's commitment to integrated education, the expansion of the curriculum to include courses designed to improve cross-cultural harmony and the abolition of the 11-plus examination in its present form are all supported by the Opposition.
Mr. Mallon: This debate is not about integrated education. It is about whether any sector should take financial preference over other sectors and be able to jump the capital expenditure queue. It is about the justice of the proposal.
Mr. Stott: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I intend to deal with integrated education. If he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that he will make a robust contribution to the debate.
We support certain elements in the order. However, it is an ill-informed and ill-conceived attack on Northern Ireland's education system. The Minister referred to financial support for the recommendations. Northern Ireland's education system is underfunded. Between 1979 and 1986, net expenditure on education, libraries and arts in Northern Ireland fell from 22·7 per cent. of the Northern Ireland budget to 20·9 per cent. If we use the GDP deflator to calculate the necessary level of spending, by 1986 education in the Province was underfunded by £35 million. Despite that evidence, the Government say that there have been no cuts in the education budget.
That claim was refuted by the Southern education and library board in a paper to the Secretary of State for Education on 29 April 1986. It said:
"Since 1980/81 the annual increases in cash allocation to our board have been insufficient to keep pace with inflation."
Evidence of underfunding is backed up by articles in the Belfast Telegraph:
"City schools face £700,000 in cutbacks"
and
"Government will force more closures"
and
"Good and bad news as board agree cuts"
and
"Education blueprint will need cash aid, warns head."
Without sufficient funding, Northern Ireland's schools will be unable to implement these expensive and far-reaching changes.
Rev. Ian Paisley: If there are to be across-the-board grants to schools, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must first raise the level of all schools and then deal with the grant system?
Mr. Stott: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that underfunding is a major problem. If the proposals in the order are applied to schools that are already underfunded, they will increase their existing problems.
Who is to implement the changes? Who will be at the sharp end'? Those dedicated men and women in Northern Ireland who are responsible for teaching Northern Ireland's children will have to implement them. I am married to a teacher. I know from first-hand experience that the education system in England and Wales is experiencing great difficulties as a consequence of its reorganisation.
Mr. Ian McCartney: And Scotland.
Mr. Stott: Yes. My hon. Friend reminds me that Scotland is experiencing the same difficulties.
The core curriculum, testing and opting out have put great pressure on the education system in England, Wales and Scotland. The teaching profession in Northern Ireland has been steadily demoralised during the 10 years of Conservative Government. Morale is at an all-time low, with a constant flow of teachers quitting the education system. Recent research shows that in 1988 the number of teachers retiring prematurely through ill health increased by 42 per cent. and that during the past 10 years the ratio of teachers leaving the classroom before retirement age has gone up by a staggering 260 per cent.
1100
David Allen, the leader of the Ulster Teachers Union, blamed those figures on teachers being "saturated with innovation". Stress consultant Dr. Sandra Mills warned that the Government's proposed reforms will serve only to increase teacher stress and further undermine the delivery and standards of education.
The result of the drain on teaching resources has been extra pressure on the remaining teachers, with substitute teachers now being so scarce that the absence of a single teacher may result in other classes being swollen by as many as 50 pupils. Only today I learned that the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland is the worst in the United Kingdom. The situation is compounded by the chronic lack of investment in the physical environment of schools in the Province. Because of the Education Reform Act, teachers in England and Wales have no direct salary negotiations. I understand that that is not the case in Northern Ireland.
This evening I received a factsheet from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, stating:
"The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 currently provides for the Department determine teachers' salaries. Practice to date has been for the Department to issue regulations which encompass the agreements reached by employers representatives (including the Department) and the recognised teachers' unions at negotiations. It is now being proposed that unidentified 'prescribed persons or bodies' may determine teachers' salaries. This new provision has been included in the Draft Order laid on 23 November 1989; it did not appear in any of the Consultative Documents nor in the Proposal for a Draft Order published in June 1989. There has been absolutely no consultation on this matter which is of central importance"
to all teaching unions in Northern Ireland.
In spite of what the Minister said about the consultation period, he has failed to consult the teachers on the important issue of salaries.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should follow the precedent of his former colleague in the Northern Ireland Office who, in a similar situation when something was introduced into an order at the last minute, gave the House an undertaking that he would introduce amending legislation at the first opportunity?
Mr. Stott: Perhaps the Minister will note what the hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps we can persuade him during the debate. Having listened to the veracity of the arguments, he may very well take that point on board.
I am conscious of the time and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak so I shall try to get through my speech as quickly as I can.
Although official figures show, and the Minister has pointed out, that school leavers in Northern Ireland are more likely to leave school with A-levels—23·4 per cent. compared with 16 per cent. in England and Wales—the figures at the other end of the scale show that in Northern Ireland 21·9 per cent. of school leavers leave school with no GCE or CSE qualifications. The figure for Wales is 16 per cent. and in England it is only 9·6 per cent. Clearly, although the Northern Ireland education system is doing well for those geared towards A-levels and higher education, it is not performing effectively for the majority of schoolchildren not geared to those qualifications.
We believe that the current attainment problems are a direct result of the selective system of education in the Province which labels children as educational failures at an early age and seriously limits their future opportunities.

1101
We are concerned at the omission from the order of a serious appreciation of the differences in educational qualifications of school leavers from the Catholic and Protestant backgrounds. The 1978–79 report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights highlighted the fact that, in 1985–86, 19 per cent. of leavers from Protestant schools were classified as having no qualifications, compared with 25 per cent. of leavers from Catholic schools, and that in 1987 it would have required a 10·4 per cent. increase in the number of Catholics leaving school with A-levels to match the Protestant position. That is unacceptable, and I do not believe that the order has addressed the problem.
We welcome the fact that the Government have substantially withdrawn their proposals to allow schools to opt out. They tried to justify opting out on the ground that it represented a democratisation of education provision. As the Minister with responsibility for education admitted, and I think that I quote him fairly, absolutely no one thought it a good idea. People appreciate that in reality opting out represents a Government attempt to centralise educational power by further removing local control and placing further additional powers in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Opting out in Northern Ireland now applies to only one class of school—integrated schools. Once a school is officially recognised as integrated, it becomes eligible for grant-maintained integrated status. Labour Members are strong supporters of the concept of integrated education and believe that it has a vital role to play in the development of a school system which does not promote and reflect sectarianism. There is growing support in the Province for integration. A poll conducted in April last year for the Fortnight magazine showed that 67 per cent. of people were in favour of the Government supporting integrated education. However, we are concerned that the Government's proposals for opting out may seriously discredit integration as an option throughout the education system in Northern Ireland.
I have recently received a letter from the Belfast Charitable Trust for Integrated Education, which says:
"Several governors of integrated schools have in recent weeks declared their opposition to seeking GMIS status for their schools if the draft order is not suitably amended. We fear that if it is not we will soon have a small number of schools outside the legally defined integrated system, but accepting our definition of integration (i.e. schools where Protestant and Catholic children are educated together on a footing of equality), while the schools inside the legally defined integrated system will not be accepted by the integrated education movement as properly integrated."
Although we support the principle of integration and integrated schools, we believe that the Government are going about it in the wrong way.
On the subject of integration, the leader of the Social Democratic party asked a question—
Mr. Ashdown: Liberal party.
Mr. Stott: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get the name right, he cannot expect me to get it right either. He asked a question concerning the consultation with the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education. I wonder why the Minister has not seen fit to talk to the council. It has made suggestions in its correspondence about "reasonable numbers" and "a reasonable balance".
1102
The Minister tried to justify what he meant by that. As I understand it, these people want a ratio not of 50:50 but of something like 40:60.
There are other people in Northern Ireland who may not be religious, such as those from ethnic minorities or those families in which the parents come from different sides of the religious divide. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from accepting the definition that people want. I am sorry to labour the point, but here again is an issue that could have been taken up in Committee and on which we could have tested the Minister. We could have flushed out the reason why he has refused to accept that definition.
We also dispute the Government's claims that their proposals to allow open enrolment in schools will lead to greater choice for parents. Their stated intention is to force schools to enrol to the limits of their physical capacity according to the number of parents who want to send their children to a particular school. In practice, that represents a system of rationalisation because while some schools will expand, others will close. Grammar schools, as a result of their elitist reputation, are likely to benefit from the new system as parents will compete to send their children into what they perceive to be the best school. Aside from the adverse implications for non-grammar schools under this system, grammar schools will find themselves oversubscribed and will be forced to introduce some type of selection. That seems likely to be on academic ability and parental suitability. In short, open enrolment provides a backdoor method for preserving the 11-plus and the less popular schools will go into a vortex of decline.
A Northern Ireland head teacher recently summarised the situation in stronger language when he said:
"We would prefer to have a marriage rather than a rape. We are afraid that the grammar schools will just take over and push many of the secondary schools to the wall."
Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that, whenever the Minister was speaking on this matter, he said that schools could enrol up to their capacity, but that he did not define the capacity? Is the hon. Gentleman as well aware as the Minister that there are many schools in Northern Ireland with many temporary huts sitting in the school grounds? Are they included in the capacity or is it simply the permanent buildings that are being covered?
Mr. Stott: I am aware of that. We have serious doubts about the Minister's description of how open enrolment will work. Will it be carried out until schools are bursting at the seams? We believe that there should be some planning in education. In England and Wales, the local education authority, the local community and the local education committee have the responsibility.
One of the key Government proposals is for the establishment of formal tests at the ages of eight, 11, 14 and 16 to assess pupil performance. The system of testing that is proposed could lead to a lowering of standards, reinforce failure and demotivate many children. Assessment and testing in the widest sense are integral to the very process of teaching and learning. Some testing is beneficial both for individual pupils and their parents, and for those who are concerned with judging the effectiveness of schools. But the Government's proposals represent an over-reliance on inappropriate forms of testing which could result in paradoxical results and to a possibility of lowering rather than raising standards.
Experience in some American schools shows that testing can lead to teachers teaching to test and neglecting

1103
both the high and low achievers. Rigid testing at an early age will have a demoralising effect on some children who perform poorly and will lead to their developing a feeling of inadequacy.
I believe that information on a child's performance at school should he gleaned through sensitive diagnostic testing which fully tests each child's strengths and weaknesses. We welcome the Government's decision not to use tests to construct league tables of pupil against pupil, of class against class and of school against school, but some of us are still not convinced that the testing data will not be used for such purposes.
The Labour party considers that the Government's proposals to establish a formal test at the age of 11 represent a back-door method of preserving the 11-plus examination. The move clearly reveals the Government's desire to resist the development of universal education and to reinforce and further develop selective education. That is also the view of all the people in the Northern Ireland trade unions to whom I have spoken over the past two weeks.
The Labour party has always believed that the framework for the curriculum should be clear and more explicit. Our 1987 manifesto contained a commitment to a "clear but flexible core curriculum agreed at a national level." We therefore welcome the broad concept of a Northern Ireland curriculum, but we have serious reservations about its detail. We are alarmed that the national curriculum does not apply to pupils in the private schools. The Government's plans are not about establishing a common curriculum for all pupils but about setting up a state syllabus that applies only to certain pupils. That is both politically dishonest and educationally divisive. We also feel that the Government's proposals are too rigid and too prescriptive. The likelihood in practice of time impositions for the compulsory contributory subjects will serve to squeeze out important subjects such as information technology, electronics, statistics, personal, social and career education and home economics. We believe that schools should be permitted great flexibility in the range of compulsory subjects offered and the teaching approach adopted.
The proposal to include education for mutual understanding as a cross-curricular theme deserves praise. We fully support the aim of EMU in educating children to understand the different traditions in Northern Ireland. We also support the Government's new position on the Irish language. Irish is a key strand of the Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland and is growing in popularity —it is second only to French, the most studied language in schools. It is being studied by more than 20,000 students. We believe that the Government have made the right decision in allowing schools the flexibility to include Irish in the framework of the curriculum.
We feel that the current method of educational funding may create problems for voluntary schools in the provision of the full curriculum. Controlled schools, which tend to be Protestant schools, receive 100 per cent. funding from the Northern Ireland Office for capital projects, compared with only 85 per cent. that the voluntary, largely Catholic, schools receive. It is often argued, for example, that the reason why proportionately more Protestants than Catholics study for A-level science is that controlled schools can more easily raise the funds needed for
1104
expensive science blocks whereas Catholic schools have been faced with the problem of having to raise significant sums from donations.
The Labour party believes that the system of differential capital funding should be ended. That change would not only facilitate the more successful implementation of the curriculum but would play an important role in the achievement of greater equality in educational attainment between the two main sectors.
I have already explained that this substantial document deals with virtually all aspects of education in Northern Ireland. But it does not deal with one very important aspect of Northern Ireland education—pre-school education. Pre-school education in Northern Ireland is woefully inadequate. Day nurseries provide only 2·8 places per 1,000 children aged between one and four, against a United Kingdom average of 16·7 places. Only 208 places per 1,000 children aged between three and four exist in registered playgroups in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom the average is 322. Only 13 per cent. of Northern Ireland's children aged between three and four exist in registered playgroups in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom, the average is 322. Only 13 per cent. of Northern Ireland's children aged between three and four attend nursery classes, as against the United Kingdom average of 23 per cent., which is bad enough.
The Government have clearly failed in their duty to provide adequate child care provision in Northern Ireland. We consider the Government's failure to tackle the problems of pre-school education while introducing the most wide-ranging reforms of the education service in the Province since the war represents a shameful neglect that clearly illustrates a blinkered approach to education in Northern Ireland. We believe that nursery education should be provided for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it.
The Labour party believes that education is central to the quality of individual lives, to the establishment of moral values, to the functioning of society and to the general economic prosperity of the Province. We believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be entitled by right to the best education without regard to their family background, income, sex or religion.
The proposals outlined in the order represent a combination of dangerous, divisive and destructive measures which constitute a substantial threat to respected Northern Ireland educational values. We cannot amend the order. It will go forth and its provisions will be visited on the educational establishments of Northern Ireland. All I can say is that when the next Labour Government assume office in two years' time we shall return to the subject and involve everyone in Northern Ireland in its implementation and in meaningful consultation.
11.21 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I should like to place on record at the beginning of my speech the continuing dissatisfaction of Ulster Unionists and other right hon. and hon. Members at the fact that we are forced to embark on yet another debate on an unamendable order which affects the education of children in Northern Ireland.
This is not the beginning of a personal attack on the Minister, but a further reminder to the Government that elected representatives from Northern Ireland agree that the use of the Order in Council procedure to deal with the

1105
affairs of Northern Ireland is shameful, reflects badly on the mother of Parliaments and should be discontinued and replaced before the end of the Session with proper legislative procedures.
I recognise the efforts that the Minister made to consult and to obtain submissions and responses, but I must observe that although the Northern Ireland Office and the Government think that a considerable time was given for consultation, because the recent consultation period covered the holiday months of July and August, even with the extension granted by the Minister, the timing was not conducive to obtaining maximum participation of all interested parties and in-depth analysis of such complex and radical proposals.
The electorate in Northern Ireland, school governors and members of education and library boards are sceptical about the consultation process. If consultation is to be effective, and not just a cosmetic exercise, there must be seen to be positive responses to representations. Some of us had considerable difficulty persuading major interests to respond at all, and even then it was difficult to arrange suitable dates for discussion of the proposals. Consultation on education matters with people involved in schools is well nigh impossible in the holiday period and utterly impossible in the first month of a new school year.
I accept that the Minister responded positively when advised of the difficulties faced by those seriously wishing to examine the provisions in the order and extended the consultation period to 30 September, but concerns still remain, despite the ministerial statement of 10 August which emphasised that the proposals were designed to give more power and greater freedom of choice to parents and school governors. It is clear that many of the changes have been widely accepted and welcomed and it is recognised that education has always been a partnership between parents, teachers, boards and the Department.
Will whichever Minister replies to the debate tell the House whether part II, article 3, of the order has made provision for central control of education by the Department of Education, thereby reducing considerably the function of the education and library boards and other bodies in Northern Ireland? If the proposals were designed to give more power and greater freedom of choice, why has there been this centralising of the control of education within the Department? It is dangerous in a democratic society and especially dangerous in a divided society.
The Minister should tell the House whether article 3(a), which extends the Department's duty to promote the education of the people of Northern Ireland, thereby goes beyond the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, which appears to have no similar provision for education in England and Wales. Suspicion arises from perceived central control of education. People in both communities demand an assurance—the Unionist community demands that its children will not be subjected to indoctrination through a green-tinged curriculum and the Roman Catholic community demands assurances that there will be no orange indoctrination of its children.
Under article 4(i) of part III, the board of governors and the principals of every grant-aided school are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the curriculum in the school satisfies the requirement of the article. Good Ulster schools have always provided a broad and balanced
1106
curriculum which is child-centred and has sufficient flexibility and depth in the subjects studied to match the age, ability and aptitude of the pupils. Principals and teachers, as professionals, produced that balanced curriculum.
Does the Minister really believe that members of governing bodies desire responsibility for curriculum matters? Perhaps he will tell the House why the order has departed from the provision made for England and Wales under section 1 of the Education Reform Act whereby the Secretary of State, the local education authorities, the governing bodies and the head teachers have responsibility for delivering the curriculum. By omitting area boards and other bodies from article 4(1), the Minister has reduced the functions and responsibilities of the area boards. Will education and library boards be consulted on curriculum content, or will schools and boards be forced to accept packages produced by Ministers and hand-picked curriculum draftspersons?
If it is accepted that professional teachers and principals will be expected by most governing bodies to have a key role in curriculum matters in each school, why, under schedule 8(3), do the qualifying conditions for membership of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council and the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council not include any reference to knowledge and experience of education? Members only have to be persons appearing to the head of department to have knowledge or experience relevant to the council's functions.
It is strongly felt by some practising teachers that teachers should be members of each council. Will the Minister give an assurance that teachers will have such representation and, if possible, give further information about the proportion of teacher members, the areas of expertise and the means of selection that will be used to appoint teacher members to the two councils?
Curriculum responsibility is referred to in articles 4, 10 and 11. Article 11(3) states:
"It shall be the duty of—
(a) the Department and the boards in relation to all grant-aided schools …
to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring that the Boards of Governors and principals of grant-aided schools are in a position to fulfil their duties".
These articles give area boards no direct authority in matters relating to curriculum, yet many matters of policy are concerned with curriculum issues. Has the Minister amended, or has he even the power to amend, the order to include a change of emphasis to reflect these area board functions?
Arising from the requirement that school curriculum policy should reflect the findings of inspections, will the Minister say whether all schools can expect to have more frequent general inspections and subject inspections than in the past? Will he explain why, under article 6(4), there will be no formal assessment within creative and expressive studies? Will not the decision lead to a loss of esteem by parents, pupils and employers and to a deterioration of provision for such study within schools? Will the Minister reconsider article 6(4) and remove this permanent exclusion from assessment to ensure that the career prospects of many talented young people in Northern Ireland are not adversely affected?
Articles 9 and 34 cover external qualifications. There is concern in schools to meet the needs of individual pupils. Article 9 provides that no course of study for school age

1107
pupils leading to an external qualification shall be provided except when the Department approves the qualification and the syllabus. That requirement applies to courses offered to all pupils of school age in grant-aided schools and may, by order, be extended to include pupils above compulsory school age and students below 19 in full-time further education. Acknowledging that GCSEs will form the basis of assessment at 16, will the Minister ensure that alternatives to GCSEs which have relevance and currency in the sphere of further education and the world of work, and have met individual pupils' needs in the past, will still be available to post primary pupils?
Part IV deals with admissions to grant-aided schools. Will the Minister spell out honestly for parents that unless they make realistic choices when stating a preference for the post-primary school at which they wish their child to be educated, they and the child could be disappointed?
Does the Minister agree that, in reality, grammar school heads will select? Does he accept that open enrolment will lead to a demand for grammar school places to fill available accommodation and that only when oversubscription occurs will academic attainment or aptitude be used as criteria for admission to those grammar schools?
How does the Minister expect secondary or community schools to compete fairly for pupils? In the long term, removing the 27–73 per cent. split of intake between grammar and secondary schools could prove harmful to both types of school. Grammar schools which use open enrolment to accept pupils beyond those who are highly motivated academically will have difficulty with less able pupils, and many smaller secondary schools will be unable to provide the curriculum demanded in the order and will be forced to close or amalgamate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have an enormous admiration for grammar schools in Northern Ireland and I am amazed that Northern Ireland does so much better in A-level and 0-level attainment than England, Scotland or Wales. What do Ulster Unionists think about the abolition of the 11-plus in article 38(5), bearing in mind that that will not happen in England and Wales—thank goodness—and that grammar schools in Northern Ireland have a broad social base and get the best out of above-average pupils?
Mr. Beggs: I have no doubt that the grammar school system as established in Northern Ireland will remain. Even with the disappearance of the 11-plus selection procedure, the new attainment testing will provide a basis on which children will be enrolled in grammar schools. Our real concern is that to maintain numbers and to protect staff when there is falling enrolment, there may be a temptation for some heads of grammar schools to enrol pupils who will not benefit from a grammar school education.
Mr. Mallon: Surely the nub of the problem is that secondary schools are apeing grammar schools and not performing the role for which they were intended. Open enrolment and the proposed system of testing will encourage that trend to increase, with the result that we shall have even more of a two-tier system.
Mr. Beggs: I accept that some secondary schools ape grammar schools. In our better secondary schools, however, children have had an opportunity to realise their
1108
potential with only a small group being encouraged to proceed to examinations which are on a par with the courses that are available at grammar schools. Reference has been made to the level of young people who leave school without qualifications, but we should be honest with ourselves and take into account the low grades that have been achieved by many school leavers in England and the way in which they were evaluated by employers.
It is impossible to provide opportunities that will ensure that all children will have the same level of achievement. We must accept that there are wide ranges of individual ability while affording the opportunity to each individual to realise his or her potential.
I am concerned that with the loss of the 27–73 per cent. intake split there will be damage done both to grammar schools and secondary schools. I fear that many smaller secondary schools will be forced to close. If that should happen, the Government's intention of improving education standards across the board could be destroyed.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that secondary schools have closed and have then reopened with a lower intake of pupils as integrated schools which receive the full grants? The Government had said that they could not support the schools as they were. That has happened in Belfast and elsewhere.
Mr. Beggs: It is difficult for many of us to accept that once enrolment falls in a secondary school, whether it is maintained or controlled, there is pressure for closure, it is difficult to understand how they can be reopened as integrated schools on the same site. Of course, much more money is available for the schools because integrated education is the flavour of the day and gets every encouragement and incentive. We do not object to that development, but people should realise that there has always been a degree of integration in education in Northern Ireland. We have never been given much credit for that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of our party, was educated at a Roman Catholic school. I am a member of the governing body of a voluntary grammar school which has a high percentage of Roman Catholic pupils. The matter has never come up because the religion of those pupils is nobody's business but their own.
Mr. Alton: Schools such as Sullivan Upper, which I visited a few weeks ago, bear out exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. Some schools have a mixture of pupils and are not designated as integrated schools and do an excellent job. I think that Hazelwood school was mentioned in the debate. Does he accept that that school, which has 209 pupils, has gone from strength to strength because it decided to become an integrated school and therefore became more popular?
Mr. Beggs: It has gone from strength to strength because there is a demand for that type of education. I am not aware of its impact on smaller maintained Roman Catholic post-primary schools or controlled post-primary schools in the area. It seems nonsense to encourage a new start at the expense of closing neighbouring schools. It would he much better to encourage co-operation and the sharing of expertise and so on.
So that others can check my comments about the demand for integrated education, I should like to put on record a reference in the second edition of an independent

1109
education magazine for Northern Ireland called Education North. It is edited by the education staff of Queen's university and the University of Ulster. It says:
"Indeed, only 4 per cent. of the sample visited were extremely likely to send their children to integrated schools."
I am not here to thwart the wishes of such parents because we all believe in parental choice. I want to sound a word of caution and ask for consideration to be given to the impact of Government policy. I urge people to look closely at what is happening to community schools and small secondary schools in the rural and border areas of our Province. I hope that the Minister will assure us that open enrolment will not be allowed to be the final straw that drives out Protestant families whose number is declining because of the Government's failure to provide proper security and defeat terrorism in those areas. Those small community and secondary schools need support and protection in areas where they have been subjected to sectarian terrorism.
I was disappointed to read in the Belfast Telegraph tonight that the Minister, who is encouraging and promoting integrated education—none of us wishes to block that development—is not permitting it to happen because of parental choice. He is doing so with the co-operation of teachers. The paper attributes to him a categorical statement that he would not give consideration to teachers, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, who feel on the grounds of conscience that they could not move with their Roman Catholic school to integrated status or from their controlled school to integrated status. He said that he would not give consideration to teachers who wished to be transferred to another school or leave teaching altogether and seek compensation. He wanted to know what he would be compensating them for.
I hope that the Minister will rethink his position. It is important that teachers should feel free to go along with the proposals if they wish and not feel coerced into supporting Government policy.
As Ulster Unionists, we believe that the funding of all schools should be fair and equitable. We seek an assurance from the Minister that the state has equal regard for all children that there will not be priority or privileged status for integrated schools and that extra funds will not he directed towards currently fashionable schools.
Mr. Mallon: That is in the order.
Mr. Beggs: The Minister must tell us that he is prepared to treat all children in the Province equally.
We accept the right of parents to choose to send their children to grant-maintained integrated schools, but we want the Minister to justify why they cannot be maintained by education and library boards as is the case for Protestant and Roman Catholic schools and, indeed, schools in the controlled sector.
Does the Department have extra funding for the promotion of grant-maintained integrated schools?
Mr. Mallon: The order says so in article 64(2).
Mr. Beggs: There is a strong feeling that other schools have lost out so that integrated schools could be promoted.
Mr. Mallon: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman unduly, but it is stated clearly in articles 64(1), (2) and (3)
1110
that it is Government policy to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated schools and to provide funding to do that.
Mr. Beggs: But is it extra money? I am anxious that there should be extra money and that the money is not taken from the overall money available to Northern Ireland.
What assurance can the Minister give that under local financial management school governors will not become the buffers between parents and the Department when spending cuts occur and the perception of responsibility for cuts in school budgets transfers from the Department to school governors?
The order establishes in legislation a council for Roman Catholic maintained schools. We as Ulster Unionists have not objected, but as the role and influence of the main Protestant churches has been steadily diminished in controlled schools, it is an appropriate time to invite the Minister to take steps to establish a similar council for the transferor representatives of the three main Protestant churches. It is important to demonstrate to Protestant communities that their church representatives enjoy recognition, status and esteem equal to that afforded to other interest groups in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that churches other than the Catholic church handed over complete control of their schools to the state, thereby unfortunately lessening their control over what was happening? Is he saying that state schools, which we always understood to be non-sectarian, are Protestant schools?
Mr. Beggs: I accept the hon. Gentleman's helpful intervention. It is easy to be wise after the event. The assurances given when those transfers took place were not honoured. It is therefore appropriate to invite the Minister to establish a similar council for the transferor representatives of the main Protestant churches.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the then Stormont Government refused to increase the grant to the Protestant schools and said, "Hand the schools over to us and we will guarantee your rights as transferor"? Immediately that happened, the money increased. If the hon. Gentleman were as old as I am, he would remember the fight about 65 per cent. grants and the battle that took place between the Protestant Churches which were deceived by the Stormont Administration and the Roman Catholic Church.
Mr. Beggs: I will take the hon. Gentleman's comments as read and on the record.
Mr. Alton: I am sorry to intervene once again—
Mr. Beggs: I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman would let me finish my speech because others want to make their points.
There is so much in the order that one would like time to deal with. It would have made a proper Bill and we could have discussed the issues thoroughly in Committee. We must endeavour to prevent an abuse of power by the Department of Education and to ensure that public confidence is maintained. To that end, an independent ombudsman should be appointed in Northern Ireland to deal with specific education matters.
We hold our teachers in high esteem. We congratulate them on the achievements of primary guidelines, the 11 to

1111
16 initiative and the introduction of GCSE. I am confident that, despite this enforced legislation, which deserves more thorough discussion, teachers in all sectors of education in Northern Ireland, including further education, will successfully cope with change, provided that the Government provide the necessary financial resources, adequate staffing levels and opportunities for in-service training, and take the necessary steps urgently to improve morale and halt the drift of highly qualified, experienced teachers who are leaving the education service because of the pressures under which they are expected to work in schools and colleges.
11.54 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland is under a great shadow tonight. Two gallant members of the Army were murdered this afternoon, with another seriously injured. Those who did those acts evidently escaped over the border to the Irish Republic. We meet under that shadow. It runs deep into the hearts of the Ulster people. I want to express our sincerest sympathy to the families and the assurance of our prayers at Christmas time. They have received terrible tidings that will go down into the depths of their hearts.
Before I come to my main points, I wish to protest about the procedure tonight. We are at a great disadvantage. This is a massive Order in Council. Hit were a Bill, I do not know how long it would take to go through this House and its Committee stages, yet we have to discuss it in three hours. I do not blame the Minister—he gave way quite often—and I do not blame the Opposition spokesman, but at the end of the day, and because in courtesy we must allow time for the Front-Bench spokesmen to reply, we are left with only one and a half hours to debate the order. That makes it not a properly brought about law, but rule by decree. That is the measure of how the procedure has deteriorated.
The Minister and others have said that we might have had only an hour and a half in total. I know that, but must tell the Minister that three hours is just crumbs from the rich man's table. To be told that we are lucky to have three hours rather than an hour and a half is like the dog licking the sores after he gets the crumbs. That is how we feel about this procedure tonight. The Government should have provided at least a full day's debate on this Order in Council.
We are asked, "Why do not the leaders of the Unionist parties and the SDLP get together?" We did, and we made a request for further time to debate this matter. What happened? The Government said, "Oh no, you are not getting any further time." What is the use of the Government preaching that we should get together when, on the simple matter of giving Government time to deal with an order that the Minister admits is comprehensive and drastic and turns around education in Northern Ireland, we are denied further time and asked to consider it in these circumstances? The anomaly is that, if it were a Bill about education in England, Wales or Scotland, I could move an amendment; for Northern Ireland, however, I cannot move an amendment. All that we can do is to vote against the motion, and I shall exercise my right to vote against it. It is the only way to register my protest at the way that this matter has been arranged.
I know that the Minister will say that there was time to consult. Democracy is not built on consultation and the
1112
Government deciding what the consensus is. The Government have the right to consult the people concerned, but the meaning of democracy is having a proper debate in the parliamentary forum, where the legislation can be examined line by line, arguments can be advanced, and the Minister must reply. The reply may not convince those who oppose him, but at least he has to attempt to justify the legislation.
We could not read this Order in Council in one and a half hours. We could not intelligently digest it in one and a half hours. Yet that is the impossible test for us. What an uproar there would be if this was offered as an Order in Council for England or Wales. What an uproar there would be if it were to be passed as we are being asked to pass this Order in Council. The Minister and the Secretary of State could have helped us a great deal if they had said, "Look, we are dealing with the whole of the education system of Northern Ireland, so let us have a full day's debate at least, and let it be open-ended so that all hon. Members can take part."
Many hon. Members from England, Wales and Scotland would have liked to take part in the debate. No doubt their contributions would have been valuable. But. out of respect to Northern Ireland Members, they are giving us what little time there is. That is not helpful, as Northern Ireland happens to be, and I trust will ever continue to be, a part of this United Kingdom.
Mr. Alton: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is there not overwhelming evidence that throughout the House hon. Members want to see the establishment of a Northern Ireland Standing Committee so that issues such as this can be remitted to it for proper discussion? Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that if there is ever to be normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland, these bread-and-butter issues are exactly the sort of thing that should be analysed line by line in Committee before they come to the House to be pushed through in this undemocratic way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is a right which has nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As of right, Northern Ireland should be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. A happier position would be a devolved Administration in Stormont. A happier position would he that those Northern Ireland Members who are affected by such legislation could debate it. That was done in consultation in the Stormont assembly, but we at least had the opportunity to examine Orders in Council line by line.
The time has come for a change. But I do not want a talking shop upstairs with no power. Legislation should be submitted as a Bill, so that amendments could be moved in a proper Committee session, if not on the Floor of the House, at least after a Second Reading on the Floor of the House. That would give Northern Ireland Members real power, and that is what we want.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman understand why the Government introduced the fair employment legislation in the form of a Bill, but introduced this much more important piece of legislation on education reform in the form of an order?
Rev. Paisley: I do not know the answer to that. The Government would probably argue that this is not primary legislation; that it alters certain laws that apply to

1113
Northern Ireland. I do not know. But the Minister can argue his own case. I shall not be an apologist for the Government.
Mr. Lenihan made a long statement in The Irish Times in which he said that education was thoroughly discussed at the Anglo-Irish Conference, and matters relating to opposition from Nationalists to certain Government proposals were discussed and would be further discussed as they were important matters.
The Minister guarded himself carefully and gracefully. He said, "We did not submit this to the southern Government." No. But according to Mr. Lenihan, statements and matters in the order were discussed at an Anglo-Irish Conference. I suppose that the controversial matters were discussed and exchanges made. We will never know, because they are like masonic lodge meetings. They are on the square. We will never know exactly what takes place behind the doors. We shall have to leave the matter there.
However, I would take exception to the Minister pretending—I hope that I do not misjudge him; I do not want to do so—that Dublin had no influence on the matter. Dublin has an influence on all legislation that comes before the House for Northern Ireland through the Anglo-Irish Conference.
The order deals with the general duties of the Department, the curriculum, the admission of children to grant-aided schools, the financing of schools, integrated education and general provisions relating to education in the Province. Its scope is wide-ranging.
It is not right to ask hon. Members to say whether they are for or against integrated education. I sent my children to an integrated school. They sat side by side with Roman Catholics. Education in Northern Ireland should be non-sectarian. Northern Ireland's state schools are not Protestant schools. The education system should be non-denominational. Denominational ministers should have the right to instruct children in state schools according to the tenets of their faith.
That is impossible in Northern Ireland, for the simple reason that the Stormont Government built up the grant system for Roman Catholic schools, not for Protestant schools. Dr. William Corkey has written up the story of the battle for grants, and it is available in the Library.
When I was in Los Angeles, I met about 100 pressmen. I asked them, "How much money does the Government here give to Roman Catholic schools?- They said, "Not a penny." I asked, "Do they pay teachers' salaries?" They said, "Not a penny." Then I asked whether the Government paid their pensions. The reply was, "Not a penny", so I pointed out to them that they had said that, during 50 or 60 years of Stormont misrule, Roman Catholics had been very badly treated.
Roman Catholic Church schools were liberally treated by the Stormont Government. Their representatives should acknowledge that fact. We cannot now say to the Roman Catholic Church, "We're going to take away all your grants." It is impossible to create a non-sectarian, non-denominational system of education for Northern Ireland. It is developing into three systems.
The tragedy, however, is that the Government have not allowed every system to take its chance. They have made special provision for integrated schools. What about state
1114
schools that have been integrated for a long time? What about schools that have always opened their doors to those on both sides of the ecumenical divide? One state school in Londonderry that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) knows very well, in an area where there has been severe bombing, has been integrated almost from the beginning. Both Protestants and Catholics attend that school. However, it will not enjoy the same financial advantages as an integrated school will enjoy. It is not fair that those who have worked hard should be treated in this way.
Everybody knows about my opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, but it has worked hard and increased the number of Roman Catholic schools. Why should they be discriminated against? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) may smile, but Roman Catholics have come to me and said, "We are being discriminated against." The bishops have threatened to take the Minister to court. The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. Members of his own Church in Northern Ireland are not happy about the proposals in the order. I am not their spokesman, but that needs to be said.
Mr. Alton: An interesting coalition appears to be developing between the hon. Gentleman and Cardinal O'Fiaich. I do not support the idea of sectarian education. The hon. Gentleman should look at what happened in the diocese of Chelmsford last week, when an Anglican school and a Roman Catholic school amalgamated to become a Christian school. Christians decided to work together to provide non-sectarian education in which Christian values could be maintained. I hope he will consider that as a comparable model for Northern Ireland.
Rev. Paisley: In Northern Ireland we have three systems. Independent Christian schools are not included in any grant scheme. They get absolutely nothing from the Government.
I am asking that all the systems should stand equally in the market and be treated in the same way. But they are not being treated equally. I shall illustrate that point. Hazelwood school, which I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) knows well, had to close down. It was immediately turned into an integrated school and money was poured into it. Although the attendance at that school has not improved, I understand that it was closed because of falling pupil attendance. That is not right, because the state sector suffered to the advantage of the integrated sector. I agree with the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), that we should look at the results of integrated education.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioned Lagan college. I am sure that he would hope that Lagan college would keep within the law. Is he aware that that building was built without planning permission and defied the planners? Is he aware that there had to be an enforcement order against it'? Is he aware that only influence in the Department prevented them from being taken to court while other people who put up a sign saying, "Belfast says No" were taken to court'? Those are the facts. The hon. Gentleman should go to Castlereagh council planners and find out exactly what happened in respect of Lagan college. Are those the ethics that they plan to teach their young people? Example is stronger than precept, so they should set the right example.

1115
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to a coalition. I am opposed to abortion, but that does not mean that I join the Roman Catholic lobby in my opposition to abortion, so let us not talk foolishly about coalitions, but see things in perspective.
I am worried about the emphasis that has been placed on education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage. I am sure that the Minister will understand how 1 feel. He told a certain gathering that part of the work of education for mutual understanding
"would be to de-mythologise some beliefs among children."
Where do they get those beliefs? Are they the beliefs of their parents? It does not matter which side of the argument one supports. There are people who consider that some of my beliefs should be de-mythed, and equally I consider that some of their beliefs should be de-mythed, but who is to decide?
When the Minister says that education for mutual understanding is to de-myth some beliefs among children, I regard that as a very serious statement. I do not like the underhand way in which this matter is being handled. Teachers who were called to a conference in Enniskillen were told to tell no one its purpose. The first steps in this education for mutual understanding came from that conference. No teacher has a right to say to a child, "Do not tell your parent where you are going today."
I strongly protest. I should like the Minister to give me an unequivocal assurance that that will not be his Department's policy and that parents will have the right to say whether their child goes somewhere and say that he will not study a certain book. I should like the Minister to tell us all the beliefs that he thinks need to be de-mythed. He had better start working on that. Proceedings in the House begin every day with a prayer from the Prayer Book. Some things in it are anathema to the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholics would say that that Prayer Book should be de-mythed. Everyone has a right to his beliefs.
I do not believe that education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage will achieve anything. A faceless member of the educational establishment stood up and said, "The older generation of Ulster will never change, but we will change their offspring." That was a reference to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have news for the Minister. An attempt was made recently to involve schoolchildren in a massive rally, but it did not come off because the children did not come. We cannot change children.
Mr. Mallon: What about the demonstration on 15 November?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Those were grown-ups.
Mr. Ron Brown: The hon. Gentleman said that we cannot change children. If he is correct, that means that their view will not differ from his, and of course we respectfully listen to his view. An Edinburgh person called James Connolly went to Ireland and argued in a Marxist way for a Socialist Ireland. Surely his view should be understood in Ireland, North and South. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is anathema to the South, to the green Tories as well as to orange Tories? Does he agree that James Connolly's view is understandable and acceptable?
Rev. Ian Paisley: James Connolly was entitled to believe whatever he believed. I cut my political teeth in the Dock
1116
ward. Lord Fitt was there as well. He was a Connolly man and preached Connolly's Marxism in the streets of the Dock ward. I have been well indoctrinated, and 1 know exactly what Connolly believed. It is not the duty of a teacher to de-myth the beliefs in which a child has been brought up. If we make schools a place where we change children's beliefs, we are on dangerous ground.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has a family. If he has, its members would probably have been brought up to be staunch Socialists. He would not want a Tory teacher to say, "I have come to de-myth your beliefs," and teach the child the wonders of capitalism and all the blessings that flow from it. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to denounce the teacher and all his work.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Following through his argument, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, apart from what teachers may be asked to do, it is wholly anathema for a Conservative Government who talk about parental choice to try to impose this indoctrination on our children?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I thoroughly agree with that comment. I should have thought that no Government in Westminster would take that line. This is a serious matter and it is causing great concern in Northern Ireland. I do not know what will be taught in the Roman Catholic schools. I should like to sit in on their education for mutual understanding and to see the textbooks that they will use. I should like to know what will happen. The Secretary of State made a dangerous speech when he said that the Government would "de-myth" the beliefs of children.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Might de-mything not depend on the approach that is adopted to try alter people's views in the long term? Will there be counter-indoctrination to try to change people's views or will there be questioning, which should be part of education? Will there be questioning of beliefs as well as everything else? In the questioning process, it is possible that different, freely chosen views will start to emerge in the children who are subject to that climate of investigation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman refers to education, but education is a different matter altogether. De-mything beliefs will go to the heart of a child's beliefs. Where do children get their beliefs? They get them from their parents and from the Church in which they are brought up.
Mr. Ron Brown: And from prejudices.
Rev. Ian Paisley: They get them from their parents. It may be that there are prejudices. Some Tories would say that the hon. Gentleman is prejudiced. Where does it end? Let us get the matter straight. I do not know or care whether the House agrees with me: I do not believe that it is the duty of a teacher to de-myth belief. It is the duty of the teacher to say what happened when giving a history lesson and to paint Cromwell, warts and all. The teacher should tell it as it is. Hon. Members may not know that, unfortunately, Irish history was never taught in the schools of Northern Ireland. I never learned Irish history in my curriculum because the state schools never taught Irish history.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is not taught over here either.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I had to read all about it when I was older. All I can say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—and I know his view of the matter—is that a teacher has a responsibility, but it is wrong to put this extra load on the teachers of Northern Ireland. They cannot carry it, and it is not fair to them. The Government have no right to try blatantly to manipulate children who are sent to school. That view must be stated.
Mr. Ron Brown: The hon. Gentleman is not going to manipulate children in church?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, of course I indoctrinate them in church by preaching, but they can say aye or no. The very genius of Protestantism is not authoritarianism, but the right of every man to choose for himself. I can preach to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith the necessity for a new life and a new birth, but he may not accept that. He may say that he does not want anything to do with that new life or that new birth and that he will go his own way. He is entitled to do that. I am not going to get into a preaching session with the hon. Gentleman or we might have a penitent, and dear knows what would happen. He might be lost to the Socialist party eventually.
Education for mutual understanding causes serious doubts. The committee that drew up the curriculum is very unbalanced. I do not see one prominent member of the Protestant community, although I see names of people who are well known for their religious and political views. Why was a man who was well known for his Protestantism, as some of these people are well known for their Roman Catholicism, not chosen as a member of the committee to draw up the proper curriculum? Those are the questions that need to be asked, and I should like the Minister to tell us why that did not happen.
I must now deal with finance—
Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far away from the whole question of religious instruction, let me ask him this. Did he note that the Minister said that the Department's inspectors would examine the quality of religious education, and would he, with his own religious qualifications, care to inquire what theological training the Department's inspectors have?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know anything about the inspectors at the Northern Ireland Office; I do not know what their religion is or what their religious views are. I can only say that I fear that this concept will take us into deep waters, and I do not think that we should embark upon it. If people want to hear what others teach and believe, they have a perfect right to hear it directly from those people's representatives. But it is not right to tell teachers that it is part of their job to de-myth children's beliefs.
The financing of schools will play an important part in the programme. I fear for secondary schools. I fear that grammar schools will be put at a great advantage because they can take in all the pupils that they want to accept but can then exercise a veto. The headmaster can say. "You cannot send your child to this school because it will be detrimental to his educational interests." That is too strong a veto for any headmaster to have, and I do not think that it is right and proper that secondary schools should be put at that disadvantage. I worry about
1118
secondary schools, especially in the areas that the hon. Member for Antrim, East mentioned, because they are in danger.
It has been argued that the financing of schools should be put on a par. But will we bring all the schools up to the same level before introducing level pegging? That is an important matter, and I ask the Minister to enlarge on that theme. Can we have the money to pay for the massive changes that are envisaged? One only gets what one pays for. The time has come for the Minister to tell us whether he is prepared to bring all the schools up to a certain level before he starts handing out the grant because at present some of the schools are disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made an important point when he asked about the schools whose grounds are filled with Portakabins. Will they be given proper capital grant so that they can build proper school rooms, or will they be left as they are? We need to know that, and I trust that the Minister will be able to help us.
We must also consider the whole concept of the curriculum. We know that the Government are postponing for a period their production of the new national curriculum, but the Minister should spell out clearly what the Government propose to do in Northern Ireland.
Article 158 of the draft order is viewed by many as a dictatorial and draconian measure. It seems from article 158 that, despite being obliged to consult, the Department of Education is given wide-ranging powers in regard to the education service in Northern Ireland. We are well used to diktat in Northern Ireland, and it seems that the order will perpetuate that feature of life in the Province.
I have a question about the new Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. The Minister said that education does not come under the Fair Employment Commission, but am I not right to think that boards and their employees come under its remit?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Member is making a good point. Schedule 9 provides that staff employed by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools are subject to the ombudsman and the fair employment legislation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I wanted to clarify that, although education is not covered, those who are employed by boards are.
I think that boards are having powers taken from them. I wonder whether the Minister is moving towards having one board for the whole of Northern Ireland. Having got one Roman Catholic board, is he trying to get one education board for the other schools? Perhaps he would care to tell us whether that is what he has in mind. There is no doubt that boards' powers are being depleted. Many people who want to serve on them, and who have done good service on them, will not want to serve because they will not have the powers they want to exercise to help forward education in Northern Ireland.
I regret that we cannot have a proper debate, move amendments and have a free-for-all. That is not possible, so my colleagues and I will vote against the order.
12.31 am
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak and I shall try to be brief, but we have had two long speeches from members of the Unionist community in the North of

1119
Ireland, so if I require more time than I should like to take to describe a different view, I shall, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take it.
I deeply regret that it is the present Minister with responsibility for education who is bringing this order forward. I have found him prepared to listen to people's views, to get out of the ivory tower and to talk to people. That has been noticeable. I say with the utmost sincerity that I cannot understand why he has not got the message from the entire community which we shall give him tonight. I and my party will vote against the order with the other political parties in the North of Ireland, knowing full well that our opposition is shared by the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, all teacher unions, area boards and the Council for Integrated Education
I want to know who these people are who were able to have such influence on this Minister who, to his credit, travels the North of Ireland and listens to people. Those people will have told him that he is touching a raw nerve. For historical reasons, education is part of the folk memory in the North of Ireland. People of the same religious denominations as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and me were once not allowed to be educated. We are non-conformists in our various ways. We could not have schools and be educated because we were considered dangerous. What did we do? We had something called Hedge schools. That is going back a bit, but it is relevant because it is in the memory of the people in the North of Ireland. That is why their nerves are touched by these proposals. That is why when the Minister started to bring forward these proposals, manyof us said to him, "Tread softly because you are not just treading on dreams; you are treading on the sacrifices that many families made to create and build schools and to send their children to them. You are treading on the deep pride of local communities at having their own spick and span schools and at having a good education system." The people of Ireland have always taken pride in education for the simple reason that in many ways it has been the only alternative to the dole queues in the present and to famine in the past. We asked him to tread softly—
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point which I should like to underscore. Does he equally acknowledge that it was out of our Presbyterian tradition that the Royal Belfast Academical Institution was founded? It was open to everybody and was to the educational benefit of the Minister.
Mr. Mallon: I confirm exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said and that the same position applied to many schools in the North of Ireland which did not draw attention to the fact that they were indulging in what is now called "integrated education". They did not have to do it, but they were making a contribution and the community knew it and responded.
Ironically in a place such as the North of Ireland, where the whole fabric of society is falling down around us, the Government have chosen to change the one thing that was succeeding—the education system. Furthermore, they are changing it fundamentally. It will not be easy because those traditions are in our folk memory and in people's historical dimensions. They are shared by the people of the North of Ireland. Given that the three Northern Ireland
1120
parties in the House are asking the Government to stop, even at this late stage, will not the Minister recognise that fact and respond to it? Has he chosen to tread on all those susceptibilities to cater for the predilections of the few? Who are they? I do not know because we have not been told, but we are entitled to know.
I should like to make many points about the order, but time does not allow it and I shall make only four. First, should like to consider the one most important thing in education, which has not yet been mentioned tonight, and that is the child, the person who is being educated, and who I believe must have some rights in this. 1 am concerned about the rights of the child in relation to the new procedure of testing. I am not opposed to testing. Indeed, as a teacher for 20 years, I used it myself, but there is a difference between diagnostic testing which is helping the teacher and the school to try to gear the child's educational programme, and testing that puts one child against another, one school against another and one position against another. I believe that that is contrary to article 16 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which surely must be noted when it states:
"The education of a child shall be directed to (a) the promotion of the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential".
That principle should underlie everything in relation to testing.
However, I am afraid that we are getting a market mentality about this. I shall not go so far as to say that we are getting Conservative dogma in that market mentality, but I shall quote from the Ulster Teachers Union which best sums up what I want to say. I give the union credit for saying it much better than I could when it stated that this approach
"reflects the economics of the market place which are not appropriate in the field of human endeavour".
That sums up the way many people feel about this testing. I repeat that I am not against testing—indeed, it is essential to the education process—but it must be done for the right reasons. It must be done so that we can learn something from it so that the child's education is improved. It must not be done for the reasons behind these proposals.
This testing is dangerous because it is aimed not at the pupil but at the teacher. Who better to quote as an authority for that than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who, during the debate on the Education Reform Act 1988, said that resistance to testing came not from pupils and parents, but from teachers. It was a fear of quality control. That is as though we were talking about something which was inhuman and wrapped up in a parcel—part of a market mentality which the Ulster Teachers Union was right to identify. George Orwell said something about this long before the right hon. Member for Chingford.
I shall make a point related to testing, about which I feel strongly, and which I tried to make in an earlier intervention. I have taught in more than one secondary school. The following problem has not been faced by the Government, the Department of Education, the church authorities of whichever church—whether Catholic or controlled: a vast number of young people in the North of Ireland are not receiving the vocational skills they need. We are not training them to be good bricklayers, joiners, cabinet makers and plumbers because the Department says that they must study this subjects, that subject and

1121
other subjects. The principal says that they cannot do one subject because we have to compete because if we do not we shall go down the tubes and will not receive more pupils. The management says that the school will not get a good photograph in the local paper for prize-giving day and will not look like a grammar school. What does that matter if we send people out equipped to enter the world and bring their skills and talents to the rest of the community? That is what we should be doing.
The testing procedure is not for the child's benefit or as a diagnostic tool to help the child, but a crude market stick to create competitive forces in a field which, thankfully, has been protected from those forces for more than 40 years. The Minister's reasons are not good, fair, just or workable in the terms stated. I ask him to rethink them.
The other substantive issue to which I wish to draw attention is open enrolment. I shall not have time to expand in detail, but I wish to nail one great lie: open enrolment is not based on parental choice, but is the choice of headmasters of good schools in good areas. That is what open enrolment involves. Grammar schools will increase at the expense of secondary schools, especially those in isolated rural areas and deprived urban areas. Less able pupils will suffer because none of us has had the courage to say, "Let us train people for the lives that they will lead afterwards."
Schools will be categorised. There is a case for rationalisation, but it must be planned and not determined by market forces which are identified in this legislation. The essence of this unfairness is shown by the fact that we have created two types of school: one, called a grammar school, for the academically able pupil; the other, called a secondary school, for the less academically able. Then we say to the pupils that they will be given a common test and curriculum and be expected to compete. Wonder of wonders, the Department, Her Majesty's inspectors and the Ministers will all be surprised when they do not compete. The absolute injustice of this system is that we put two football teams on the pitch that simply cannot compete against each other.
I am proud to quote from the UTU document which states that the system
"shows a cynical disregard for those smaller, less fortunate and less well-resourced schools which have done splendid work over the years, despite the system which is now going to militate against them even more harshly."
In reality, we are talking about school choice, not parental choice, that will be based on the place where the school is built and the type of pupil who goes towards it and not on the merits of the school. There is the inherent and human element of snobbery in the education system. It will not go away, but we do not have to nurture it in this way.
If we have secondary schools and grammar schools with the same curriculum, tests, assessments and scrutiny, let us give them all some chance of competing equally. Let us have co-ordination, not competition. There must be co-ordination of schools that are not equal initially. Without that, there is injustice.
This is not a debate about integrated education. It is a debate about a set of Government proposals that will give a new sector within the education system preferential treatment in terms of capital expenditure and in jumping the queue to obtain additional capital expenditure, and in
1122
my book that is unjust. It is wrong if that advantage is given to a maintained system, a controlled system, an integrated system or any other system. That, however, is Government policy. It is the Government's policy to create that unfairness by providing moneys that other schools will not get. The opting-out provisions will place other schools at a tremendous disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), in a fine speech, talked about lack of funding. Funding will be much more of a problem when the pool is much smaller. Surely that is unjust. I am not discussing integrated education, although I think that there is a place for it. When I spoke at the Northern Ireland Assembly as long ago as 1973, I said, "Let's try it. Let's see what is involved. Let's see what it can contribute. Let's have the courage not to turn it down." I emphasised, however, that it should not have unfair advantage. I said that it should not take money from other schools that might have been waiting 15 years for improvements or extensions. I stressed that such a system should not be placed ahead of other schools that had been waiting a long time for valuable moneys. My view was that we should not be unjust in our efforts to be fair, and that is one of the great contradictions in the Government's proposals.
I believe that parents have the right to seek integrated education and to have their children educated within such a system. That right must be defended by us all. They have no reason to tell us of their objectives, definitions or motivations, but we can guess at them. There are some who say that it will contribute to the alleviation of conflict and the promotion of reconciliation. That view deserves to be respected. It is a commitment which deserves to be respected. There are those who say that it is the answer to the divisions in our society. That, too, is a sincere view which must be respected. It is entirely wrong, but it must be respected and we must let people act upon it.
There are those who argue for integrated education for good, old-fashioned snobbish reasons that are always attached to education. Whatever their reasons, people do not have to explain them to us. If, however, a Department brings forward legislation that will be with us into the next century, it has a duty to present and explain its definitions. It must explain its objectives and their bases. Does this order do it? It does not. The Minister failed abysmally to answer the question in the intervention of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
We have heard many quaint and whimsical approaches by the Minister and others. The Minister should be honest and tell us the basis of the analysis. Why do the Government think that somewhere down the line the result will be the one that they envisage? People in the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the SDLP, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the teachers' unions might agree with the Minister if only they were told the Government's view. There is a case for being honest in relation to that. There must be an overridingly worthy objective to justify the change and it must justify putting us all through the emotional wringer of this legislation.
The Government cannot get away with not answering questions that they do not like. They are dealing with our lives and, more important, the lives of our children and they have a duty to answer. We await those answers and we want no more whimsy or quaintness. The Government should be straight and deal with the matter. I could go on

1123
at great length about that, but I should like to sum up in relation to integration, but not in relation to integrated schools.
It is unfair for schools to be put in a queue for scarce money. It is unfair to maintained schools which get 85 per cent. of their capital costs on foot of exercising parental choice. I am a parent and I contribute to that. It is okay for me to do so because I am exercising my parental choice. I have no quarrel with that, but when other people who exercise parental choice on foot of exactly the same position get a 100 per cent. grant I have reason to say that there is a difference which militates against me. There is not parity of treatment nor the type of approach that would add to the status of what will be. None of us knows what integrated education will become, but unfortunately the whole concept has started and has produced emotion and ambivalence all over the North of Ireland. That is bad.
I am being encouraged to finish and I shall do so. How can we justify allowing opting-out? If a group of parents decide to have an integrated school, how can the Government justify the taking of property on a different basis from that which applies in England and Wales? The trustees have some rights as well. The order says that the Government will consult the trustees in such circumstances. How nice of the Government. They will say, "That which you have owned for 200 years will be taken away from you, but don't worry because we will consult."
Mr. McGrady: The Government will pay in pennies.
Mr. Mallon: That is right and it goes back to the syndrome that I have spoken about. Section 89(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for England and Wales is most specific. It provides that the trustees of Catholic schools in England and Wales are assured that no proposals shall be published under the section for the purposes of making a significant change in the religious character of a school unless the trustees of the school have given their consent in writing to the change in question.
There is no doubt that where there is a change in a grant-maintained integrated school in Northern Ireland its ethos and its religious position will change as defined in the order. Where is the parity in that? When we ask about income support and family credit we are told that there must be parity in every region. No doubt we shall be given whimsy in relation to that, too. Some people will look for a lot more than whimsy. They will make sure that the proposals are subjected to the utmost rigour of examination. Whimsy will not be enough.
I said that I should finish at 5 minutes to I and I shall. I wish to leave the Minister with two quotations, again from a Northern Ireland source. They are both kind to the Minister about his efforts to create understanding within the community in the North of Ireland and about the whole concept of integrated education. They are from an editorial in the Irish News. I put them on record as the view of a paper which, by and large, reflects the Catholic Nationalist position and yet is kind to the Minister. The first is:
"Whatever about the merits of integrated education, there can be no justification for diverting much-needed resources away from disadvantaged schools and pupils to underwrite the choice of a minority … the present Minister seems bent on re-opening old wounds by promoting legislation which flagrantly discriminates in favour of a sector with a specific religious ethos—that of 'integration'."
1124
That must surely sum up the view of the Catholic Nationalist community and is reflected across the whole of the North of Ireland.
Aristotle once said, in what could be described as cynical terms, that education is the best provision for old age. The Government should not make education another item of confrontation in the North of Ireland where there is already far too much confrontation already.
12.56 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I regret that all the hon. Members who wished to speak in the debate have not been able to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to speak about Northern Ireland, particularly as he came here from his sick bed to inflict his opinions on us. We welcome his opinions—we just hope not to get the flu.
The number of issues running through the debate shows the anxiety felt about the Government's proposals in the state, Catholic and integrated sectors of education. The Minister has gone out of his way to listen to people but on occasions it has seemed to be a dialogue of the deaf. He has heard and made changes where appropriate, but none of the changes has been appropriate in the view of any of the Northern Ireland Members who have spoken.
I welcome what the Minister sought to do in the education for mutual understanding and the cultural heritage proposals. I also welcome the provisions that he has made about teaching the Irish language and some of the other provisions that he has made.
The Minister must reply to several profound questions which cause anxiety. The first is about resources. My hon. Friend mentioned the reduction in resources for education. If the changes are to take place easily and properly in schools in Northern Ireland, adequate finance must be provided to back up the great demands that the Government are making.
The Minister made several vague statements at the beginning of his speech giving promises of jam tomorrow. Let us hope that there wil be some jam today. We want jam, not spread thinly, but put into the system in large quantities if the changes are to work. He must also look at the morale of teachers, who are at the front line of education changes. Proper recognition of their status in society must be accorded. Otherwise, the flood of teachers out of education will continue—as has happened in the United Kingdom generally—into other jobs where they receive better financial rewards and greater respect from the general public.
It is not only the financial aspects of the teachers' rewards that must be considered, but the status and administration of the new system. Teachers should have a proper stake in the overall direction of events and a place on organisations such as the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council and the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council and on the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. It should be as of right for teachers to appoint teachers to represent the opinions of teachers on those bodies.
Hon. Members have said a great deal about their fears about the assessment of pupils and schools. There is a real fear that one school might be played against another, and that a school in a middle-class area might do better than one in a deprived area. We need to know more about the

1125
assessment techniques that will be used. We must ensure that schools in deprived areas do not go further and further down in the people's estimation because they are not getting pupils because they are not getting support from the Department because they are not getting the necessary funds to carry out some of the more difficult tasks in some of the more difficult areas. Trouble in the North of Ireland is often in deprived areas where teachers and schools are held in low esteem. That must change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about the problems of open enrolment, which will place in doubt the viability of schools in more remote or deprived areas and has serious implications for planning the allocation of resources and for the periodic necessity to rationalise the provision of education. Open enrolment is of great significance to the integrated schools movement.
Over the years, the Minister has constantly refused to give his definition of what would be reasonable balance and a balanced intake. He was asked again today by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others. The definition in the order is wide open to abuse. It is bound to be the subject of judicial comment and people are bound to seek a judicial review of it. The order provides no guarantee that a school which pretends to be integrated will actually be fully integrated. Supporters of integrated education are horrified at the way in which the order seriously undermines all their work in recent years.
The proponents of integrated education are joined by the Catholic bishops on this issue. They believe that the order permits people who would seek to discredit the integrated schools movement to set up schools, the real purpose of which is the opposite of promoting mutual understanding which the integrated schools movement seeks to promote.
In such circumstances, the Minister's response to the most reasonable suggestions put forward by the Northern Ireland Centre of Integrated Education is most disappointing. The centre suggested departmental monitoring of the status of schools and proposed balanced representation of both traditions on the boards of such schools. Both are sensible recommendations and we should like to hear the Minister say that they will be carried out in full in the regulations on integrated schools which are to be published.
Integrated education has raised a further issue which the Minister must take extremely seriously and which has been raised by the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Newry and Armagh and for Wigan. The Labour party is convinced that an essential element in ending the conflict in Northern Ireland is to ensure complete equality of treatment for the two major traditions. The order fails to do that.
Rightly, the order provides for 100 per cent. financing for integrated schools. We accept and welcome that. We urged that on the Minister when the discussions were first opened. We fully support that initiative. However, we fail to see why the order should institutionalise discrimination against the Catholic school system in such a way that the 85 per cent. limit on finance remains intact. That is a serious defect and the Government should rectify it as soon as possible. If they cannot do so immediately they
1126
should set a target of time during which they will remedy that to make it 100 per cent. If the position deteriorates, the bishops will take the Ministry to court under the terms of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That would be detrimental to the Government's credibility, to the credibility of the education system and to the commitment to establish equality between the two traditions, to which the Government have given their endorsement explicitly in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and on several occasions before and since the Act.
This is an important order, and hon. Members have said that it should have been discussed in a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland. It is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. All their representatives, from every opinion in the Unionists, the SDLP and the Democratic Unionists, are opposed to the order, to its contents, to the manner in which it has been introduced and to the Government's failure to meet legitimate concerns. The degree of unity that the Government have managed to achieve among so many disparate Northern Ireland Members holds out great hope for the future of Northern Ireland. They all agree that they dislike the Tory Government's proposals and the English ideas being imposed on Irish people in the North of Ireland.
We shall accept the invitation of our hon. Friends in the SDLP and of other Northern Ireland Members to reject the order.
1.5 am
Dr. Mawhinney: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) to our debates. I did not agree with everything that he said, although I admired the vigour with which he said it, especially as I am suffering as he is this evening.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and both Labour party spokesmen spoke of the advantage of devolved structures. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that it would be a happier arrangement. I agree with him and I hope that we shall soon move to that happier arrangement. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to welcome the hon. Gentleman or any other Northern Ireland Member as my successor as Minister with responsibility for education.
The question of resources was raised by both Opposition spokesmen. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Wigan implicitly said that he supported the reforms, but that they would need additional resources. We have already identified £30 million of additional resources especially for this proposal. He will have noted that the education budget for next year has been raised by 10·5 per cent. I hope and expect to be in a position before Christmas to announce how that money will be disbursed. There will be a substantial increase, in addition to the £30 million, set aside specifically to resource the introduction of education reform. I hope that he feels that I have fully met his point.
Mr. Alton rose—
Dr. Mawhinney: I gave way a great deal in my opening speech, and I wish to deal with some of the points raised.
The hon. Member for Wigan also raised a question from the Irish National Teachers Organisation about regulations on rates of teachers' salaries. It is a serious point. Under the 1986 order, statutory responsibility for determining teachers' salaries rests with the Department.

1127
That also includes such matters as promotion allowances and increments. Under the new arrangements, we believe that those matters should become the responsibility of the boards of governors, because they will be legally responsible for the schools. I assure the hon. Gentleman, INTO and other teacher unions in Northern Ireland that, although the order gives us power to make regulations to that effect, we shall not do so until there has been full consultation with the teacher unions. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will not, I hope, think it too damaging if I say that he made a most thoughtful speech. He aired a number of genuine concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, and they are precisely the sort of concerns that we shall seek to address in implementing these reforms. I assure him that we will handle with sensitivity the very issues that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman said that good Ulster schools have always provided a broad and balanced curriculum, and he is right about the good Ulster schools. However, as a former teacher and an expert in education matters, he also knows that too many schools in Northern Ireland have not offered their pupils a broad and balanced curriculum.
For example, the hon. Gentleman knows that secondary schools in Northern Ireland have a higher proportion of girls stopping science at the end of the third form than anywhere else in the Kingdom, and that is not acceptable. Many schools are not doing any technology at all when we are trying to train them for employment of whatever sort in the world into which they will be moving. It is precisely because we are trying to achieve a broad, balanced and coherent curriculum from the age of five through to 16 that we are introducing the curriculum proposals.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the membership of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council and the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council. We formed the judgment that teachers had to be members of those because they were at the chalk face. They were the people who were best equipped to be involved in those organisations. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that at least 50 per cent. of the membership of those two organisations are teachers, and that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted. They are there because they have experience and expertise in their own right and are recognised as having such by their peers, which is more important than being so recognised by someone such as me.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East said that removing the 27:73 arrangements would affect rationalisation. The hon. Member for Antrim, North pointed out that we have always had rationalisation in Northern Ireland. Schools have been closed over many years as pupil numbers have fallen and people have moved to different parts of the Province. Rationalisation will continue to take place as now, affected by parental choice, although perhaps more so in future.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he was seeking on isolated rural schools. I have already entered into arrangements with the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in identifying a number of isolated rural schools which each of them believes should, if possible, have an assured future, subject to parental choice. We shall do that by ensuring
1128
that the curriculum made available in those schools is sufficient for the children there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
I am not in the business of trying to indoctrinate young people, and neither are the Government, in terms of education for mutual understanding. That is precisely what it says—mutual understanding. I am not seeking to change people's beliefs. I am not seeking to infringe people's consciences. I am happy to give the hon. Member for Antrim, North that assurance. I am sure that he will join with every other hon. Member in affirming that it is important that our young people should have as balanced an understanding of the community in which they live as possible. That may expose them to the fact that there are beliefs other than those that they hold. But it is in no sense an attempt to cause them to change those beliefs, much less to force them to change those beliefs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Mawhinney: No, I have only two minutes left.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Newry arid Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that we look positively at assessment. We shall be following the line taken in England and Wales. We have said many times that we are not seeking to erect hurdles over which children will have to jump who will be disadvantaged if they cannot do so. Rather we are seeking to encourage them fully to achieve their potential, and I hope that at least on that point we are in agreement.
Enrolment will be a matter of choice for parents. Schools will not be in a position to make selection unless they are oversubscribed. That is a crucial point. Children will be able to go to schools chosen by their parents. [Interruption.] That has always been the case.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also referred to integrated education. It is available because parents have said that they want that option to be open to them. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, he may say that that is whimsy, but it happens to be the answer to his question. It is not discriminatory. The capital provision for integrated schools will be the same as for controlled schools. If maintained schools wish to change the structure of their governing boards, they too will qualify for the 100 per cent. capital grant.
I commend the order. It will have the effect that the Government intend. It will raise education standards in our schools. It will increase parental choice and involvement in the education of their children. We owe it to the children of Northern Ireland. I have every confidence that the order will achieve those objectives.
It being three hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [8 December].
The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 18.

Division No. 19]

[1.15 am

AYES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alton, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Bottomley, Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Burns, Simon

1129

Burt, Alistair

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Miller, Sir Hal

Carrington, Matthew

Mills, Iain

Chapman, Sydney

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Chope, Christopher

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Moss, Malcolm

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Cran, James

Neubert, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Nicholls, Patrick

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Dorrell, Stephen

Paice, James

Dover, Den

Porter, David (Waveney)

Durant, Tony

Redwood, John

Fallon, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Forman, Nigel

Sackville, Hon Tom

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gill, Christopher

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Goodlad, Alastair

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Harris, David

Speed, Keith

Hind, Kenneth

Stern, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Summerson, Hugo

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hunter, Andrew

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Jack, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Knapman, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Lawrence, Ivan

Wells, Bowen

Lightbown, David

Wheeler, John

Lord, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Maclean, David

Wood, Timothy

McLoughlin, Patrick

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mans, Keith

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Maude, Hon Francis

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Beggs, Roy

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Dixon, Don

Stott, Roger

Flannery, Martin

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

McNamara, Kevin

Wilson, Brian

Mallon, Seamus

Meale, Alan

Tellers for the Noes:

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Mr. William Ross and

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. Eddie McGrady.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  MEDICAL PROFESSION
  That the draft Human Organ Transplants (Unrelated Persons) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 15th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Question agreed to.

County Down Fishermen
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
1.26 am
Mr. John D. Taylor: Last week, when the decision was made to have an Adjournment debate on the fishing industry in County Down in Northern Ireland, I was overjoyed because there has been a problem for our fishermen in Portavogie, Kilkeel—I am glad to see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) here—and Ardglass. Little did I know that by this time tonight I would have the flu. My temperature is somewhat high, so the level of debate will be somewhat low. I want to make it clear that this is only an opening shot. The fishing industry has faced this problem for six or seven years and seems to be going through yet another stage in the ever-developing negotiations between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man.
The fishing industry in Northern Ireland employs about 1,600 people in County Down—about half on the boats and the other half in processing. The largest section of the industry is involved in the fishing of nephrops, especially in Portavogie. Just as every fifth child born in the world is Chinese—so if one has five babies, it is likely that the fifth is Chinese—if one has a prawn cocktail in London, one in every four of the prawns will be from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland produces 25 per cent. of United Kingdom prawns.
The nephrops and other fish that come into the County Down ports are caught either in the north Irish sea or in the Manx fisheries. Some 70 per cent. of the value of the catch in Portavogie, which has almost 70 boats, comes from waters three to 12 miles around the Isle of Man. That fishing limit is the subject of this debate. If Northern Irish fishermen lost their ability to fish there, dramatic damage would be caused to the economies of Kilkeel, Ardglass, Portavogie and the south and east coast of County Down, where there are no alternative sources of employment.
The matter first became controversial in 1983 when the Isle of Man Government appointed a commission to prepare a report. On page 10, the report recommended:
"The future of a successful fishing industry in the Island will depend upon the Island Government having sole control of the fisheries within the territorial sea around the Island."
It meant, of course, within the 12-mile limit around the island. On page 12, the report made one of the most controversial of the many proposals. It said:
"Manx vessels should receive priority in licence allocation."
Licence allocations would be made by the Isle of Man Government and they would discriminate in favour of Manx fishing boats and against those from Northern Ireland.
That prompted what must be a rare event in this House. Two Adjournment debates on the same subject took place in the same week. The first was on 29 November 1983 and the second was on 1 December 1983. In the first, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department stated:
"Their immediate concern is to strengthen the measures of fish stock conservation which currently apply there."
That was the reason given by the Manx authorities, according to the Under-Secretary. All they were concerned about was to improve conservation. He went on to say that the Isle of Man Government hit

1131
"on the rawest of nerves"
and that there would be
"an element of discrimination to favour Manx fishing vessels."—[Official Report, 29 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 861.]
In the subsequent Adjournment debate two days later, the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, asked
"what consideration the Manx authorities have offered Her Majesty's Government in return for any agreement to extend the Manx fishery control limits in the way suggested?"— [Official Report, 1 December 1983; Vol. 49, c. 1099.]
He meant the extension from three to 12 miles. There was, of course, no reply to that question.
We begin to see that there was some form of cover-up. We find the Manx authorities saying that they want control of the fishing limits so that they can give priority to their fishing fleets against the interests of Northern Irish fishermen—and incidentally those of the fishermen from the west coast of England and Scotland. Alternatively, when challenged, they say that it is not to do that, but to improve conservation. We must ask tonight in what way the level of conservation that is applied to these waters by the United Kingdom authorities is inadequate. If it is not inadequate, there is no need for the question to arise as to whether it would be wise to transfer these matters to the Manx Government.
After that, there was a gap of about four years in which nothing happened, and the matter seemed to have come to a standstill. There was relief throughout Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in England until in 1987 the Government presented a Bill, now the Territorial Sea Act 1987. Section 4 provides
"for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill and includes provision authorising the making of Orders in Council extending the provisions of the Bill to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man subject to any necessary exceptions, adaptations or modifications".
That means that the fishing limits of the Isle of Man can now be extended by an Order in Council. It is regrettable that yet again in a debate on a Northern Ireland matter we should be talking about Orders in Council. That Order in Council has never been presented to the House, but we now have reason to believe that behind our backs preparations are being made suddenly to present such an order to the House.
In the debate on 14 May 1987, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave this guarantee to the House in his opening speech:
"I assure the House that I remain determined that the arrangements for conservation and management of fisheries in those waters should not, in any way, be to the detriment of the fishermen in the United Kingdom, and I include Northern Ireland in that."—[Official Report, 14 May 1987; Vol. 133, c. 442.]
That was a very firm assurance, and we wish to hear it repeated tonight.
After that the subject once again became quiescent. Fishermen in Scotland and on the English and County Down coasts settled down. There was no concern until this year, when on 10 October, the Isle of Man Examiner, the local newspaper in Douglas, ran a story headed
"Island finally gets 12-mile fish limit".
It went on to quote none other than the chief Minister, Mr. Miles Walker, who said that there would soon be an Order in Council. He said:
"We have every reason to believe that the United Kingdom will make the Order in Council to extend the limit to 12 miles" before Christmas.
1132
That prompted me to table a question to the MinisiTy of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the 12 mile limit around the Isle of Man. The reply came:
"The 1987 Territorial Sea Act made provision for a 12-mile territorial sea for the Isle of Man. Fisheries and other Departments have been in discussion with the Isle of Man as to how this should be put into effect.
About 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland fishing industry's take is caught within 12 miles of the Isle of Man."
As I said, fishermen's organisations in Northern Ireland would strongly dispute that figure. The reply continued:
"As well as ensuring the United Kingdom's responsibilities in relation to the implementation of the common fisheries policy were fully met, any arrangement made would clearly have to safeguard the interests and traditional rights of all fishermen within 12 miles of the Isle of Man."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 331.]
That seemed somewhat reassuring—until a few days later, on 22 November 1989, the Isle of Man Government began sending out to fishermen a letter from their Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 1 have a copy, although I shall leave out the name of the fisherman who received it. It is headed:
"Permit to Fish within Manx Territorial Waters."
It says that his permit
"will no longer be in force after 31st December 1989. After this date, you will NOT be authorised to fish in the sea for sea fish within the territorial waters of the Isle of Man. The Department will consider duly completed applications for authorisation after this date."
The letter's publicity in the press in the Isle of Man created tremendous alarm among the fishing fleets, so I tabled a second parliamentary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, asking him
"what fishing limits around the Isle of Man have been agreed for the period commencing 1 January 1990."
The reply was:
"The present three mile limit around the Isle of Man will apply on 1 January 1990."—
no change—
"Consideration, including in relation to fishing, on how the provisions for a 12 mile territorial sea around the Isle of man contained in the Territorial Sea Act 1987 might be implemented is in hand."—[Official Report, 4 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 112.]
The subject is therefore being discussed quietly behind the scenes. Although we have an assurance that, in the interim., from 1 January 1990, there will still be a three-mile fishing limit around the Isle of Man, we now have confirmation black and white that shortly a 12-mile territorial sea around the Isle of Man will be agreed with the Manx authorities.
It is important that the fears of fishermen in the ports I have mentioned are allayed as quickly as possible. We must know something about the state of these talks. What progress has been made? We must know what the time scale is and have presented to fishermen a draft of the order for their consideration and discussion before it is presented to the House as an Order in Council and pushed through, as so many are, without our having a chance to amend it.
This is a matter of great importance to us, whether we be Catholic or Protestant, Unionist or Nationalist. It affects fishermen throughout County Down, in Cumbria and the south-west coast of Scotland. Our task is to restore their confidence and to give them a guarantee that they will see a document that will ensure their historic rights within the three to 12-mile limit before any order is presented to the House for debate.
1.41 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I sympathise and commiserate with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on managing to conduct his Adjournment debate when he is suffering from the ghastly effects of Shaghai 'flu. Perhaps he will extend the same sympathy to me, as I feel that I am coming down with the same bug. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reciprocate my commiserations.
I shall try to make clear what is happening. The matter which the right hon. Gentleman has raised is of great concern. As my colleagues have said in several parliamentary answers recently, Parliament passed the Territorial Sea Act in 1987 which extended the breadth of territorial waters adjacent to the United Kingdom from three to 12 miles. The provision to do the same for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands was not implemented immediately.
Implementation is not a simple matter because it may involve transferring jurisdiction over rights on the exploitation of the sea bed or of other marine resources and the ability to try criminal acts within 12 miles of the shore. Implementation has therefore been the subject of discussion between the Isle of Man, the Home Office and Government Departments with an interest in, for example, oil, coal and mineral extraction. We have also discussed fisheries. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that fisheries are a special issue. We are dealing basically with a hunting industry catching migrating natural resources. We are dealing with important traditional rights in fishing grounds from which some United Kingdom communities, including those in County Down, take some or all of their catches. We are dealing with obligations to Irish, French and Belgian fishermen who have traditionally fished these waters as well. We are also dealing with ensuring that any measures are compatible with the common fisheries policy —with all our Community obligations, the need to manage fisheries and the need to manage them in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Officials have therefore explored whether, if the territorial sea is extended to 12 miles around the Isle of Man, the essential features I have just outlined can be safeguarded. There has been no secrecy, no conspiracy and no cover-up. So far officials have been exploring the possibilities, and Ministers have yet to take decisions.
Let me also be clear that we are fully cognisant of the importance of the fishery to all our fishermen. In Northern Ireland, fisheries within 12 miles of the Isle of Man represent up to 15 per cent. of the value of landings in Northern Ireland. The important fisheries are nephrops worth £600,000; cod and whiting, each worth £360,000; and herring worth about £235,000. In any one trip, about half the 150 boats involved will go within 12 miles of the Isle of Man.
In Scotland, the catches of scallops and queens are worth just under £1·5 million, with a further £500,000 earned by herring, whiting and nephrops. This fishery is very important to about 45 boats, and to Kirkcudbright, where the fish and scallop processor is a major local employer.
For Wales, the dogfish catch of about £150,000 and scallops of more than £30,000 are important; and for fishermen landing in England, more than £300,000 worth
1134
of fish are caught around the Isle of Man, with the autumn fishery for dogfish and the spring fishery for cod being particularly important.
Looking to the wider international scene, Belgian, Irish and French fishermen have rights to the demersal fisheries around the 12 miles. We are therefore conscious of the value of fishing to many communities whose fishermen go within 12 miles of the Isle of Man. I stress that we recognise the importance of ensuring that such fishing rights continue.
The sorts of measure which would be necessary would be ones which met our fundamental objectives. These are: first, traditional fishing rights of all United Kingdom fishermen would have to be safeguarded. We are only too conscious of the value of landings from catches around the Isle of Man, as I have already outlined to the House. Our second fundamental objective is that the agreed fishing rights of French, Belgian and Irish boats, encapsulated in the London convention of 1964, would also need to be safeguarded. Thirdly, any laws passed by the Isle of Man would have to be compatible with maintaining fishing rights, and compatible with EC and international law. I do not know how to stress that more strongly or more forcefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a vital point. To meet such concerns, any fisheries law passed by the Isle of Man would have to be ratified by the United Kingdom Government. Thus, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing.
So what would be the point of such a law? I shall digress to cover a constitutional point. As the House is probably aware, the Isle of Man is a dependency of the Crown and has its own legislature, judiciary and system of government. However, its legislation must receive Royal Assent from the Queen in Council. Its Tynwald is probably the oldest legislature in continuous session in the world. The United Kingdom Government are, nevertheless, responsible for defence and foreign affairs and have ultimate responsibility for the good government of the Isle of Man. The inclusion of fisheries in its extension of the territorial sea would enable the Isle of Man laws to mirror United Kingdom laws, as it has already done in respect of drug trafficking, serious fraud and other international matters. That would enable infringements of United Kingdom fisheries laws to be tried in Isle of Man courts, thus avoiding the need to have boats found offending necessarily having to be returned to the United Kingdom mainland to be tried for offences.
Mr. John D. Taylor: If such an event took place and a court hearing was held in which a United Kingdom skipper was involved, would he be restricted to employing an Isle of Man legal representative?
Mr. Maclean: That is not something that I can answer off the cuff. I suspect not, but I shall happily write back to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman has the exact legal opinion on that.
There is nothing sinister about this proposal. It has also been suggested that there will be new so-called conservation measures which will outlaw Northern Irish and other fishing boats. I stress as strongly as possible that this is not so. At present, there are no discussions about new conservation measures. The discussions are only about the feasibility of including fisheries in an extension of the territorial sea. If there were to be proposals on

1135
conservation, they would, as my predecessors promised as far back as 1983, require discussions with all interested or potentially affected parties. Even if we found a way to include fisheries in the 12-mile extension, this position would not change. We would still require the safeguard of ratifying any Isle of Man law on conservation measures before it could have effect, and we would require such consultations.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: In view of the grave concern which has been so eloquently expressed, will the Minister state what time scale he envisages for the conclusion of the discussions and for a statutory reassurance to be given to the fishing people we represent?
Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I can deal with that point later. I do not have a particular time phase in mind. I do not think that negotiations must be concluded within a certain period. We want to ensure that things are absolutely right, no matter how long it takes.
The right hon. Member for Strangford quoted from an Isle of Man paper. It is purely coincidental that the discussions on a 12-mile extension were featured in the Isle of Man press some three months before three-year licences given by the Isle of Man to fishermen working within the existing three-mile territorial sea came up for renewal. These permits are renewed regularly. They relate only to the three-mile limit and do not extend to the 12-mile proposal. They are issued on a non-discriminatory basis without preference for Manx fishermen.
1136
The United Kingdom and the Isle of Man already work closely together on fisheries management matters. The Irish sea herring fishery is already jointly managed by the United Kingdom Fisheries Departments and the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man participates in the management of the Irish sea fisheries as a member along with several representative fishing organisations on the area VII advisory committee. There is clearly already a good working relationship so that the many and complex issues of fisheries jurisdiction and management are well understood between us.
I give the assurance that the Government have no intention of abdicating their responsibilities for fishermen who have access rights in the area of possible extension. It is understood by the Isle of Man that territorial jurisdiction does not override legal and treaty obligations. The United Kingdom has responsibility for international relations off the Isle of Man and it has a duty to ensure that treaties and commitments are honoured. That is fully accepted by the Isle of Man. Traditional rights and Community and international obligations must he fully safeguarded. It is with these clear objectives in mind that Fisheries Ministers are examining the possibilities, and I can give the assurance that the House will be told as soon as we have reached our conclusions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Malaysian Government concerning the introduction of public whipping for those who have changed from Islam to other faiths.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are aware that certain Malaysian states, not the federal Government, have introduced laws providing for the whipping of apostates. We know of no cases to date of such whipping being carried out. We have, nonetheless, registered our concern with the Malaysian authorities.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Malaysian Government concerning the censoring of the Bible, and the banning of other Christian literature.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are aware that some Malaysian states, not the federal Government, have introduced laws for the "Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions" forbidding the use of several religious words and phrases in the Malay language by non-Muslims. We understand that this has led to difficulties in the production and distribution of Bibles published in Malay. We have registered our concern with the Malaysian authorities.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether in considering his support for the application by Cameroon for membership of the Commonwealth he will take into account the human rights record of Cameroon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following Cameroon's application, the question of membership of the Commonwealth was referred to a group of 10 Heads of Government appointed in Kuala Lumpur and of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a member. The group will report to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1991. We welcome the increasing prominence given to the observance of human rights in the Kuala Lumpur communique.

  High Technology Equipment
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make it his policy to answer questions on the export of high-technology equipment that could be used for military purposes.

  Mr. Maude
  Our policy in answering such questions remains unchanged.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many abandoned British bases there are in Antarctica; and what steps have been taken to retrieve the waste generated there.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Twelve British bases were abandoned over the period 1946–75. The United Kingdom is urgently developing a strategy to implement the recommendation on waste disposal following the XV Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Paris in October 1989. We shall start to implement this new policy and, in particular, prepare a timetable for waste disposal in 1990.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many operating British bases there are in Antarctica.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are five—Bird Island, Signy, Rothera, Faraday and Hailey.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and in the current financial year to date; and how many of these were(a) automatically renewed and (b) open to competition by advertisement throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number of contracts awarded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and covered by the provisions of the European Community supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000, was 13 in the 1988–89 financial year and seven in the current financial year, to date. Of these, three were awarded following advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Community. The other 17 were let following the use of the "negotiated" procedure laid down by the directive. In these cases there was either only one possible supplier or the contracts were for additional goods that had to be purchased from the original suppliers for technical reasons.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by the Department of Trade and Industry in their inquiries under the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not currently employ any outside accountancy firms.

  Tibet
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a representative of Her Majesty's Government was last in Lhasa; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to monitor the human rights situation in Tibet.

  Mr. Maude
  A member of the British embassy in Peking visited Lhasa from 27 to 30 October. The imposition of
  641
  martial law in Lhasa has reduced the flow of information, but we use all available channels to follow closely developments in Tibet.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations Her Majesty's Government have made to China over its human rights violation in Tibet.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 November to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters have been sent out by his Department in the last 12 months to foreign Governments indicating dissatisfaction with their human rights record; and if he will list the Governments concerned.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We condemn human rights abuses wherever they occur. We have in the last 12 months made many representations, both orally and in writing, bilaterally, with our European Community partners and in international fora, to bring our concerns on human rights to the attention of many countries. The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the operation of the Broadcasting Act in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have recently received representations from the hon. Member and others about questions of taste and decency raised by one programme. The Government do not have powers to intervene in the content of programmes.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the rules concerning circumstances in which pensioners have reduced cost television licences, so as to provide that everyone on a basic state pension and no other income can obtain a reduced price colour television licence.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Immigration
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were refused leave of entrance to the United Kingdom at seaports or airports in 1989 from(a) the Soviet Union, (b) the Democratic Republic of Germany, (c) Poland, (d) Romania, (e) Bulgaria, (f) Hungary, (g) Czechoslovakia, (h) Libya, (i) India, (j) Pakistan, (k) Bangladesh, (l) South Africa and (m) Hong Kong.

  Establishment

  Population1

  Certified normal accommodation2

  Percentage overcrowding

  Kirklevington

  13

  0

  —

  Campsfield House

  59

  68

  -13

  Haslar

  70

  95

  -26

  642
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information is given in the table:

  Passengers refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom—January to September 1989

  Nationality

  Number

  USSR

  41

  German Democratic Republic

  4

  Poland

  107

  Romania

  13

  Bulgaria

  13

  Hungary

  20

  Czechoslovakia

  16

  Libya

  21

  India

  350

  Pakistan

  256

  Bangladesh

  325

  South Africa

  306

  BDTC Hong Kong

  127

  Drugs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards requests for the legalislation of soft drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government have no intention of legalising any drugs presently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I am glad to see that this view was shared by the Home Affairs Committee in its report "Drug trafficking and related serious crime" (HC 370).

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly food cost allowance for inmates in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  The quantity of food for inmates is determined not by reference to cash budgets but to dietary scales designed to meet agreed nutritional requirements. Ingredients are supplied primarily from centrally negotiated contracts and from prison farms and gardens. The notional cost per inmate per week totalled £6·30 in the quarter ended 30 September 1989.

  Prison Capacity
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the prisons in the United Kingdom in order of the number of prisoners they currently hold, stating the numbers they are built to hold and the percentage overcrowding.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the table in respect of prison service establishments in England and Wales. Responsibility for prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland rests with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.
  643

  Establishment

  Population1

  Certified normal accommodation2

  Percentage overcrowding

  Werrington

  78

  110

  -29

  East Sutton Park

  83

  84

  -1

  Blantyre House

  86

  87

  -1

  Downview

  88

  91

  -3

  Eastwood Park

  92

  134

  -31

  New Hall

  92

  120

  -23

  Finnamore Wood

  94

  116

  -19

  Send

  101

  101

  0

  Guys Marsh

  104

  180

  -42

  Askham Grange

  106

  134

  -21

  Latchmere House

  10

  127

  -13

  North Sea Camp

  110

  202

  -46

  Cookham Wood

  18

  120

  -2

  Aldington

  123

  127

  -3

  Huntercombe

  123

  180

  -32

  Hewell Grange

  127

  136

  -7

  Swinfen Hall

  133

  124

  7

  Whatton

  134

  167

  -20

  Portsmouth (Kingston)

  140

  150

  -7

  Usk (Prescoed)

  145

  238

  -39

  Thorp Arch

  146

  156

  -6

  Bullwood Hall

  147

  126

  17

  Lowdham Grange

  152

  304

  -50

  Morton Hall

  153

  192

  -20

  Pucklechurch

  159

  159

  0

  Hatfield

  167

  180

  -7

  Thorn Cross

  168

  300

  -44

  Northallerton

  172

  127

  35

  Wetherby

  179

  196

  -9

  Ashford

  181

  374

  -52

  Dorchester

  197

  152

  30

  Oxford

  197

  124

  59

  Spring Hill

  210

  210

  0

  Erlestoke

  214

  218

  -2

  Brockhill

  220

  161

  37

  Grendon

  220

  261

  -16

  Northeye

  226

  249

  -9

  Drake Hall

  231

  288

  -20

  Castington

  233

  300

  -22

  Dover

  236

  247

  -4

  Parkhurst

  238

  271

  -12

  Shepton Mallet

  240

  173

  39

  Styal

  241

  258

  -7

  Shrewsbury

  256

  174

  47

  Lancaster

  257

  186

  38

  Low Newton

  263

  185

  42

  Swansea

  269

  229

  18

  Aylesbury

  272

  296

  -8

  Wellingborough

  275

  344

  -20

  Reading

  282

  178

  58

  Coldingley

  296

  303

  -2

  Stocken

  298

  302

  -1

  Gloucester

  304

  200

  52

  Rochester

  306

  374

  -18

  Bedford

  312

  178

  75

  Rudgate

  313

  378

  -17

  Gartree

  315

  320

  -2

  Nottingham

  316

  245

  29

  Haverigg

  323

  337

  -4

  Onley

  339

  352

  -4

  Leicester

  341

  205

  66

  Hollesley Bay

  344

  451

  -24

  Everthorpe

  347

  304

  14

  Mount

  348

  484

  -28

  Canterbury

  352

  230

  53

  Stoke Heath

  361

  360

  0·3

  Exeter

  364

  310

  17

  Risley

  364

  318

  15

  Chelmsford

  367

  242

  52

  Albany

  381

  389

  -2

  Leyhill

  383

  384

  -0·3

  Hindley

  384

  312

  23

  Ranby

  390

  404

  -3

  Frankland

  393

  447

  -12

  Deerbolt

  394

  420

  -6

  Standford Hill

  399

  444

  -10

  644 645

  Establishment

  Population1

  Certified normal accommodation2

  Percentage overcrowding

  Full Sutton

  400

  432

  -7

  Ashwell

  404

  404

  0

  Blundeston

  405

  405

  0

  Long Lartin

  419

  432

  -3

  Acklington

  442

  448

  -1

  Cardiff

  449

  337

  33

  Holloway

  471

  517

  -9

  Preston

  478

  428

  12

  Littlehey

  481

  484

  -1

  Portland

  482

  527

  -9

  Wayland

  484

  484

  0

  Camp Hill

  497

  461

  8

  Garth

  498

  512

  -3

  Swaleside

  501

  504

  -1

  Ford

  504

  536

  -6

  Channings Wood

  533

  538

  -1

  Sudbury

  542

  601

  -10

  Maidstone

  553

  550

  1

  Lewes

  554

  371

  49

  Featherstone

  561

  509

  10

  Kirkham

  578

  632

  -9

  Bristol

  593

  552

  7

  Verne

  595

  600

  -1

  Lincoln

  596

  391

  52

  Dartmoor

  614

  615

  -0·2

  Norwich

  617

  485

  27

  Hull

  649

  402

  61

  Glen Parva

  656

  600

  9

  Winchester

  668

  471

  42

  Wakefield

  722

  756

  -4

  Feltham

  725

  846

  -14

  Wymott

  765

  816

  -6

  Lindholme

  797

  1,001

  -20

  Stafford

  814

  588

  38

  Highpoint

  822

  825

  -0·4

  Pentonville

  916

  641

  43

  Birmingham

  992

  578

  72

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,010

  1,024

  -1

  Durham

  1,030

  729

  41

  Brixton

  1,054

  729

  45

  Leeds

  1,180

  627

  88

  Liverpool

  1,310

  967

  35

  Wandsworth

  1,545

  1,275

  21

  Manchester

  1,575

  997

  58

  1 Population figures are as reported by establishments on Friday 1 December 1989.

  2 Details of Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) relate to the position on 8 October 1989, the latest date for which figures are currently available.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to announce his plans for Gaelic broadcasting; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to respond to Comunn na Gaidhlig's proposal for a Gaelic broadcasting council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Representations for special support for Gaelic broadcasting remain under consideration. We hope to announce our conclusions on this as soon as possible.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available to him as to the date on which Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Melvin is expected to retire from the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None; this is a personal matter for Mr. Melvin.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Part-time Work (EC Directive)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to introduce legislation to incorporate the proposals included in the EC Council directive on part-time work (Com. (81) 775 as amended (Com. (82) 830).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Northern Ireland legislation on part-time work is in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Roads
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, South on 5 December, if he will now carry out, at the earliest possible moment, a traffic census on Killead road, Killead village; and if he will indicate the number of heavy commercial vehicles included in the Ballyrobin road, Killead road and Oldstone road traffic census.
  647
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 December 1989]: Traffic flows between December and March are normally lower than during the rest of the year and may not give a reliable indication. The Department of the Environment does not intend to carry out a traffic census at this location at present.

  When the last classified traffic census was carried out in 1984 the number of heavy commercial vehicles using these roads was as follows:

  Number of heavy commercial vehicles per 16-hour day

  Road

  Number

  Ballyrobin road

  465

  Killead road

  1,105

  Oldstone road

  544

ENERGY

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the Government's estimate for carbon dioxide emissions from energy use in Britain in 1988; and what are the latest estimates for carbon dioxide emissions in(a) 2000 and (b)

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In 1987, the latest year for which I have estimates, United Kingdom energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, expressed as carbon, were 163 million tonnes.

  My Department's study, "An Evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them", estimates emissions in the years 2000 and 2020 for a wide range of scenarios. These figures range between 174 and 206 million tonnes carbon in the year 2000 and between 188 and 316 million tonnes in 2020.

  The scenarios are not predictions of the future, but are intended to provide a framework for assessing possible response options. They cover a wide range of assumptions on economic growth and world fuel prices. Full details can be found in the report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what projections the Government have made of the level of carbon dioxide emissions in Britain by the year 2005 from(a) transport, (b) energy, (c) industry and (d) in total.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Future carbon dioxide emissions will depend on many factors such as economic growth and consumer choices. Last month my Department completed a study entitled "An evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them". That report included a range of possible future emission scenarios and is available in the Library of the House.

  The figures in the table, for energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, are taken from that report. They assume a growth rate of 2·25 per cent. per annum and cover two alternative sets of assumptions on world fuel prices. Further details can be found in the report.
  648

  Scenarios for United Kingdom Energy Related CO2 Emissions in 2005

  Low Price case

  High Price case

  Electricity Supply Industry

  67

  68

  Other Industry

  56

  52

  Transport

  49

  46

  Domestic

  27

  25

  Miscellaneous

  14

  14

  Total

  212

  204

  Notes:

  1. Central Growth Assumption of 2·25 per cent. per annum.

  2. Emissions expressed as million tonnes carbon.

  3. All figures rounded.

  4. Industry includes agriculture.

  5. Transport includes marine bunkers and aviation.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and in the present financial year to date; and how many of these were(a) automatically renewed and (b) advertised and therefore open to competition throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The number of contracts awarded by my Department and covered by the provisions of the EC supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000, was three in the 1988–89 financial year and one in the current financial year to date. Three of the contracts were let, and advertised, in accordance with the EC supplies directive.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library the review of the Energy Efficiency Office which led to the announcement of new objectives on 9 June 1988,Official Report, columns 632–33.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The objectives of the EEO are reviewed regularly. It is not normal practice to publish advice to Ministers.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to set aside funds to deal with stage three decommissioning of nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The nuclear generators will be making provisions in their accounts to deal with the decommissioning of their nuclear power stations.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the amount set aside by the Central Electricity Generating Board to deal with the decommissioning costs of the Magnox reactors in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987, (d) 1988 and (e)

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The annual reports and accounts of the Central Electricity Generating Board show the provisions made to meet expenditure on the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, the long-term reprocessing of
  649
  irradiated nuclear fuel, and the treatment, storage and disposal of the resulting waste products. These reports are available in the Library of the House.

  The amount of provisions for decommissioning costs of the Magnox reactors is a matter for CEGB. I will ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority last reviewed the decommissioning costs of Magnox reactors; and if he will publish their figures.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The UKAEA reviewed the CEGB's estimates of the costs of decommissioning its Magnox reactors in May of this year. A report was submitted to the Department. Figures cannot be published because of the report's commercial confidentiality.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when all large power station plants will be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the reductions in SO2 emissions required by the EC large combustion plant directive are achieved. The CEGB estimates that this will require the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment to 12GW of capacity, equivalent to six large power stations, at a cost of about £2 billion. There is no requirement that all existing large power stations should be fitted with FGD equipment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times currencies in the exchange rate mechanism have been adjusted, giving the dates and the currency and its value before and after in each case.

  Mr. Lilley
  There have been 11 occasions on which exchange rates of currencies in the ERM have been realigned. For the detail I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 6 of "The European Monetary System: Recent Developments", IMF occasional paper number 48, and annex VIII of "The EMS: Ten Years of Progress in European Monetary Co-operation", both of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the arrangements for reviewing the levels of currencies in the exchange rate mechanisms; and when revaluations take place.

  Mr. Lilley
  Reviews are carried out through consultation in the appropriate Community bodies. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 3·2 of the resolution of the European Council of 5 December 1978 on the establishment of the European Monetary System (EMS) and related matters.

  Stamp Duties
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what deliberations have been held on the future of stamp duties in the light of the consultative document issued in 1983.
  650
  Mr. Lilley
  Following the response to the consultative document, numerous changes have been made. Since 1985 we have abolished a number of stamp duties, including capital duty and unit trust instrument duty, and streamlined procedures for those that remain.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to streamline the levying of stamp duty on unit trusts;

  (2) whether he will consider removing stamp duty from unit trust transactions;

  (3) whether he will eliminate stamp duty on the sale and re-purchase of trusts within a unit trust.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the future of stamp duty being levied on unit trusts.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of representations from the unit trust industry suggesting altering the stamp duty charge on unit trusts.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what volume of share transactions attract the minimum rate of stamp duty each year.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret the information is not available.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the documents produced by his Department available to hon. Members on the subject of the effects of ending(a) income tax allowances and (b) personal income tax allowances.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 19891]: A list of the direct revenue costs of tax allowances and reliefs is given in table 21.1.25 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" (Cm. 621); but the figures cannot in general be interpreted as the tax yield from withdrawing a particular allowance or relief, because of the difficulty of estimating the behavioural changes which might result from such a move. The Financial Statement and Budget Report sets out the effects of proposed amendments to the tax system each year; and the Autumn Statement sets out the revenue effects of illustrative tax changes.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish any notes or correspondence involving the Inland Revenue over the tax affairs of British Aerospace.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 19891]: The tax affairs of British Aerospace are subject to the normal confidentiality rules. However, in order to assist understanding of this matter, arrangements have been made exceptionally, with the agreement of British Aerospace, to provide to the Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee copies of the exchange of letters between the accountants of British Aerospace and the Inland Revenue which is referred to in the letter of 12 July 1988 from the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the chairman of British Aerospace.

  Charities
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether value added tax is payable for expenditure by charities (i) on indirect publicity, such as cost of adverts and (ii) on direct publicity, such as cost of envelopes for sending educational or fund raising material to inquirers.

  Mr. Ryder
  Printed media advertising supplied to charities for raising money for their work or for making known their aims and objectives is relieved of value added tax. Zero-rating also applies to envelopes and other stationery items, but only when these are printed with such fund-raising or educational publicity material.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Needs Pupils
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to allocate time in the core curriculum to independence training for special needs pupils and to follow up the programme.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for schools themselves to determine how they deliver independence training and other elements of personal and social education. There is scope to do so within the targets and programmes of study of the core and foundation subjects, or as an independent subject, or as a cross-curricular theme.

  Some pupils with special educational needs (SEN) will have a statement which can modify or disapply the requirements of the national curriculum and so provide an individual curriculum which might include appropriate training for adult life.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios, Leicestershire
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the pupil-teacher ratios in Leicestershire primary schools for the years 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The pupil-teacher ratios within maintained primary schools in Leicestershire were 24 and 22·9 in 1978 and 1988 respectively.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has consultancy contracts with four of the major accountancy firms. All the contracts have been arranged in accordance with the Treasury guidelines for the appointment to audit and other accountancy assignments in the public sector. The Department does not routinely consult the Department of Trade and Industry, but would do so it it were planning to employ a firm whose reputation was not well established.

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the spending per pupil for each local education authority in England and Wales for the latest available financial year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The latest information for local education authorities in England is for 1987–88 and is given in the table. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Net institutional expenditure1 per pupil2

  Cash Terms

  Local Education Authority

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  Barking

  1,155

  1,745

  Barnet

  1,195

  1,7675

  Bexley

  1,030

  1,530

  Brent

  1,305

  2,195

  Bromley

  1,070

  1,645

  Croydon

  1,040

  1,825

  Ealing

  n/a

  n/a

  Enfield

  1,005

  1,580

  Haringey

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  1,070

  1,775

  Havering

  1,005

  1,670

  Hillingdon

  1,075

  1,675

  Hounslow

  1,175

  1,675

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,055

  1,720

  Merton

  1,020

  1,470

  Newham

  1,205

  1,880

  Redbridge

  990

  1,600

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,075

  1,475

  Sutton

  980

  1,420

  Waltham Forest

  1,235

  2,345

  ILEA

  1,585

  2,610

  Birmingham

  940

  1,490

  Coventry

  990

  1,705

  Dudley

  915

  1,570

  Sandwell

  1,055

  1,630

  Solihull

  925

  1,450

  Walsall

  1,080

  1,645

  Wolverhampton

  1,070

  1,575

  Knowsley

  1,050

  1,735

  Liverpool

  1,105

  1,730

  St. Helens

  965

  1,505

  Sefton

  930

  1,460

  Wirral

  920

  1,480

  Bolton

  890

  1,425

  Bury

  1,045

  1,615

  Manchester

  1,095

  1,785

  Oldham

  1,005

  1,395

  Rochdale

  940

  1,650

  Salford

  985

  1,625

  Stockport

  935

  1,500

  Tameside

  995

  1,525

  Trafford

  965

  1,525

  Wigan

  955

  1,675

  Barnsley

  985

  1,470

  Doncaster

  1,045

  1,500

  Rotherham

  1,050

  1,440

  Sheffield

  n/a

  n/a

  Bradford

  1,060

  1,410

  Calderdale

  950

  1,440

  Kirklees

  985

  1,415

  Leeds

  1,030

  1,370

  Wakefield

  1,070

  1,495

  Gateshead

  1,080

  1,560

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,140

  1,725

  North Tyneside

  1,090

  1,660

  South Tyneside

  1,060

  1,585

  Sunderland

  925

  1,505

  Isles of Scilly

  1,540

  2,355

  Avon

  975

  1,435

  Bedfordshire

  1,030

  1,455

  Berkshire

  N/A3

  N/A3

  Buckinghamshire

  970

  1,505

  653

  Local Education Authority

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  Cambridgeshire

  910

  1,315

  Cheshire

  900

  1,390

  Cleveland

  970

  1,545

  Cornwall

  900

  1,345

  Cumbria

  1,060

  1,510

  Derbyshire

  990

  1,530

  Devon

  905

  1,380

  Dorset

  950

  1,320

  Durham

  1,050

  1,405

  East Sussex

  930

  1,385

  Essex

  920

  1,420

  Gloucestershire

  935

  1,385

  Hampshire

  950

  1,405

  Hereford and Worcester

  930

  1,330

  Hertfordshire

  975

  1,490

  Humberside

  995

  1,460

  Isle of Wight

  935

  1,350

  Kent

  855

  1,290

  Lancashire

  890

  1,450

  Leicestershire

  960

  1,565

  Lincolnshire

  900

  1,280

  Norfolk

  955

  1,385

  North Yorkshire

  915

  1,375

  Northamptonshire

  885

  1,375

  Northumberland

  945

  1,390

  Nottinghamshire

  1,020

  1,540

  Oxfordshire

  1,035

  1,560

  Salop

  945

  1,470

  Somerset

  900

  1,355

  Staffordshire

  980

  1,420

  Suffolk

  910

  1,305

  Surrey

  905

  1,415

  Warwickshire

  940

  1,400

  West Sussex

  890

  1,360

  Wiltshire

  940

  1,350

  Notes:

  1 Net Institutional Expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  3 N/A denotes that an expenditure return has not been received from 4 LEAs.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table giving the amounts for England of capital allocations for(a) county and voluntary controlled schools, (b) voluntary aided schools and (c) the total of (a) and (b) for each financial year from and including 1978–79 to 1990–91, expressed in (i) current prices, (ii) constant prices and (iii) an index of (ii) where 1978–79 = 100.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall reply to the hon. Member after the allocations for 1990–91 have been announced in the usual way.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table listing(a) the amounts of capital allocations for county and voluntary controlled schools for 1990–91 for which each local education authority in England has bid and (b) the amounts of capital grant for voluntary aided schools in their area which each local authority has asked of his Departments.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  654

  Total plans for county and VC schools1990–91 (£000s-cash)

  Total plans for VA schools1990–91 (£000s-cash)

  Barking

  1,365

  1,940

  Barnet

  2,690

  835

  Bexley

  4,512

  1,760

  Brent

  5,553

  822

  Bromley

  6,555

  175

  Croydon

  17,153

  1,086

  Ealing

  13,275

  178

  Enfield

  27,207

  1,652

  Haringey

  4,777

  2,760

  Harrow

  2,708

  208

  Havering

  8,275

  357

  Hillingdon

  6,840

  845

  Hounslow

  6,690

  299

  Kingston

  3,929

  317

  Merton

  10,512

  634

  Newham

  16,363

  213

  Redbridge

  5,619

  401

  Richmond

  5,547

  1,545

  Sutton

  13,785

  372

  Waltham

  11,301

  340

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  3,981

  2,688

  Westminster

  5,112

  291

  Greenwich

  7,263

  324

  Hackney

  5,197

  521

  Hammersmith

  2,136

  549

  Islington

  6,991

  123

  Kensington

  7,663

  4,918

  Lambeth

  3,155

  563

  Lewisham

  6,991

  412

  Southwark

  6,408

  1,830

  Wandsworth

  13,508

  101

  Tower Hamlets

  23,870

  771

  Birmingham

  15,068

  1,287

  Coventry

  12,179

  1,129

  Dudley

  4,492

  2,700

  Sandwell

  7,422

  652

  Solihull

  5,498

  1,456

  Walsall

  3,521

  193

  Wolverhampton

  2,669

  0

  Knowsley

  6,049

  1,943

  Liverpool

  13,461

  5,548

  St. Helens

  3,567

  1,251

  Sefton

  5,941

  2,323

  Wirral

  6,329

  1,799

  Bolton

  3,213

  1,098

  Bury

  1,140

  1,013

  Manchester

  18,944

  1,529

  Oldham

  6,912

  1,143

  Rochdale

  11,104

  1,372

  Salford

  6,134

  552

  Stockport

  2,934

  575

  Tameside

  2,248

  103

  Trafford

  10,902

  456

  Wigan

  6,645

  1,524

  Barnsley

  1,980

  0

  Doncaster

  1,156

  345

  Rotherham

  3,077

  170

  Sheffield

  4,161

  510

  Bradford

  26,989

  1,237

  Calderdale

  2,285

  276

  Kirklees

  5,100

  183

  Leeds

  14,157

  9,332

  Wakefield

  5,900

  425

  Gateshead

  6,591

  455

  655

  Total plans for county and VC schools1990–91 (£000s-cash)

  Total plans for VA schools1990–91 (£000s-cash)

  Newcastle

  7,199

  941

  North Tyneside

  4,978

  1,017

  South Tyneside

  8,150

  146

  Sunderland

  8,581

  230

  Isle of Scilly

  300

  0

  Avon

  13,270

  2,527

  Bedfordshire

  11,824

  0

  Berkshire

  14,099

  1,046

  Buckinghamshire

  12,978

  2,782

  Cambridge

  26,194

  2,285

  Cheshire

  13,499

  5,714

  Cleveland

  6,963

  634

  Cornwall

  16,401

  1,336

  Cumbria

  10,052

  745

  Derbyshire

  20,121

  2,442

  Devon

  26,667

  1,007

  Dorset

  8,776

  6,620

  Durham

  14,826

  752

  East Sussex

  19,227

  1,860

  Essex

  36,837

  1,395

  Gloucester

  17,094

  5,374

  Hampshire

  21,937

  4,025

  Hereford and Worcester

  11,658

  1,653

  Hertford

  12,564

  648

  Humberside

  15,436

  1,058

  Isle of Wight

  5,458

  126

  Kent

  29,396

  3,786

  Lancashire

  32,079

  6,066

  Leicester

  15,863

  685

  Lincoln

  21,251

  830

  Norfolk

  8,374

  1,192

  North Yorkshire

  6,119

  774

  Northampton

  8,836

  85

  Northumberland

  5,516

  431

  Nottinghamshire

  10,977

  2,084

  Oxfordshire

  12,300

  4,223

  Shropshire

  8,964

  486

  Somerset

  11,300

  1,685

  Staffordshire

  14,935

  1,373

  Suffolk

  13,872

  447

  Surrey

  7,919

  1,534

  Warwickshire

  3,958

  1,936

  West Sussex

  10,432

  2,988

  Wiltshire

  17,088

  1,026

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his allocations to local education authorities in respect of their capital expenditure on schools.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect to make an announcement before Christmas.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the natural environment research council for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The annual report of the natural environment research council has been submitted to me under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and a copy is being laid before the House today.

  The report highlights the council's achievements in a year in which public interest in environmental matters significantly increased. I was particularly interested to note:
  656

  (a) the start of the biological ocean flux study, a major programme involving scientists from both NERC and higher education institutions, contributing to international research on the carbon cycle in oceans;

  (b) the collaborative research on the North sea, and progress in developing models to help predict water quality and the future effects of man's activities;

  (c) the advances in research on the contribution of air pollutants to forest decline and the mechanisms involved;

  (d) the development of a predictive system of biological monitoring and river quality, now incorporated in a software package and being developed further with support from the water industry;

  (e) the start up of the NERC extractive industry partnership scheme.

  I congratulate the council on these and its many other achievements and look forward to further progress in next year's report.

WALES

  Unemployment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many travel-to-work areas in Wales had an unemployment rate(a) over 10 per cent., (b) between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. and (c) below 5 per cent. in October.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Of the 34 travel-to-work areas in Wales, two had an unemployment rate of more than 10 per cent. at October 1989, 24 a rate between 5 and 10 per cent. and 8 below 5 per cent.

  Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to account to Parliament for his responsibility under EC legislation to ensure that individual and private water supplies meet European standards.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be accountable through the usual parliamentary procedures.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many times the Secretary of State's committee has met since the passing of the Water Act 1989; and what matters have been discussed;

  (2) if he will list the names of the individuals who comprise the Secretary of State's committee established under the Water Act 1989;

  (3) what matters he has referred to the Secretary of State's committee for Wales since the passing of the Water Act; what advice has been offered to him; and what action he has taken as a result.

  Mr. Grist
  The committee has yet to be appointed.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his responsibilities under EC and United Kingdom legislation in respect of water supply quality.

  Mr. Grist
  The main responsibilities of my right hon. Friend in relation to the quality and sufficiency of water supplies are set out clearly in the Water Act 1989. The EC directives relating to drinking water quality have now been incorporated into subordinate legislation arising from the Act.
  657
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) in what way local authorities in Wales will be involved in testing and monitoring water supplies from Dwr Cymru, other suppliers and private supplies following the full implementation of the Water Act 1989;

  (2) what action he intends to take to bring private water supplies in Wales up to EC standards; and what grants are available to individuals and families who need work undertaken to achieve those standards;

  (3) what mechanism he has established to test private water supplies in Wales and to monitor the results of such tests.

  Mr. Grist
  Section 56 of the Water Act 1989 continues and reinforces the general duty of local authorities to monitor the wholesomeness and sufficiency of all water supplies in their areas. In this respect, I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 5–19 of Welsh Office circular 47/89, a copy of which is in the Library. Paragraph 12 of that circular also describes the important role of the drinking water inspectorate soon to be established under section 60 of the Act.

  From 1 April 1990, schedule 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which amends section 604 of the Housing Act 1985, will come into force and this provides mandatory assistance for a property to have an adequate supply of wholesome water, subject to the grant applicant qualifying under the test of resources. On 29 November this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that there is to be no limit on the amount which local authorities can spend on mandatory home renovation grants which can be used in this regard, next year.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of punishment and what directives can be called into effect in the event of a finding against the Government in the European Court following any prosecution for failing to meet directives on water quality.

  Mr. Grist
  The treaty establishing the European Economic Community does not convey to the Court of Justice express powers in terms of the enforcement of its judgments against member states but the United Kingdom would be under an obligation to comply.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest estimates available to him of the total level of receipts to Welsh eligible bodies in Wales from the European regional development fund in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total European regional development fund payments to eligible Welsh bodies in each of the past five years are shown in the following table:

  £ million

  1984

  28·6

  1985

  47·0

  1986

  43·1

  1987

  43·8

  1988

  83·0

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate available to him of the total level 658
  of commitments to eligible public bodies in Wales of grant aid from the European regional development fund in the current year and 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest estimate for European regional development fund commitments to Wales for 1989 is £31 million. We expect that, following adoption of the Community support frameworks for objective 2 programmes, commitments will be made during the first three months of 1990 in respect of projects whose processing during 1989 has been delayed by the negotiation of the frameworks.

  It will not be possible to provide a reliable estimate of commitments for 1990 until discussions with the European Commission on future funding are complete.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate available to him of the total level of commitments to eligible public bodies in Wales of grant aid from the European regional development fund in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total European regional development fund commitments to eligible Welsh bodies in each of the past five years are shown in the following table:

  £ million

  1984

  63·0

  1985

  54·9

  1986

  49·7

  1987

  57·8

  1988

  63·3

  Natural Heritage
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding will be required for the purposes of merging the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission for Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This cannot be fully determined at this stage. However, appropriate provision will be included in the Estimates for 1990–91 to cover anticipated start-up costs for the new Countryside Council for Wales in that year, subject to parliamentary approval.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table in the same form as that contained in his reply of 15 November, Official Report, column 279, in each case distinguishing between manufacturing and non-manufacturing: and if he will provide corresponding figures for (i) the period 1970 to 1979 or the longest available comparable shorter period and (ii) females over each period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The increases in real earnings are provided in the table:

  Percentage increase

  Manufacturing

  Non-manufacturing

  1970–79

  1979–89

  1970–79

  1979–89

  Manual males

  Lowest decile

  19

  3

  18

  6

  Lower quartile

  17

  7

  17

  10

  659

  Manufacturing

  Non-manufacturing

  1970–79

  1979–89

  1970–79

  1979–89

  Median

  15

  12

  17

  13

  Higher quartile

  15

  16

  19

  15

  Highest decile

  16

  20

  21

  16

  Average earnings

  16

  14

  19

  13

  Non-manual males

  Lowest decile

  17

  21

  15

  19

  Lower quartile

  15

  25

  15

  27

  Median

  12

  31

  12

  33

  Higher quartile

  12

  37

  7

  38

  Highest decile

  7

  43

  3

  48

  Average earnings

  9

  36

  7

  39

  Manual females

  Lowest decile

  40

  7

  47

  11

  Lower quartile

  39

  7

  46

  14

  Median

  41

  9

  44

  17

  Higher quartile

  41

  14

  41

  22

  Highest decile

  39

  23

  32

  28

  Average earnings

  40

  14

  40

  20

  Non-manual females

  Lowest decile

  42

  17

  41

  21

  Lower quartile

  39

  22

  34

  27

  Median

  39

  29

  25

  35

  Higher quartile

  35

  39

  23

  46

  Highest decile

  32

  51

  15

  46

  Average earnings

  35

  38

  23

  39

  Notes:

  1. The increases shown do not relate to the same individuals at the different dates.

  2. Full-time adult employees in Great Britain.

  Source:

  3. New Earnings Survey data deflated by the RPI (all items), April of each year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table providing corresponding figures to those given in his answer of 15 November, Official Report, column 279, for non-manual workers in all service industries (6–9) electricity (161) office machinery, etc. (33) retail distribution (64–65) railways (71) banking etc. (8) banking and bill discounting (814) business services (83) accountants, auditors and tax experts (836) social security (919) higher education (931) and school education (932) together with their weight in the earnings index in 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comparable earnings figures for 1979 and 1989 are not readily available for the industries specified because of the change in the standard industrial classification in 1982 and it would involve disproportionate cost to compile the data on a consistent basis. The weights used in the average earnings index in 1979 are not available on a comparable industry basis: those available for 1989 are published on page 609 of the November 1989 issue of Employment Gazette.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table providing corresponding figures to that given in his written answer of 15 November, Official Report, column 279, for the manual workers in mechanical engineering (32) motor vehicles and their engines (351) textiles (43) footwear (451) clothing etc. (453) paper and paper products (471–472) internal combustion engines (3281) retail distribution (64–65) retail distribution of motor
  660
  vehicles (651) business services (83) hospitals etc. (951) and personal services (13.1) together with their weights in the earnings index in 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Except for footwear (SIC 451), comparable earnings figures for 1979 and 1989 are not readily available for the industries specified because of the change in the standard industrial classification in 1982 and it would involve disproportionate cost to compile the data on a consistent basis. The weights used in the average earnings index in 1979 are not available on a comparable industry basis: those available for 1989 are published on page 609 of the November 1989 issue of Employment Gazette. The available information for footwear (SIC 451) is given in the table.

  Full-time manual adult males in footwear industries—Great Britain

  Percentage increase

  Lowest decile

  1

  Lower quartile

  5

  Median

  14

  Higher quartile

  13

  Highest docile

  4

  Average earnings

  7

  Note:

  1. The increases shown are for April 1979 to April 1989 and do not relate to the same individuals at the different dates.

  Source: New Earnings Survey data deflated by the RPI (all items).

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many professionally qualified accountants are employed by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 December 1989, four professionally qualified accountants were employed by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff, and of which grades are employed in the Health and Safety Executive's press department.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of staff, and their grades, employed in the Health and Safety Executive's press department as at 1 October 1989 is as follows:

  1 Grade 7

  3 Senior press officers (SIO grade)

  2 Press officers (IO grade)

  1 Executive officer

  1 Administrative officer

  1 Administrative assistant

  1 Personal secretary

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, columns 19–20, how many actual training days have been organised, and on what dates, for factory inspectors, on each of these three sets of new regulations in 1989; and how many are planned for 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Forty-three training days on the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations were organised for factory inspectors on the following dates in 1989:4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and
  661
  27 April, 3, 4, 9 and 10 May, 3, 5 and 10 October. None are planned in 1990. Thirty-one training days on the Control of Noise at Work Regulations were organised for factory inspectors on the following dates in 1989: 8, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29 and 30 November and 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 December. One training day has been organised on 30 January 1990. No training days on the Electricity at Work Regulations were organised for factory inspectors in 1989. Training days for inspectors are planned for early 1990 but the dates have not yet been arranged.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the annual revenue budget of the Health and Safety Executive, excluding staff salaries, was spent on training of staff, in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The percentage of the Health and Safety Executive's annual revenue budget (that is, excluding capital expenditure) less expenditure on salaries, spent on training courses and related travel and subsistence costs over the last five years was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1984–85

  1·8

  1985–86

  2·5

  1986–87

  3·1

  1987–88

  3·5

  1988–89

  3·5

  Workplace Child Care
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the level and standards of provision of workplace child care facilities in different member countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no comparable data on the extent of workplace child care facilities for all member countries of the European Community.

  Such information as my right hon. Friend has is contained in the European Commission April 1988 Consolidated Report "Childcare and Equality of Opportunity". This shows that most countries have some childcare services provided by employers and that services are most common in the public sector.

  Workplace facilities are not always the most practical method of child care provision.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether detailed recommendations on the future of the sheltered placement scheme will be made in his Department's internal review on employment assistance to disabled adults.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future of the services provided by my Department for supporting people with severe disabilities in employment are among the matters under consideration within the internal review.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to expand the sheltered placement scheme which provides job opportunities for severely disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We intend to inform sponsors as soon as possible about arrangements for the sheltered placement scheme in 1990–91.

  Disabled People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the demographic changes to the work force and the ability of disabled people to fill the associated skills gap in the work force.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Department makes regular projections of the size and age structure of the labour force. The latest figures, based on 1987 based population projections and preliminary results of the 1988 labour force survey, were published in the Employment Gazette, April 1989, and cover the period up to the year 2000. The annual labour force survey collects information on the qualifications of those with work-limiting health problems and disabilities. It is clear that people with disabilities suffer higher unemployment rates than able bodied people and are under utilised in the labour market. The shortage of young people in the 1990s means that employers will have to make better use of their workers and seek new sources of recruitment, including people with disabilities.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the need for anti-discrimination legislation to ensure equal employment opportunities for disabled people.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A consultative document covering the conclusions of the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Successive Governments have judged that education and persuasion of employers is the most effective approach to improving employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The role of legislation is one of the matters being considered in the review of services to the disabled currently being undertaken by this Department.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help he has given to disabled persons to train them in the use of microtechnology.

  Mr. Eggar
  Many people are given the opportunity to acquire relevant skills and to train in the uses of microtechnology through all the Training Agency's programmes. People with disabilities play a full and growing part in those programmes.

  In addition, people who because of their disability are helped by the use of microtechnology-based equipment supplied through the special aids to employment scheme to undertake training or employment are entitled to any necessary introductory training in the use of that equipment.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what programmes he has commissioned aimed at changing employers' attitudes towards the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department encourages employers to adopt good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities mainly through marketing action by the 65 area teams of the Disablement Advisory Service; promotion of the code of good practice in the employment of disabled people and of a number of supporting publications and videos; and the fit for work award scheme.
  663
  In addition, disablement resettlement officers and other jobcentre staff help employers to obtain suitable employees with disabilities, and financial help is available to help overcome specific barriers at work. My Department is currently reviewing its services for people with disabilities, and a consultative document will be published shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Uprating)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the saving or cost of each measure announced in his uprating statement on 25 October,Official Report, columns 841–54, indicating where and to what extent the cost is due to uprating in line with the retail prices index, or Rossi index where appropriate, to September 1989.

  Mr. Newton
  As a result of all the increases in social security benefits I announced on 25 October, expenditure on my Department's programme will be some £2·8 billion higher in 1990–91 than if these were to be left unchanged. Increases in rates for contributory and non-contributory benefits generally were with reference to the September 1988 to September 1989 increase in the retail prices index (RPI) and for income-related benefits with reference to the increase in that index less housing costs (the Rossi index).

  Changes going beyond what is statutorily or conventionally undertaken by reference to one of these indices were as follows:

  £ million

  Additional increase in the higher rate of Invalidity Allowance

  +1

  Additional increase of 50p in the family premiums for income related benefits

  +33

  Additional increase of £1 in the Family Credit adult credit

  +16

  Additional increase in the Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit lone parent premium

  +2

  Additional increase in the allowance for personal expenses for Income Support claimants in hospital

  +1

  Additional increases in war widows age allowances

  +3

  Additional increase in the adult disability premiums in income-related benefits

  +18

  More than doubling of the disability premium for families with disabled children on income-related benefits

  +8

  Additional increase in the Therapeutic Earnings Limit

  (less than £1 million see below)

  In addition I made increases in certain payments and limits for which there is no statutory uprating requirement or established uprating convention:

  £ million

  Increases in Income Support limits for residential care and nursing homes

  +100

  £15 increase in the Social Fund Maternity Payment

  +3

  £5 increase in the War Pensioner's disregard in income-related benefits

  +4

  Increase of £8 in the Invalid Care Allowance earnings limit

  (less than £1 million see below

  664
  I also announced various structural changes to help the less-well-off, over and above increases in the benefit rates. The costs of these in the first full year (1991–92) are as follows:

  £ million

  New higher limit on the amount lone parents not on Income Support receiving Housing Benefit or Community Charge Benefit can earn without affecting benefit

  +11

  New higher Social Fund capital rule of £1,000 for elderly people on Income Support

  +2

  £10 Carer's premium in the income-related benefits

  +15

  Extension of Attendance Allowance to the terminally ill without a six month waiting period with consequent extension of Invalid Care Allowance

  +28

  Extension of Attendance Allowance for children under 2 years old with consequent extensions of Invalid Care Allowance

  +

  Extension of Mobility Allowance to the deaf-blind

  +5

  Extension of Invalidity Benefit to those on Employment Rehabilitation Courses

  1—

  Additional funds for the Independent Living Fund (1990–91)

  +19

  1 Estimated at a cost less than £1 million together with the additional increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit and the therapeutic earnings limit mentioned above.

  I also took account, in deciding on my proposals, of two major improvements which took effect in October in advance of the uprating but entailing substantiallly increased social security expenditure in 1990–91. These were:

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  Abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule

  +190

  +375

  Help for poorer pensioners who are disabled or over 75

  +85

  +199

  I also announced increases in statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. The lower rates will increase in real terms, as will the statutory sick pay standard rate threshold. There will be a lower increase in the statutory sick pay standard rate. Overall, these changes will increase expenditure by some £70 million to £80 million less than raising both rates and thresholds in line with the RPI. Had I decided to increase child benefit in line with the RPI, this would have cost some £250 million net of savings on other benefits.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are currently unable to claim either family credit or income support due to the difficulty of deciding when a pattern of working over 24 hours a week is established; how long on average these families have been awaiting an outstanding claim for either income support or family credit; and how he proposes to ensure that the risk of failing to qualify for either family credit or income support, in such cases, be minimised.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Available information suggests that only a few hundred families are unable to qualify for either income support or family credit because the claimant or partner is working for 24 hours or more a week at the time of the claim, but cannot be regarded as normally engaged in such work for family credit purposes because it is casual or short-term. Claims from people in this situation have been dealt with, and decisions issued, as
  665
  and when they have arisen. We propose to lay regulations shortly to amend the definition of normally engaged in the family credit legislation so as to enable more such families to qualify for benefit.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether for the purpose of calculating claimants' entitlement to family credit, depreciation is an allowable business expense of which account should be taken to determine the annual net profit of self-employed persons and their average weekly earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. Paragraph 22(5)(b) of the Family Credit (General) Regulations provides that in calculating net profit for family credit purposes no deduction shall be made in respect of the depreciation of any capital asset.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures for the number of families in receipt of family credit in Blyth Valley.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the latest available date, the number of families receiving family credit who at the time of their award were living in the area covered by the Blyth local social security office was 700.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has made a decision on the outstanding claim of Mr. and Mrs. Elliot of the Rodley boat centre to either family credit or income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21 July 1989 at column 435 when my hon. Friend explained that decisions had been issued on Mr. and Mrs. Elliot's claims for both family credit and income support. I understand that they have made no further claim for either benefit. Mr. and Mrs. Elliot are, of course, free to claim either benefit again at any time if their circumstances are now such that they believe they may have become entitled.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of recipients of attendance allowance at(a) the higher rate and (b) the lower rate by sex and standard age cohorts at the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  Recipients of invalidity benefit at 2 April 1988 and numbers who receive additional pension

  Thousands

  Men

  Women

  Age

  Total recipients

  Recipients of additional pension

  Total recipients add

  Recipients of additional pension

  All ages

  807·8

  608·3

  239·7

  174·7

  Under 20

  0·3

  0·3

  0·7

  0·2

  20–24

  5·6

  4·2

  7·6

  6·6

  25–29

  120

  9·6

  16·2

  14·4

  30–34

  22·5

  17·7

  19·5

  14·8

  35–39

  29·7

  21·1

  22·0

  14·4

  40–44

  47·2

  33·4

  25·6

  19·2

  45–49

  58·1

  38·8

  30·9

  21·1

  50–54

  94·8

  67·6:

  44·0

  32·6

  55–59

  149·5

  115·7

  53·0

  39·5

  666

  Attendance allowance: recipients by sex and age cohort at 31 March 1988

  Thousands

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  All ages

  101

  186

  161

  264

  2–4

  4

  3

  5

  4

  5–9

  7

  5

  10

  7

  10–15

  6

  4

  9

  7

  16–19

  3

  2

  5

  4

  20–29

  6

  5

  12

  11

  30–39

  4

  5

  8

  9

  40–49

  5

  7

  9

  10

  50–59

  8

  11

  13

  14

  60–64

  8

  9

  12

  12

  65–69

  9

  12

  14

  16

  70–74

  10

  15

  15

  21

  75–79

  12

  23

  17

  33

  80 and over

  19

  84

  32

  117

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of recipients of invalid care allowance by sex and standard age cohorts at the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  Invalid care allowance: Recipients by sex and age cohort at 26 September 1989

  Numbers

  Age bands

  Males

  Females

  All ages

  19,044

  99,202

  Under 20

  111

  360

  20–24

  284

  1,933

  25–29

  535

  7,156

  30–34

  847

  12,232

  35–39

  1,304

  13,902

  40–44

  1,921

  15,504

  45–49

  2,324

  13,562

  50–54

  2,971

  14,489

  55–59

  4,202

  14,758

  60–64

  4,273

  '5,306

  65 and over

  272

  —

  1 All Females aged 60 and over.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of recipients of invalidity benefit by sex and standard age cohorts at the last date for which figures are available; and if he will further break down the figures by(a) receipt of an additional component and (b) receipt of each rate of invalidity allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the tables.
  667

  Men

  Women

  Age

  Total recipients

  Recipients of additional pension

  Total recipients

  Recipients of additional pension

  60–64

  258–2

  210·9

  20·2

  11·9

  65 and over

  129·9

  89·0

  —

  —

  Recipients of invalidity benefit at 2 April 1988 who receive invalidity allowance1

  Thousands

  Men

  Women

  Age

  High rate

  Medium rate

  Low rate

  High rate

  Medium rate

  Low rate

  Total

  All ages

  130·9

  102·0

  104·6

  95·6

  53·7

  22·3

  509·1

  Under 20

  0·3

  —

  —

  0·7

  —

  —

  1·0

  20–24

  5·6

  —

  —

  7·5

  —

  —

  13·1

  25–29

  10·5

  —

  —

  15·4

  —

  —

  25·9

  30–34

  17·1

  —

  —

  18·0

  —

  —

  35·1

  35–39

  22·3

  —

  —

  20·2

  —

  —

  42·5

  40–44

  29·5

  4·1

  —

  16·3

  5·8

  —

  55·7

  45–49

  19·2

  16·4

  —

  8·1

  16·7

  —

  60·4

  50–54

  13·6

  30·3

  4·7

  4·1

  18·6

  6·7

  78·0

  55–59

  7·3

  30·2

  19·3

  3·8

  9·9

  11·3

  81·8

  60–64

  4·1

  17·3

  46·5

  1·5

  2·7

  4·3

  76·4

  65 and over

  1·4

  3·7

  34·1

  —

  —

  —

  39·2

  1 Numbers of recipients are those who actually receive some Invalidity Allowance (IVA) In addition there are 360,300 people who do not receive IVA because the rate of Additional Pension or guaranteed minimum pension they receive exceeds the rate of IVA which would have been payable

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of recipients of mobility allowance by sex and standard age cohorts at the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information, as at 30 September 1989, is in the table.

  Recipients who transferred from vehicle scheme

  Other Recipients

  Age Groups

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  5–9

  —

  —

  5,001

  4,026

  10–14

  —

  —

  4,493

  3,667

  15–19

  1

  2

  5,775

  4,955

  20–24

  5

  4

  7,106

  6,223

  25–29

  17

  15

  7,808

  7,295

  30–34

  487

  311

  7,555

  7,980

  35–39

  860

  580

  9,517

  10,569

  40–44

  1,308

  952

  13,998

  15,915

  45–49

  1,077

  845

  17,699

  19,385

  50–54

  1,163

  902

  26,871

  28,156

  55–59

  1,458

  986

  41,642

  40,085

  60–64

  1,835

  1,103

  64,511

  54,608

  65–69

  2,303

  1,355

  61,787

  50,486

  70–74

  1,621

  965

  13,314

  12,605

  75–79

  1,294

  806

  —

  —

  80–84

  564

  495

  —

  —

  85 and over

  226

  219

  —

  —

  All ages

  14,219

  9,450

  287,077

  265,955

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of recipients of severe disablement allowance by sex and standard age cohorts at the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information, at 2 April 1988, is in the table.

  Men

  Women

  All ages

  103,400

  160,000

  Under 20

  11,200

  8,500

  20–24

  16,400

  11,300

  25–29

  13,600

  10,300

  30–34

  8,100

  11,000

  35–39

  10,300

  12,900

  668

  Men

  Women

  40–44

  8,700

  15,300

  45–49

  7,400

  16,100

  50–54

  5,300

  21,200

  55–59

  7,400

  28,100

  60–64

  8,300

  17,200

  65 and over

  6,600

  8,000

  Note: Figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of national insurance contributions collected from employers is the responsibility of his Department; and how much that amounted to in the last available year broken down by each class of contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Inland Revenue is mainly responsible for the collection of class 1 national insurance contributions. The Department of Social Security assumes responsibility for collection in certain limited circumstances and collects such contributions direct in certain instances—for example in respect of Civil Service and Her Majesty's forces employments.

  The Department also makes claims against insolvent employers. For the year ended April 1989 the Department collected about £1·5 billion in this way which represents about 5 per cent. of the total of class 1 national insurance contributions.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what collation of statistics his Department undertakes on how many claimants have been taken out of the priority categories eligible for community care grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Priority categories for community care grants have not been changed. Statistics relating to the number of refusals of community care grants on grounds
  669
  of insufficient priority are in annex 9(1A) of the Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund 1988–89, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each client group a table for rates of income support showing (i) the illustrative figures in the

  Income Support Client Group

  Technical annex to the 1985 White Paper

  Uprated by

  Compensation for 20 per cent. Community Charge Contribution3

  Proposed rates from April 1990

  1RPI

  2ROSSI

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Pensioners

  Age 80+ single

  428·5

  52·49

  50·19

  1·30

  53·75

  Age 80+ couple

  65·45

  80·18

  76·65

  2·30

  81·85

  Age 75·79 single

  40·60

  49·73

  47·5

  1·30

  51·10

  Age 75–79 couple

  63·25

  77·48

  74·07

  2·30

  79·20

  Age 60+ disabled

  single

  40·60

  49·73

  47·55

  1·30

  51·10

  couple

  63·25

  77·48

  74·07

  2·30

  79·20

  Age 60–74 single

  40·60

  49·73

  47·55

  1·30

  48·50

  couple

  63·25

  77·48

  74·07

  2·30

  75·55

  4Sick and Disabled

  Age 18–24 single

  36·25

  44·41

  42·46

  1·15

  44·20

  Age 25+ single

  42·85

  52·49

  50·19

  1·30

  52·10

  couple

  65·45

  80·18

  76·65

  2·30

  79·70

  Lone Parent

  5With 2 children

  65·00

  79·62

  76·12

  1·30

  78·75

  Unemployed

  Age 18–24 single

  24·00

  2940

  28·11

  1·15

  28·80

  Age 25+ single

  30·60

  3748

  35·84

  1·30

  36·70

  Couple no children

  48·00

  58·80

  56·21

  2·30

  57·60

  5Couple with 2 children

  78·95

  96·71

  92·45

  2·30

  95·55

  1 Based on movement in the index of Retail Prices between November 1985 and October 1989 (the latest date for which the index is available).

  2 Based on movement in the index of Retail Prices (less housing) between November 1985 and October 1989.

  3 Amounts included in benefit levels from April 1989. These amounts, which replaced those previously included from April 1988 to compensate for the 20 per cent. rates contribution, now form part of the overall benefit levels to be uprated from April 1990.

  4 In receipt of disability premium.

  5 Assumes one child under age 11 and one child aged 11–15.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in detail the basis of his calculation, Official Report, 27 November, column 525, that pensioners' total incomes have increased by about 23 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the article "Pensioners incomes and expenditure" which appeared in the Employment Gazette, of May 1987, a copy of which is in the Library. The same basis of calculation was used in arriving at the 1979–86 real terms increase of 23 per cent. in pensioners' average total net income.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what Government funds are available for the range of assessment, treatment, and support services provided by local authority social services departments,
  670
  technical annex to the 1985 White Paper, (ii) the illustrative figures uprated by the retail prices index since then, (iii) the illustrative figures uprated by the Rossi index, (iv) the amounts provided to compensate for the 20 per cent. rates or poll tax contribution and (v) the proposed income support rates for April 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table:

  health authorities, and voluntary child care organisations, specified in her answer of 15 November, Official Report, column 339.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available centrally. It is for local authorities and health authorities to determine the deployment of their overall resources to specific services in the light of legislative requirements, and local circumstances, needs and priorities. Government grants to voluntary organisations working in the field of child protection are usually paid as contributions to headquarters administration expenses.

SCOTLAND

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of employees at each nuclear power station in Scotland.
  671
  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland electricity board, British Nuclear Fuels and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority that, as at the end of November 1989, the number of employees at Scottish power stations was as follows:

  Number

  Chapelcross

  630

  Dounreay

  11,838

  Hunterston A and B

  21,046

  Torness

  1634

  1 The figure of 1,838 represents the total number of employees at the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment; of these, only around 15 per cent. work on the operation or in close support of the prototype fast reactor.

  2 The figures do not include Headquarters and Central Services personnel involved wholly or partly with nuclear generation.

  Birds (Illegal Poisoning)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many birds, by species, were illegally killed by poisons in the Tayside region for each of the last two years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of birds, by species, reported to have been illegally killed by pesticides in Tayside region are as follows:

  Number

  1987

  Corvids

  3

  Gulls

  2

  Buzzard

  1

  1988

  Corvids

  20

  Buzzards

  2

  Gulls

  2

  Eagle

  1

  1989 to date

  Corvids

  3

  Buzzard

  1

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 4 December, on how many occasions during each of the last five years he has drawn to the attention of the Islay estates owners the requirements of the law relating to the illegal poisoning of birds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The policy referred to in my answer of 4 December was introduced in 1988 following the golden eagle poisoning incidents on the Islay estate that year. The policy was also operated this year in the light of the poisoning incidents referred to in my previous answer. Prior to 1988, the attention of the Islay estates was not formally drawn to the incidents.

  Parliament House
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of the new lift being installed in Parliament house for the use of judges; and what is its purpose.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost of installing the new lift will be approximately £100,000. It will allow more ready access from judges' chambers to court rooms.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met with the Argyll and Clyde health board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no recent meetings with Argyll and Clyde health board.

  Lennox Castle Hospital
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients are resident in Lennox Castle hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Seven hundred and eighty-five.

  Dr. John Myles
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what function is performed by Dr. John Myles in relation to the Scottish Development Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dr. John Miles' function as ecological adviser is to assist the Scottish Development Department and other Scottish Departments to arrive at a better informed view of the effect of current and proposed policies affecting the living environment. One of his prime responsibilities is to interpret scientific information. He also advises on casework and assists in determining departmental ecological and environmental research requirements.

  Health Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1980 the total number of doctors employed .by the National Health Service and express this as a percentage of the 1980 figure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is given in the following table:

  Year

  Total

  Percentage of 1980

  1980

  9,923

  100·0

  1981

  10,167

  102·5

  1982

  10,229

  103·1

  1983

  10,410

  104·9

  1984

  10,499

  105·8

  1985

  10,509

  105·9

  1986

  10,480

  105·6

  1987

  10,476

  105·6

  1988

  10,833

  109·2

  Natural Heritage Agency
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many permanent staff are likely to be employed by the proposed Natural Heritage Agency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed agency will be adequately staffed to carry out its important responsibilities but it is too soon to estimate the number of permanent posts.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funding will be required for the purposes of merging the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission for Scotland into a new agency.
  673
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed agency will have adequate resources to carry out its important responsibilities, but it is too soon to decide the precise level of funding which will be required.

  Western Scottish Bus Company
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received from Touche Ross and Co. concerning the financial management of the Western Scottish bus company; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Touche Ross and Co. has not been appointed to advise the Secretary of State or the Scottish transport group on matters concerning the management of the Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries or their privatisation.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received from the Scottish Bus Group concerning recent management resignations from the Western Scottish bus company; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The management of Western Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. is a matter for the Scottish transport group and the company concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend is, however, aware that two second-level management staff have recently resigned from Western Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. Their reasons for doing so are a matter between the individuals concerned and the company.

  Power Generation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce a non-fossil fuel obligation within the Scottish electricity generating industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no plans to introduce a non-fossil fuel obligation in Scotland at present.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage wind-generated power in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Government research and development into renewable energy sources is managed by the Department of Energy. Since 1979 the Government have spent over £140 million (over £190 million at 1989 prices) on research into renewable energy sources with the aim of identifying those technologies which can economically meet the energy needs of the next century. A 10 to 15-year programme is presently under way in conjunction with the electricity industry which, if successful, should provide the basis for the commercial exploitation of wind power from the late 1990s onward.

  The Scottish Office has consistently stressed that Government support would be available for a viable Scottish development.

  Parliament Hall
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of manufacture and erection of the two bronze plaques erected at the south end of Parliament Hall concerning the achievements of the Property Services Agency.
  674
  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply. The costs were:

  £

  Plaque to commemorate the roof restoration

  540

  Plaque to commemorate the window restoration

  580

HEALTH

  Cash Allocations (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cash allocation to Nottingham district health authority in constant prices for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Initial cash allocations to Nottingham HA at 1989–90 prices since 1982–83 are:

  £ million

  1982–83

  162·7

  1983–84

  162·4

  1984–85

  157·6

  1985–86

  159·5

  1986–87

  167·7

  1987–88

  171·0

  1988–89

  174·7

  1989–90

  180·8

  Figures before the 1982 NHS reorganisation would relate to Nottingham area health authority, a much larger organisation than the current district health authority, and would therefore not be comparable.

  Demographic Changes
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the most recently available estimates of the percentage changes in demand on the hospital and community health services due to demographic change for each year from 1972–73 to 1995–96; and if he will put in the Library details of the methods used to arrive at these estimates.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There has been a conventional practice in recent years of giving estimates of increased demand on services from demographic change expressed in expenditure terms. I have never believed that these figures are very useful as they imply, wrongly in my opinion, that increased spending is the only way in which increased demand can be met. Nevertheless I give the information requested in the table.

  Estimates of growth in demographic demand on the hospital and community health services for the years 1972–73 to 1995–96

  Year

  Per cent.

  1972–73

  0·0

  1973–74

  -0·1

  1974–75

  0·0

  1975–76

  0·1

  1976–77

  0·2

  1977–78

  0·3

  1978–79

  1·0

  1979–80

  1·3

  1980–81

  1·1

  1981–82

  0·4

  1982–83

  0·4

  1983–84

  0·5

  1984–85

  0·6

  1985–86

  1·3

  675

  Year

  Per cent·

  1986–87

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·0

  1988–89

  1·1

  1989–90

  0·9

  1990–91

  0·9

  1991–92

  0·7

  1992–93

  0·5

  1993–94

  0·3

  1994–95

  0·3

  1995–96

  0·9

  Details of the method used to arrive at the estimates are given in answer to question 2 of the Social Services Select Committee report, Session 1988–89, HC 418.

  NHS Reform
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific areas of expenditure on the family practitioner services are at present cash limited; which will be cash limited from April 1990; and which he plans to cash limit later.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  At present expenditure on family practitioner services is not subject to a cash limit.

  From April 1990, payments to general medical practitioners under the practice staff, cost rent and improvement grant schemes will be subject to a cash limit. From that date, general medical practitioners will for the first time be able to claim direct reimbursement for part of the costs of computer purchase, leasing and maintenance, and these payments will be subject to a cash limit.

  A cash limit will apply at national level to total expenditure from GP practice funds which are, subject to parliamentary approval, to be introduced from 1 April 1991. No cash limits will apply to this expenditure at practice level. The management allowance to be paid in relation to the GP funding initiative will be subject to a cash limit.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will commission management studies of the strategic effectiveness of the new National Health Service management structures as they develop, including those where the regional health authority splits into separate businesses, the district health authority secures trust status and certain individual services become trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are supporting a considerable number of development projects designed to test out in districts, hospitals and other units different aspects of our proposed improvements to make sure that workable systems are in place by April 1991. Many of the proposals will evolve throughout the coming decade. We intend to achieve steady incremental progress, informed by the lessons of experience. I see no need to commission management studies at this stage.

  Chiropractors
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about giving Government recognition to qualified chiropractors; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the past two months, we have received representations, as part of a campaign, from the 676
  British Association of Chiropractors, individual chiropractors and patients, calling for the state registration of chiropractors.

  Practitioners of alternative or complementary therapies who are not registered with the General Medical Council and who are therefore not eligible to work within the NHS, are nevertheless at liberty to offer their services privately. It is for individual patients seeking the services of complementary practitioners, to satisfy themselves as to the competence of the practitioner concerned.

  If members of a particular profession are concerned to ensure that professional standards are maintained and believe that statutory regulation is the best way of achieving this end, then it is for the profession itself to take all necessary steps necessary to obtain their goal.

  Community Care
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Department will be responsible for furthering paediatric physiotherapy in schools, whether mainstream or special, under the programmes proposed in the White Paper on community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities will remain responsible for the development of paediatric physiotherapy services for children in mainstream and special schools. We expect that health authorities will continue to collaborate with local education authorities to improve these services.

  Whipps Cross Hospital
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask the chairman of the North-East Thames regional health authority when he is likely to submit phase 2 of the Whipps Cross hospital development for approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The timing of the submission of proposals for major capital developments to the Department of Health is for regional health authorities to decide.

  Racial Abuse
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to counter the racial abuse of National Health Service staff by some patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Members of minority communities play an invaluable part in the NHS, for which many of us have cause to feel profoundly grateful. We totally deplore any racially motivated abuse of them.

  Racial abuse or harassment is recognised as a form of violence in the report of the DHSS advisory committee on violence to staff which was chaired by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale. The report, which was published in July last year and a copy of which is in the Library, recommends that every unit should have a local strategy for dealing with violence, including preventive measures, suitable responses and support for staff who are victims. I t also emphasises the critical importance of reporting systems and of encouraging staff to report all incidents.

  We support this approach and hope that any member of staff who is subjected to or witnesses racial abuse will be

  677
  encouraged to report it to his or her manager whose immediate responsibility it is to ensure that suitable action is taken.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the percentage of blood donors shown to have hepatitis C in random tests carried out by the national blood transfusion service;

  (2)whether he proposes to introduce screening of blood donors for hepatitis C;

  (3)whether supplies of stored blood plasma are checked for indications of hepatitis C.

  Mr. Freeman
  A screening test for antibodies to hepatitis C has been available only since the middle of the year, and no confirmatory test is at present available. In a preliminary study the national blood transfusion service examined frozen blood samples, but this work cannot be used to predict likely infection in fresh blood donations.

  A systematic evaluation of the test on 15,000 donations at three transfusion centres is currently in progress. Results are not yet available. The introduction of the test for all blood donations is under review and will depend on the results of the evaluation and other scientific evidence supporting its benefit. Stored plasma is not tested for hepatitis C. It has not yet been shown that the test would reduce the possibility of transmission of disease in fractionated plasma products.

  Cancer
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for what were the rates of cancer of the breast and cervix in the north-east of England for those aged(a) 20 to 25 years, (b) 25 to 30 years, (c) 30 to 35 years, (d) 35 to 40 years, (e) 40 to 45 years, (f) 45 to 50 years, and (g) 50 to 55 years, and; what were the average rates for the rest of the United Kingdom for the same age groups, for each year from 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The exact information requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However, some information for the period 1980–84 is shown in the table.

  Newly diagnosed cases of cancer rates (per 100,000 population) for female breast1 and the cervix uteri2 by age group for Northern regional health authority, Yorkshire regional health authority and the United Kingdom: 1980–84

  TABLE 1

  Malignant neoplasm of the female breast

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  1980

  20–24

  0·86

  1·53

  0·24

  25–29

  6·72

  5·94

  1·84

  30–34

  27·78

  26·78

  7·87

  35–39

  44·35

  41·67

  21·76

  40–44

  98·10

  97·83

  41·64

  45–49

  151·69

  153·37

  68·55

  50·54

  146·47

  123·42

  86·08

  1981

  20–24

  1·70

  0·75

  0·19

  25–29

  7·66

  9·39

  2·85

  30–34

  26·57

  20·50

  8·33

  35–39

  64·94

  61·36

  19·53

  40–44

  88·84

  114·00

  38·60

  45–49

  128·00

  134·28

  68·87

  678

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  50–54

  113·61

  147·06

  88·83

  1982

  20–24

  —

  0·73

  0·23

  25–29

  9·63

  3·38

  1·83

  30–34

  24·34

  14·47

  8·77

  35–39

  64·23

  45·30

  19·63

  40–44

  109·20

  94·38

  39·56

  45–49

  144·66

  146·79

  68–66

  50–54

  123·51

  140·59

  87·85

  1983

  20–24

  1·63

  0·71

  014

  25–29

  3·83

  6·71

  2·33

  30–34

  22·12

  21·67

  80·5

  35–39

  38·61

  47·35

  20–61

  40–44

  82·19

  96·93

  38·12

  45–49

  147·64

  138·24

  64·57

  50–54

  120·98

  155·31

  89·64

  1984

  20–24

  1·60

  2·07

  0·48

  25–29

  10·32

  4·90

  2·69

  30–34

  28·38

  27·90

  8·75

  35–39

  48·71

  47·92

  20·68

  40–44

  71·83

  103·68

  37·19

  45–49

  126·28

  141·42

  65·43

  50–54

  144·47

  138·07

  87·11

  TABLE 2

  Malignant neoplasm of the cervix uteri

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  1980

  20–24

  1·73

  4·60

  0·93

  25–29

  9·61

  7·63

  2·74

  30–34

  18·82

  21·42

  4·78

  35–39

  26·61

  28·41

  6·98

  40–44

  18·95

  26·68

  7·70

  45–49

  15·73

  14·13

  9·91

  50·54

  28·45

  30·13

  14·03

  1981

  20–24

  1·70

  2·24

  0·80

  25–29

  9·58

  17·08

  3·11

  30–34

  15·06

  23·54

  6·02

  35–39

  19·48

  27·47

  7·02

  40–44

  20·50

  27·00

  9·60

  45–49

  13·71

  27·47

  9·67

  50–54

  30·01

  25·49

  13·19

  1982

  20–24

  1·66

  2·92

  0·69

  25–29

  12·52

  17·77

  2·31

  30–34

  15·92

  27·33

  5·88

  35–39

  17·79

  28·52

  6·80

  40–44

  25·29

  39·16

  10·66

  45–49

  20·67

  18·35

  10·72

  50–54

  20·59

  17·82

  10·50

  1983

  20–24

  0·82

  5·66

  0·50

  25–29

  13·40

  22·65

  3·73

  30–34

  31·15

  35·00

  6·85

  35–39

  18·83

  22·47

  7·09

  40–44

  27·40

  27·70

  8·68

  45–49

  16·15

  26·24

  10·11

  50–54

  23·31

  22·04

  12·36

  1984

  20–24

  0·80

  2·76

  0·35

  25–29

  10·32

  13·88

  4·32

  30–34

  29·35

  32·97

  5·30

  35–39

  19·30

  36·92

  7·35

  40–44

  19·08

  31·98

  10·08

  679

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  45–49

  20·48

  31·09

  9·16

  50–54

  19·19

  27·41

  12·04

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision code 174.

  2 Assigned to the ICD code 180.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are currently employed(a) in the Medicines Control Agency and (b) the drug tariff committee; and how many of these are qualified pharmacists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As at 1 November 1989 the Medicines Control Agency employed 297–5 staff (full-time equivalents); of these 52 are pharmacists*.

  There is no drug tariff committee. About 35 staff in the Department have duties concerned with the preparation of the drug tariff. Of these, five are pharmacists*.

  Note: * Members or Fellows of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made to pay interest on backdated regrading awards to midwives subject to delay by the appeals procedures.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The grading appeals are being dealt with under a longstanding agreement between the management and staff sides of the general Whitley council. It contains no provision for the payment of any interest should appellants be regraded on appeal.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities on the application of the grading criteria FII for midwives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The grading criteria for the new clinical grading structure were agreed by both staff and management sides of the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council. Departmental guidance issued in 1988 on the implementation of the structure applied equally to nurses and to midwives. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on the consistency of application of midwives' regrading criteria as between different health authorities;

  (2) what representations he has received about the consistency between health authorities in midwives' regrading and from whom; and what response he proposes to make.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are expected to adhere to the agreed clinical grading definitions and the management guidance issued by the health Departments in grading midwifery posts. These require posts to be graded in accordance with the particular duties and responsibilities they carry. Variations between authorities in the proportion of posts graded at particular levels will therefore arise, for example because of different approaches to service organisation.
  680
  We have received a number of representations on the grading of midwives. The Government have made clear their position in their response to the fourth report from the Social Services Committee Session 1988–89 "Resourcing The National Health Service: Midwives' Regrading 1988–89".

  Clinical Grading Exercise
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of the review of the clinical grading exercise by the Manpower Services Commission(a) generally and (b) relating to midwives; and what action he has taken in response.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The clinical grading review for nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff was undertaken by the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council. It led to the introduction of a new grading structure for clinical posts, including midwifery posts, with effect from 1 April 1988. There was no review by the Manpower Services Commission.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he has decided that some of the work of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship should remain confidential; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship is an independent advisory committee. It is for the committee to decide on the confidentiality of reports it has commissioned. The committee's reasons for doing so were set out in the answer given to my hon. Friend on 27 October 1989 at column 631. I accept that the committee must have the freedom to determine the confidentiality of its own proceedings and of the work it has commissioned if it is to function efficiently.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many breaches there have been of the voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry on advertising and sponsorship in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Before the formation of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship (COMATAS) in October 1986, there was no consistent record of breaches of the voluntary agreements. It was to remedy this position that COMATAS was set up. In it first annual report COMATAS recorded 41 breaches and in its second annual report, seven breaches of the voluntary agreement have been recorded and one further complaint was referred to the Advertising Standards Authority which judged it to be in breach of its code of practice.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports considered by the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorships have not been made available to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship has commissioned and considered four reports on whether
  681
  certain parts of the voluntary agreements are being observed. These are: a study of poster advertising near schools by Survey Research Associates Ltd; a study of sports sponsorship by the centre for mass communication research at the university of Leicester; and two surveys on advertising at confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents by MaS Research, Marketing and Consultancy Ltd. They have not been made available to Parliament for the reasons given in my reply to my hon. Friend on 27 October at column 631.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the terms of reference of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship to enable all the information made available to the committee to be made available to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tobacco industry has recently agreed to meet Ministers with a view to opening renegotiations of the voluntary agreement on advertising. The role of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship will be considered in this context.

  Medical Records
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration he has given to the need to ensure confidentiality between patient and doctor, and to protect medical records stored on computerised systems from being sold to data processing companies;

  (2) who owns, and has responsibility for, a patient's medical records stored on a computer system; and what rights a patient has to access to the information stored in these records;

  (3) who owns, and has responsibilty for, a patient's medical records stored on index cards; and what rights a patient has to access to the information stored in these records;

  (4) who owns, and has responsibility for, a patient's medical records stored on a smart card; and what rights a patient has to access to the information stored in these records.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are currently considering all these issues. We intend to issue a health circular on ownership, confidentiality and disclosure of personal health information in the NHS on which we propose to consult widely in the new year.

  Census Information
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps to ensure that no information collected for the 1991 census, based on postal code areas, is used by insurance companies or building societies or others to withhold or weight policies based on that information;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that no information collected for the 1991 census is used to prepare mailing lists for any purpose.

  Mr. Freeman
  It would not be practicable for the Government to control the uses particular customers make of the aggregated data published from the Census. However, as with previous censuses, stringent measures will be taken to ensure confidentiality. No information on 682
  identified individual people or households will be passed to anyone other than employees of the registrars general. Furthermore, in order to guard against possible indirect disclosure of such information, no statistics, except, possibly, simple totals of people or households, will be published for areas containing very small numbers of households or people.

  Statistical summary tables relating to fairly small local areas have been produced since the 1961 census. These have proved to be of great value to a wide range of users in central and local government and in health authorities, as well as to industry and commerce. The facility to define such areas directly in terms of groups of postcodes as well as census enumeration districts will add to the usefulness of these statistics, particularly to local and health authorities; and, subject to the overriding requirement to avoid disclosing data about individuals, I am anxious that the most effective use should be made of the data which everyone is required by law to provide to the census offices.

  If census statistics were not made available for areas defined directly in postcode terms, it would still be possible for anyone to use maps and postcode directories published elsewhere in order to relate the statistics for any local area to the set of postcodes and to the set of addresses which fall within that area. Such uses could be prevented only by suppressing all census statistics for local areas. This would unnecessarily reduce the public availability of statistics collected by the census offices, and substantially diminish the value of the census.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has established that the eating of irradiated food by pregnant women is safe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  International expert bodies, such as the joint expert committee on food irradiation and the international consultative group on food irradiation, and the national expert body, the advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods, have advised repeatedly on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated foods. There is no evidence to suggest that irradiation of food up to an overall average dose of 10kgy presents a toxicological hazard or special nutritional or microbiological problems to the population at large or to specific groups of the population.

  Irradiation is one among several techniques for preserving and improving the safety of certain foods. The Government consider that all members of the public in the United Kingdom should be free to choose to enjoy the preservation and safety benefits of irradiated food and are therefore seeking powers in the Food Safety Bill to ensure that this choice is available within an appropriate control framework.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of Army personnel and vehicles deployed in London for each shift on ambulance duties since 1 November.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 51 Army vehicles were deployed in London with effect from 8 November. Each vehicle is crewed by two persons, making a total of 102 per shift.
  683
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each day since 1 October for the London area, per shift(a) the number of ambulance personnel on duty, (b) the number of vehicles available, and (c) the number of emergency calls and the number answered within seven minutes and 14 minutes;

  (2) what are the total number of patients moved by (a) the London ambulance service, (b) St. John's and (c) military vehicles per day in London since 1 October;

  (3) what is the average amount of money paid to a qualified ambulance person in London for September, October and November of the current year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The management of the London ambulance service is the responsibility of the South West Thames regional health authority to whom I refer the hon. Member.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings have been held by(a) himself and (b) Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the National Health Service with (i) the trade union side of the Whitley council for ambulance staff and (ii) the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel since 1 September.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel on 24 November when their claim for recognition was discussed. I met them on 14 November to discuss their role in the current dispute. Duncan Nichol, National Health Service chief executive, met the trade union side of the ambulance Whitley council on 22 September, 24 and 26 October and 17 November in attempts to find a basis on which negotiations in the Whitley council might be resumed; he also met the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel on 26 September and 17 November.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to assess the health implications of emissions from diesel-powered engines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health's independent expert advisory committee on the carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment is currently considering findings from a series of recent epidemiological and experimental studies relating to effects on health of diesel exhaust in order to assess any possible impact on public health.

  Direct exposure to diesel exhaust fumes can cause irritation to the eyes and throat. Substances present in diesel fumes are known to be toxic to laboratory animals when they are exposed to high concentrations over a lifetime. However, human exposure to diesel fumes is normally transient and at much lower levels, and is not known to have any long-term effects on health.

  Oral Tobacco Products
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has decided to proceed with the proposed ban on oral snuff.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Letters have been sent today to the two companies affected to inform them that I have decided 684
  to make regulations under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which are being laid before Parliament today. The regulations will prohibit persons from supplying or from offering to supply, agreeing to supply, exposing for supply or possessing for supply any oral snuff. They will come into effect on 13 March 1990.

  The purpose of the ban is to protect our population, particularly our young people, from the serious health risks posed by these products, the use of which is causally associated with an increased risk of oral cancer. There is increasing evidence from the United States of America and Sweden that these products can become popular amongst young people. The Government's action should nip this dangerous new habit in the bud.

  When the Government originally proposed a ban on oral snuff last year, a three-month period was allowed for representations, and this period was subsequently extended by a month for the two companies involved. A large number of representations were received, the vast majority of which were in favour of a ban. The Government have considered all the representations with great care. It has also consulted its partners in the European community and other GATT signatories. However, no new evidence or arguments have come to light which suggest that the proposed ban is not justified.

  The products which will be covered by the ban are goods which consist wholly or mainly of tobacco in fine cut, ground or particulate form or in any combination of those forms and which are for oral use other than smoking. This does not include traditional chewing tobacco, loose tobacco for making up into cigarettes, pipe tobacco or snuff for nasal use.

DEFENCE

  Military Museums
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military museums, including regimental museums, are currently being maintained; and if he will list them with their locations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 99 military museums being maintained wholly or in part by the Ministry of Defence. This total includes regimental and corps museums, some of which are colocated or are in the process of moving to common premises, and those museums designated under the Heritage Act 1982. I will write to my hon. Friend with a list of these museums shortly.

  Nuclear Defence Industry (Scotland)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the major employers in the nuclear defence industry in Scotland, their location and the number of employees at each;

  (2) if he will list the number of employees in the nuclear defence industry and related industries in Scotland.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold detailed information in the form requested, but a rough estimate of employment in Scotland related to nuclear defence is some 9,000 including Rosyth dockyard, Coulport, Faslane and the Clyde.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of defence bases in
  685
  Scotland, their location and the number of Scottish jobs at each base broken down into (a) armed forces and (b) MOD personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD's principal nuclear defence base in Scotland is the Clyde submarine base at Faslane. Other establishments providing support to the strategic deterrent programme are the royal navy armament depot at Coulport, Her Majesty's naval base at Rosyth and the naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay (HMS Vulcan). The figures for the number of personnel at present are as follows:

  Service

  Civilian

  Clyde submarine base

  3,797

  2,116

  RNAD Coulport

  65

  1,775

  HMNB Rosyth

  698

  11,936

  HMS Vulcan

  6

  420

  1 This figure does not include employees of the dockyard contractor.

  Some MOD staff are also employed in support of United States nuclear-powered submarines based at Holy Loch.

  Battle Tank (BAOR)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the cancellation of the programmes to develop a new battle tank for the British Army of the Rhine, and the Trigat anti-tank missile.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We keep our investment in all weapon systems, including main battle tanks and anti-tank missiles, under constant review.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all toxic chemicals held at military bases and military production sites; what are the quantities of such chemicals; and under what environmental regulations they are managed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on the type and quantity of toxic chemicals held at military bases and military production sites is not held centrally. The Department is bound by the general duties imposed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by regulations made under it. Certain sites that produce noxious or offensive substances are registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in accordance with the Control of Industrial Air Pollution (Registration of Works) Regulations 1989. Although the MOD is not bound by the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 or the Water Act 1989, it is a matter of general policy that it will aim to meet standards which are no lower than those in the community at large.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, at the recent meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels, the issue of the forthcoming amendment conference for the 1963 partial test ban treaty, and its implications for the modernisation of nuclear warheads for new NATO controlled nuclear weapons, was addressed.
  686
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend discussed a range of matters of mutual defence interest when he met his colleagues on the defence planning committee in Brussels in November, but it is not our practice to reveal the details of such discussions.

TRANSPORT

  European Council
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the recent European Council of Transport Ministers meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The meeting on 4 and 5 December, which was attended by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, saw important progress made towards the establishment of a single market in transport in two areas.

  First, the Council agreed an interim experiment for road haulage cabotage as a preliminary step to a full-scale regime from 1993. Although this is a small step in itself, it represents a major breakthrough in terms of liberalising cabotage generally.

  Secondly, the Council expressed its commitment to agree measures to liberalise air transport. From June 1993, airlines will be able to set their own fares subject only to "double disapproval"—that is, unless the countries at both the ends of the route reject the proposed fares. In the meantime, the present fare approval system will be made more flexible. Similarly, bilateral capacity sharing will be abolished from the end of 1992, and further relaxation will be made in the interim. The council also committed itself to ensure that uniform licensing criteria are introduced by June 1992 giving airlines established in a country the right to a licence. Altogether, this provided a clear basis for more detailed work over the coming months with a view to Council agreement under the Irish presidency. The Council adopted a directive on training for drivers of dangerous goods. The United Kingdom, supported by certain other member states, registered our concern in the minutes that future technical adaption should be consistent with the standards of the ADR.

  There were discussions but not agreements on the Commission's proposals for shipping "positive measures", and on the current state of negotiations with west African countries on shipping; on vehicles hired without drivers; on road safety; on driving and working hours; and on transport infrastructure. After a debate on Community railway policy, the Commission was invited to set up a working party to look at a high-speed rail network and the scope for technical harmonisation. The Commission reported the current state of play in its negotiations with Switzerland, Austria and Yugoslavia on transit. Under other business, there were brief references to transit quotas, and to lorry taxation.

  Life Saving at Sea
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons have been decorated with the bronze or silver medal for gallantry for saving life at sea in each year since 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There have been two awards of the sea gallantry medal (bronze) in the period: one in 1981 and the other in 1989. No sea gallantry medals (silver) were awarded.
  687
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to alert master mariners, shipping companies, the lifeboat services, Her Majesty's Coastguard and other official institutions to the sea gallantry medal instituted by Act of Parliament to recognise acts of bravery at sea.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has not thought it necessary to publicise the award in view of its long standing.

  Traffic Noise
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made to the effect on householders of increasing traffic noise from existing roads; whether he has any plans to make such households eligible for the noise insulation grants available to residents affected by new road development, using the same noise level criteria; and whether he will evaluate the likely cost of such a measure.

  Mr. Atkins
  No general assessment has been made of the effect on householders of changes in traffic noise from existing roads. This is bound to vary substantially from case to case. In some cases, the building of new roads will reduce substantially the noise from existing ones.

  The Land Compensation Act 1973 makes provision for noise insulation only in the case of new or substantially improved roads. It is not accordingly open to the Department under the law as it stands to make noise insulation available more widely. The cost of making insulation available in relation to all existing roads was estimated in 1983 at £1,840 million for some 2·3 million properties.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to introduce benzene vapour emission controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The benzene content of petrol is already controlled by regulations and by European Community directive 85/210/EEC. Petrol may contain no more than 5 per cent. of benzene. In practice the average content in this country is about 3 per cent.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to discourage the transportation of toxic waste(a) inland and (b) for import-export.

  Mr. Atkins
  When toxic waste is transported, it is treated in the same way as other dangerous substances and must comply with the appropriate regulations to ensure safe transport. The import and export of toxic and other wastes is a matter for the Department of the Environment.

THE ARTS

  Disabled Musicians
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the effect on disabled musicians of the recent closure of the music advisory 688
  service of the Disabled Living Foundation; and what funding his Department intends to offer towards providing such a service.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: I have asked for a report about the closure of this service and will write to my hon. Friend when I have received more information.

  Wilding Report
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will extend the current closing date for responses to the Wilding report on "Supporting the Arts —A Review of the Structure of Arts Funding" to 31 January 1990.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: To avoid uncertainty in the arts world, I remain committed to announcing my response to Mr. Wilding's recommendations as soon as I am able. While, in reaching my decisions, I shall endeavour to take into account responses received after 31 December, I am reluctant to agree to a formal extension of the consultation period.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Companies Acts Investigations
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply of 27 November,Official Report, column 97, if he will give his reasons for believing it unnecessary to conduct a review of the possibilities of prejudice to a criminal trial of individuals named in a Companies Act investigation when those individuals are, in advance of their trial, publicly disciplined by a self-regulatory organisation established under the Financial Services Act.

  The Attorney-General
  Self-regulating organisations recognised under the Financial Services Act are responsible for exercising their own discipline over those who have agreed to be bound by their rules, so as to ensure that their members are fit and proper to conduct investment business. Such organisations are also subject to the general duty at common law to refrain from acts which raise a real likelihood of interference with the administration of justice. I am satisfied that these obligations are well known and understood by those affected and have no reason to doubt that care is taken to strike the right balance according to the circumstances of particular cases.

PRIME MINISTER

  Constitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister would be responsible for putting proposals to Parliament on a constitutional separation of powers.

  The Prime Minister
  This would depend on the nature of the proposals.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Truro of 5 December, which veterinary medicines were discussed with Monsanto on 15 November.

  Mr. Maclean
  The discussions concentrated on general licensing principles, although Monsanto's BST product was mentioned.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when representatives from(a) Eli Lilley and (b) Monsanto last met members of the Veterinary Products Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Veterinary Products Committee met representatives from Eli Lilley on 19 April 1989, and from Monsanto on 20 September 1989, in both cases to review evidence submitted in support of a product licence application.

  Poultry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of premises in each county of England requiring inspection under the provisions of the testing of poultry flocks orders.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is estimated that the number of flocks subject to the requirements of the Poultry Laying Flocks (Testing and Registration etc.) Order 1989 in England is in the region of 28,000. The order does not contain specific inspection requirements, but I expect inspections to be concentrated particularly on the larger flocks, estimated at around 4,000, which will be required to be registered with my Department. Under the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries (Registration and Testing) Order 1989 an estimated 3,000 breeding flocks and 120 hatcheries in England will be visited by my officials. A breakdown of these figures by counties is not available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimate of the additional costs being borne by the local authorities in their enforcement of the order relating to the registration and testing of poultry flocks.

  Mr. Maclean
  I do not have information on the resources which local authorities are allocating to work in connection with the two new orders on registration and testing of poultry flocks, which came into force on 26 October 1989.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific or veterinary studies have been carried out on the Government's slaughter policy for laying poultry; and whether any of these studies has produced evidence in favour of the policy.

  Mr. Maclean
  The evidence relating to salmonella infection in poultry flocks and eggs was reviewed by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in its report of 28 February 1989. The Committee concluded that in seeking to address the problem of the rise in salmonella 690
  food poisoning cases the Government were right to make egg production the first focus of attention. In reaching this conclusion the Committee referred to the routes by which eggs may become infected via infected flocks, through faecal contamination and transovarian transmission, and welcomed the Government's announcement of the compulsory slaughter policy for poultry flocks. It is too early to reach definite conclusions about the effectiveness of this policy, but it is clear that the removal of infected flocks is helping to reduce the risk of salmonella infection in humans.

  Enzymes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has authorised the use of any products containing enzymes from blood for the purpose of creating restructured fresh meat products; if he has received any requests for approval for trials of such products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. No such requests have been received. The use of enzymes in food is subject to the general provisions of the Food Act. It is an offence to add any substance to food intended for sale so as to render the food injurious to health.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of echo locators and side scanners and their effect on dolphin and porpoise behaviour.

  Mr. Gummer
  Echo locators and side scanners are standard equipment on modern fishing vessels to assist in the location of fish shoals for capture. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that such equipment has any adverse effect on dolphin or porpoise behaviour.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the consequences of the use of nylon monofilament fish nets for the dolphin and porpoise population in British coastal waters.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am aware of the concern that monofilament fishing nets may accidentally ensnare dolphins and porpoises. However there has been no evidence that this is a significant problem in our waters. Nevertheless the fisheries Departments are planning a general monitoring scheme on the incidental capture of cetaceans in United Kingdom fisheries, so that we can keep the matter under closer review.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce measures similar to those in the United States Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect the populations of cetaceans.

  Mr. Gummer
  I understand that the specific problem which the United States authorities have sought to address this year, under their Marine Mammal Protection Act, is the very large number of small cetaceans which may be caught in the Pacific purse-seine fisheries for yellow-fin tuna. There is no comparable situation within United Kingdom waters and therefore we have no plans to introduce similar measures. Our own legislation already
  691
  seeks to protect cetaceans by prohibiting their deliberate taking within our 200-mile limit and the import or sale of cetacean products in the United Kingdom.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies are(a) being conducted and (b) planned by his Department into the likely effects of the greenhouse global warming effect on farming and agriculture in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 4 December at column 112.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, during the meeting of the Council of European Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 21 November, he put forward any policies aimed at modification of agricultural practices to mitigate the greenhouse effect, that is global warming.

  Mr. Gummer
  There was no discussion of the greenhouse effect at this meeting of the Council.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to obtain agreement with the United Kingdom's European partners for the extension of the £27 beef premium to include heifers and to apply to herds in excess of 90 head.

  Mr. Gummer
  I see no prospect of being able to negotiate the inclusion of heifers in the beef special premium scheme. The United Kingdom voted against the imposition of a headage limit and I continue to regard it as discriminatory.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision he makes for the inspection of live animal exports to ensure the provisions of the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911 are met.

  Mr. Maclean
  Veterinary inspections and supervised loadings of every consignment of farm animals exported for further fattening or slaughter are made in accordance with the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981. Under this order the state veterinary service (SVS) also oversees transport arrangements for breeding farm livestock where advice and guidance may be necessary. Enforcement of the 1973 order is primarily a matter for local authorities, but the SVS provides assistance and advice where necessary.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has refused to grant licences for independent scientific tests under proper veterinary supervision to be carried out on flocks found to be infected with salmonella typhimurium and enteritidis.

  Mr. Maclean
  A licence may be given for samples to be taken for separate examination if this is requested by the 692
  flock owner. Decisions to require the slaughter of infected flocks are however based on the results of laboratory examinations carried out by my Department.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether broiler flocks affected by salmonella typhimurium and enteritidis can complete their growing cycle and be processed in the normal way to end up as raw meat in kitchens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no requirement for broiler birds to be tested for salmonella. Broiler breeder flocks are however required to be tested and, if found to be infected with salmonella enteritidis or salmonella typhimurium, will be slaughtered in order to minimise the risk of infection spreading through the production chain. Advice to consumers has been given on the precautions which should be taken in handling and cooking poultry meat.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what administrative level the numbers of animals exported for research purposes are collected.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise keep records of exports of live animals, but these do not distinguish between those sent for research purposes and other uses.

  Egg Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs were imported into the United Kingdom during the month of November; of these how many were(a) tested for salmonella, (b) condemned for salmonella contamination or (c) condemned for other reasons.

  Mr. Gummer
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as these data become available.

  Zoonoses Order 1988
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 4 December, what directions he has given for the disposal of carcases of birds slaughtered under the Zoonoses Order 1988.

  Mr. Maclean
  The methods of disposing of carcases from compulsory slaughtered flocks include burial and incineration, the method used in each case depending on local circumstances.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what elements of the veterinary products committee examination of bovine somatotropin have not yet been completed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The veterinary products committee has yet to submit its recommendations on any of the BST products for which licence applications have been made. I understand that in accordance with the Medicines Act the committee is still reviewing a range of matters with the help of data being generated in field trials.

  Our Lady of Passion Monastery, Daventry
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much compensation has been paid to Our Lady of Passion monastery at Daventry; and if he will estimate the costs incurred by the monastery arising from the slaughter of 5,000 birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of the amount of compensation paid for slaughtered poultry, in accordance with the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981, are a matter between the flock owner and my Department. I am not in a position to estimate the costs incurred by Our Lady of Passion monastery.

  Liriomyza Huidobrensis
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will ban the importation of plants from Holland in order to control the spread of Liriomyza huidobrensis among plants;

  (2) what compensation is proposed for those growers compelled to destroy crops infested with Liriomyza huidobrensis;

  Title

  Contractor

  Status

  1. The performance of Microwave Ovens for Cooking and Reheating Foods.

  Mr. M. Duncan

  Completed

  2. Microwave Reheating Of Ready Meals

  IFR-Bristol

  Completed

  3. Destruction of Listeria monocytogenes during Microwave Cooking.

  IFR-Norwich

  Completed

  4. Effect of Microwave Cooking on Survival of Listria Monocytogenes in Cook-Chill Retail Products.

  CFDRA

  Completed

  5. Testing the Uniformity and Reproducibility of Reheating in Domestic Microwave Oven.

  IFR-Bristol

  Completed

  6. The Influence of the Physical, and Electrical Properties on the Quality of Foods Heated by Microwaves.

  CFDRA

  On-going

  The position is still being evaluated and further research will be commissioned as necessary.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to eliminate the use of microwaves designed for domestic use in commercial premises.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials are holding urgent discussions with the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to establish how far this practice creates a problem, and with a view to taking whatever steps may be necessary to make sure that caterers have the right equipment to avoid any risk to food safety.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has become of the microwave ovens donated by manufacturers to facilitate the study recently completed by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  The microwave ovens do not belong to my Department as they were made available to the researchers by the manufacturers. Their fate is a matter for discussion between the manufacturers and the researchers at Bristol.

  Bananas
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the annual tonnage of bananas imported into the United Kingdom as a percentage of the European Community total in each of the last five years.
  694
  (3) what has been the incidence of Liriomyza huidobrensis infestation in plants over the last 10 years; and what steps he is taking to counter the problem.

  Mr. Maclean
  So far this year there have been 27 confirmed findings of the South American leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis. There were no findings in previous years. The Ministry is maintaining a policy of eradication of this pest to ensure that it does not become established in this country. As regards compensation and controls on the importation of plants from the Netherlands. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 6 December at column 248.

  Microwave Ovens.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has sponsored within the last 12 months to assess the safety of microwaves in respect of food cooked therein; what research is either in progress or planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The research to assess the safety of food cooked in domestic microwave ovens commissioned within the last 12 months is as follows:

  Mr. Maclean
  The annual tonnage of bananas imported into the United Kingdom as a percentage of the European Community total in each of the last five years is as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of bananas as a percentage of total European Community imports

  per cent.

  11984

  16·7

  11985

  16·5

  1986

  13·2

  1987

  14·0

  1988

  13·5

  1 Excluding Spain and Portugal.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total tonnage of imports of bananas in each of the last five years from(a) Africa, Caribbean and Pacific suppliers, (b) Latin America and (c) other suppliers.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total tonnage of imports of bananas into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years from(a) African, Caribbean and Pacific signatories to the Lomé convention, (b) dollar area countries (incorporating Latin American sources) and (c) other suppliers are as follows:
  695

  1984 tonnes

  1985 tonnes

  1986 tonnes

  1987 tonnes

  1988 tonnes

  African, Caribbean and Pacific

  184,463

  222,678

  275,836

  271,620

  322,327

  Dollar area (including Latin American countries)

  120,854

  99,363

  59,541

  80,604

  61,654

  Other suppliers

  4,010

  1,506

  7,619

  7,193

  4,016

  TOTAL

  309,327

  323,547

  342,996

  359,417

  387,997

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs General Trade Tabulation Sheets.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria the banana trade advisory committee take into account in its monthly meetings to assess the supply and demand position on imported bananas.

  Mr. Maclean
  In assessing the supply position the banana trade advisory committee considers estimates of future sendings from all ACP and EC origins given either by the traditional supplying countries or by the main importing companies. The committee also keeps in mind the minimum figure for imports of bananas from the dollar area guaranteed to the smaller banana importers. On demand, estimates are based on advice from all sectors of the trade and take account of the Government's own rising minimum supply requirement figures which are published for the year ahead.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with European Community Ministers concerning banana import policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. But my officials have been in contact with their counterparts in other European Community countries and the European Commission. We wish to ensure that policy from 1993 onwards on bananas takes account of consumer interests and of the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market, and is consistent with our commitments to our Caribbean suppliers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on banana import policy in the last 12 months; and what reply he gave.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received representations from a wide variety of interests in the past 12 months, including from United Kingdom trade, ripener and retailer interests and from our supplying countries. Our responses have reflected the balance of interests that is struck in our banana policy—the fulfilment of commitments to our traditional suppliers, the improvement of competition in the market and the improvement of banana quality.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the present membership of his food advisory committee and the committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food, consumers products and the environment and whether there have been any changes in either committee during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Members of the food advisory committee (FAC) are as follows:
  696

  Name

  Occupation

  Dr. Ewan S. Page (Chairman) BSc, MA, PhD, CBIM FBCS

  Vice Chancellor, Reading University.

  Dr. Margaret Ashwell BCc (Hons) PhD, MIHEc, FIFST, FRSH

  Science Director, British Nutrition Foundation.

  Mr. Michael J. Boxall ACII, CBIM

  Company Secretary, Tesco Plc.

  Professor Douglas Georgala CBE, PhD, FIFST

  Director of Food Research, AFRC and Director of the Institute of Food Research.

  Dr. Tom Gorsuch OBE, BSc, PhD, FIFST

  Former Director of Research and Quality Control, Colmans of Norwich (Retired).

  Professor R. Marian Hicks BSc, PhD, DSc, FRCPath

  Science Director, United Biscuits (UK) Ltd Group Research and Development Centre.

  Mr. Roger Manley, FITSA

  Director of Trading Standards, Cheshire County Council.

  Miss Patricia Mann FCam, FIPA, CBIM

  Head of External Affairs, J. Walter Thompson Group and Editor of "Consumer Affairs".

  Mrs. Jill Moore OBE

  National Consumer Council and Chairman of National Federation of Consumer Groups.

  Dr. Bryan Nichols MSc, PhD

  Legislation and Health Policy Manager, Van den Berghs and Jurgens Ltd.

  Mr. Ronald Nicholson M. Chem A, FIFST, FIWEM, CChem, FRSC

  Regional Chemist, Public Analyst and Agricultural Analyst for the Regional Council of Strathclyde; and Public Analyst and Agricultural Analyst for the Western Isles Island Council.

  Mrs. Barbara Saunders

  Freelance consultant on consumer policy. Member of the European Commission's Consumer Consultative Committee.

  Mr. Tony Skrimshire C. Chem, FRSC, FIFST

  Director, Purchasing and Quality Assurance, H. J. Heinz Company Ltd.

  Professor Paul Turner MD, BSc, FRCP, Mr. Pharms Hon. FiBiol

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

  697

  Name

  Occupation

  Dr. Roger G. Whitehead BSc, PhD, MA, FiBiol, C. Biol, Hon. MRCP

  Director of the Medical Research Council's Dunn Nutrition Unit Cambridge, UK and the Gambia, West Africa.

  The following appointments have been made since 1 December 1988: Professor D. Georgala; Mrs. J. Moore OBE; Mr. R. Nicholson; and Mrs. B. Saunders were appointed on 1 November 1989. The following members have retired; Dr. H. O. W. Eggins BSc, PhD, FI Biol, director of Bioquest Ltd; Mr. A. J. Harrison MBE, M. Chem A, C Chem, FRSC, FIFST, FRSH, chief scientific adviser, public analyst and official agricultural analyst to Avon county council, and public analyst and official agricultural analyst to Gloucestershire county council; Mrs. M. Stamper BSc, Dip Ed, part-time lecturer in biology, Lewes technical college and chairman of the National Federation of Women's Institutes' environmental and public affairs committee; and Dr. E. R. Young MB, MRCP, senior registrar in dermatology, Wycombe general hospital.

  These changes strengthen the consumer background of the FAC. Changes in membership of the FAC are always announced by press release.

  The membership of the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Eggs
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will estimate the number of small egg producers which have gone out of business since the introduction of the Zoonoses Order 1989;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of egg producers which have gone out of business since 1 January.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to allow United Kingdom egg producers to compete fairly with other European Community egg producers since the introduction of the Zoonoses Order of 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission are drafting proposed measures on salmonella in poultry including the establishment of effective controls at the points of production, to apply throughout the Community.

  At present whilst imported eggs take a very small part of the market our exports have increased so far this year by over 90 per cent. compared with 1988. We are also developing an initiative to label British produced eggs as "British" to encourage consumers' confidence in British eggs.

  Food Premises
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on how many food premises come under the jurisdiction of the Duchy of Cornwall.
  698
  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that no food premises are managed directly by the Duchy of Cornwall. Certain of the Duchy's tenants are known to run food businesses, but details are not available centrally.

  Microwaved Food
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the molecular structures of(a) milk products, (b) meat and (c) fish which has been microwaved;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the presence of the amino acids D-proline and cis-hydroxyproline in food which has been microwaved.

  Mr. Maclean
  Microwaving is simply one method of heating food. I am not aware of any good evidence that changes in food brought about by microwave heating would not also be brought about by other methods producing equivalent amounts of heat.

  I understand that the account of the research carried out at the University of Vienna and reported in The Lancet of 9 December was very incomplete. It failed to mention that a very small milk sample was microwaved at full power in a sealed tube to an unknown temperature (probably well in excess of 100 deg C) until it was brown. This heat treatment was far more severe than that received by other samples with which it was compared and bears no relation whatever to the way consumers would heat milk in the kitchen.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Brussels Agriculture Council held on 11 and 12 December.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  The Council discussed a possible Community initiative on agriculture in the current GATT round. I emphasised the need for a constructive Community position, which would further the process of agricultural reform and the negotiations. Further discussions will now be held in the Foreign Affairs Council.

  The Council reached agreement in principle on a directive laying down arrangements for veterinary checks on certain animal products. This contains satisfactory safeguards so that the dismantling of controls at the border does not significantly increase the risk of the spread of disease. Special safeguards are included, benefiting countries, such as the United Kingdom, that do not vaccinate against food and mouth disease or are free from swine fever. The directive will be implemented at a date which will be decided by the Council taking account of arrangements to be put in place establishing a uniform Community system governing imports from third countries.

  Agreement in principle was also reached on a Council regulation specifying the level of checks member states must undertake on firms benefiting from payments under the guarantee section of the Community's farm fund. This should help to combat fraud.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Environmentally Friendly Technology
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the value of the global market in environmentally friendly technology; and what steps he is taking to urge British companies to take a major share of this market.

  Mr. Forth
  Environmentally friendly technology is a portmanteau term which can be applied to an enormous selection of goods and services, from biodegradable washing powder to the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation processes to power stations. It is, therefore, impossible to state a single figure for the global market. However, the current estimate of the world market for pollution control products and services is £100 billion a year.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has set up the business and the environment unit (BEU) to focus on specific key areas of the DTI environmental programme, such as waste management, clean technology and pollution control. The BEU helps United Kingdom companies to exploit the market opportunities for clean technology, pollution control equipment and services, and for other environmentally-friendly products. It gathers and maintains information on standards and world markets, assists United Kingdom companies to take advantage of the various support schemes available in this field and encourages United Kingdom companies to participate in environmental technology exhibitions at home and abroad.

  British Aerospace (Rover Deal)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the correspondence between British Aerospace and the Government over the future of the golden share.

  Mr. Ridley
  Correspondence between British Aerospace and the Government over the future of the golden share from 1985 (when British Aerospace made its initial request to raise the foreign shareholding limit), to August 1989 when I decided to raise the BAe and Rolls-Royce limits following agreement with the European Commission, took place on the basis of commercial confidentiality. At the time of the Rover Group sale my right hon. and noble Friend, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made it clear, as can be seen from his letter of 12 July which I have sent to the hon. Member, that he was sympathetic to BAe's case for a relaxation of the limit. The detailed proposals for raising the limit, common to both companies, had to be decided in consultation with the Commission which had since 1987 queried compatibility at the 15 per cent. foreign shareholding with EC law.
  700
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what he now estimates to be the value of the tax concessions made to British Aerospace during the Rover negotiations.

  Mr. Ridley
  No tax concessions were made to British Aerospace during the Rover negotiations. On the contrary, contractual arrangements were put in place effectively to deny Rover Group the benefit of tax losses in excess of £500 million which the group was entitled to carry forward under United Kingdom tax law. In that connection, the position remains subject to any applicability of section 768 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, on which British Aerospace may seek a view from the Inland Revenue in accordance with the terms of the correspondence between British Aerospace's advisers and the Inland Revenue which has been made available to the Public Accounts Committee.

  As explained at the time of the final deal, certain contractual ring-fencing arrangements agreed in the March conditional terms were lifted so that the final contractual position with regard to disclaimed capital allowances and capital losses was no more, and no less, restrictive than under normal revenue law.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the quantity and value of imported blood products, distinguishing between factor 8 and other blood products, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information held centrally relates only to the usage of imported factor 8 concentrate and is given in the table. Information on the value of these imports is not held centrally.

  United Kingdom usage of imported Factor 8 concentrate (millions of international units).

  Number

  1980

  135·1

  1981

  135·5

  1982

  145·6

  1983

  139·5

  1984

  138·5

  1985

  50·9

  1986

  53·8

  1987

  59·2

  1988

  55·2

  1 Does not include users with acquired haemophilia.

  Export Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number, nature and size of charges made for services under the export initiative(a) in March 1989, and (b) in October 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows:
  701

  DTI Export Services

  Number of Charges

  Nature of Charge

  Size of Charge (income generated)

  Service

  March 1989

  October 1989

  March 1989

  October 1989

  March 1989 £k

  October 1989 £k

  Export Representative Service

  33

  11

  £517·50, £345·00, £172·50 depending on market

  As for March

  12·6

  1·91

  Overseas status review service

  21

  17

  £24·15

  As for MIEs below

  5·17

  1 ·61

  Market Information Enquiries [MIEs]

  No Charge

  108

  No Charge

  Up to 4 hours work at Posts overseas = £57·50 over 4 hours=£115

  No Charge

  9·00

  New Products Service

  No Charge

  1

  No Charge

  £57·50 per story

  No Charge

  0·06

  Export Intelligence Service

  69,000

  n/a

  £0·50p per notice

  n/a

  34·5

  n/a

  Overseas Trade Fairs

  424

  634

  See below

  See below

  548·00

  992·00

  It is difficult to compare the figures provided, as a new accounting system based on the use of the DTI service card for paying for most export services was introduced on 1 April 1989. The following should also be noted:

  Overseas trade fairs: for fairs opening prior to 1 April 1990, the charge is 40 per cent. of the DTI's direct costs of providing space and exhibition stand for first time participants at an event, 55 per cent. for second timers and 75 per cent. for regular exhibitors. For events opening after 1 April 1990 the charge is 50 per cent. for the first three participations in a particular country (five for Japan) and full cost thereafter. Some of the receipts in October will be under the former regime and some under the latter.

  Export Intelligence Service: elements of the export intelligence service have been contracted out to Export Opportunities Ltd. The information for October 1989 is commercially confidential.

  Chargecard for Exporters
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the contract awarded to Welbeck Financial Services Ltd. to operate the Department of Trade and Industry chargecard for exporters was subject to competitive tender; and how tenders were obtained.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. Five companies were invited to tender to operate the DTI service card.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he will launch an investigation into the affair of Ferranti's acquisition of ISC;

  (2) if he will order an inquiry into alleged fraud involving the Ferranti Company.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so.

  The serious fraud office and the company fraud department of the metropolitan police are actively investigating allegations of fraud prior to, surrounding and subsequent to the merger of Ferranti plc and International Signal and Control Group plc.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the auditing firms criticised by his Department's inspectors since June 1979 but which have nevertheless been allowed to make accounting policy through their membership of the Accounting Standards Committee or its working parties; and how such firms have come to be represented on the committee.

  Mr. Redwood
  Those voting members of the Accounting Standards Committee (ASC) who are accountants are nominated on a personal basis by their professional body and appointed by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, which has stipulated that they shall not regard themselves as delegates of sectional interests but shall be guided by the need to act in the general interests of the community and of the accountancy profession as a whole. Members of its working parties are appointed by the ASC itself.

  Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, at any time since June 1979, any person has acted as an inspector for any of the Department of Trade and Industry's investigations whilst that same person was under investigation by other inspectors.

  Mr. Redwood
  Inspectors are appointed to investigate the affairs or membership of companies, not individuals. In one case an accountant was appointed to be an inspector during the course of another investigation which involved his firm as auditors of the company under inquiry, and in which he was subsequently criticised. These appointments were made in 1975 and 1977 respectively.

  Milbury plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have taken against auditors Arthur Young following the criticism of them in his Department's report on Milbury plc.
  703
  Mr. Redwood
  A copy of the inspectors' report was sent to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. It subsequently announced that a committee of inquiry had been set up under the joint disciplinary scheme to look into certain matters arising out of the report.

  Bananas
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in the last 12 months concerning the operation of the scheme of banana import quotas; and what reply he gave.

  Mr. Redwood
  During the last 12 months a few representations have been received from importers about the allocation of the dollar banana quota. We have explained that this is shared out amongst existing traders on the basis of past trade in dollar bananas. Newcomers are required to demonstrate their commitment before receiving an allocation. "Past trade" is the method used to distribute all other import administered quotas.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his response to the proposals in the European Economic Community consultative document on the import of footwear from Korea and Taiwan.

  Mr. Redwood
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade is giving urgent consideration to the Commission's consultative document in the light of their findings and the views expressed by the United Kingdom industry and others. He expects to reach a decision on the appropriate action to be taken very shortly.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many seminars on the subject of the single European market have been organised by his Department during the last two years, broken down by region.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: My Department has organised 20 regional breakfast presentations and provided ministerial and official speakers for 1,423 conferences and seminars in the United Kingdom, primarily organised by private sector bodies, since the Europe "Open for Business" campaign was launched in March 1988.

  The regional breakdown of these figures is as follows:

  Breakfast

  Conferences

  presentations

  seminars etc.

  East Midlands

  1

  159

  North East

  1

  85

  North West

  1

  85

  South East

  5

  620

  South West

  2

  121

  West Midlands

  1

  150

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  115

  Northern Ireland

  1

  5

  Scotland

  2

  7

  Wales

  2

  6

  The figures for conferences and seminars exclude speakers provided by the relevant Government Departments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
  704
  My Department also organised a major conference on Europe "Open for Professions", held in London on 4 October this year.

  Batteries (Recycling)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made towards the recycling of batteries; and if he will make a statement about the role of the Warren Spring laboratory.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: Battery recycling is well-established in the United Kingdom, but is mostly concentrated upon the larger land-acid and nickel-cadmium cells, and upon silver oxide and mercuric oxide button cells. Commercial recycling of the consumer types of alkaline manganese and nickel-cadmium batteries has not so far proved economically viable. Warren Spring laboratory, as part of a collaborative project, is carrying out research into methods of recovering these batteries from the domestic waste stream and the environmental, economic and technical issues which recovery involves.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken in response to proposals relating to the Inland Revenue from British Aerospace referred to in a letter which was sent by Professor Roland Smith to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry between 6 July and 12 July 1988.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: It was agreed that British Aerospace could seek a view in advance from the Inland Revenue about the applicability of section 768 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to proposals to be made by British Aerospace following its acquisition of Rover Group.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals for increasing the number of environmental health officers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The number of environmental health officers needed to discharge statutory functions is a matter for each individual local environmental health authority to determine in the light of local circumstances.

  Wild Life
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals the Government have to protect wildlife.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 introduced for the first time in Great Britain comprehensive statutory protection for endangered wild species and their habitats. Protection is given to many species of wild animals and plants and to all birds; the lists of animals and plants are reviewed every five years.

  Planning
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to issue any further planning policy guidance notes or introduce any legislation on planning matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My hon. Friend will know that the Gracious Speech contained no proposal for planning legislation in this Session. We do propose, however, to issue several new or revised planning policy guidance notes in the coming months.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider seeking to amend legislation on planning procedures to include permission to demolish dwelling houses in the scope of planning applications.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has considered this carefully, but he does not believe that there is a need to extend planning controls over demolition.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding planning procedure.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend receives a number of representations about planning procedure. In particular, over 400 individuals and organisations have responded to a consultation paper entitled "Efficient Planning" which we issued on 28 July.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned expenditure of his Department on the royal parks, the royal palaces and other historic buildings in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  The gross planned expenditure figures are £165·9 million for 1990–91 and £169–7 million for 1991–92. They include the re-use of income such as trading and visitor receipts for the occupied palaces, parks and the new Historic Royal Palaces Agency, and include grant-in-aid to English Heritage. This expenditure will permit improvements in the standards of presentation and preservation of our heritage and increase the enjoyment of visitors, and represents a significant increase over the current year.

  Evironmental Protection
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on environmental protection.

  Mr. Trippier
  Very many, particularly in relation to the proposals which we wish to include in this session's Environmental Protection Bill.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what was discussed.
  706
  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy. (Dr. Thomas).

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the Government's plans for the future of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations from Welsh hon. Members he has received on the decision to set up separate bodies to deal with nature conservancy issues in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr Trippier
  My Department has received a large number of representations about the reorganisation of the NCC covering a wide spectrum of views. Common to almost all the representations has, however, been the need to maintain a sound science base and for appropriate arrangements for addressing nature conservation issues with a Great Britain or international dimension. All representations received were taken into account in the formulation of the Government's proposals for a statutory joint committee, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 November.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount local authority rent arrears rose in 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authority figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. However, in 1987–88, local authority rent arrears amounted to £226 million or 5·7 per cent. of the total rent roll. This constituted a 15 per cent. increase over the arrears outstanding in 1986–87 of £195 million.

  Rates (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the rate increase for Basildon district council for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Hunt
  The change in the local rate for Basildon district council was 0·2 per cent. for 1987–88, minus 6 per cent. for 1988–89 and 57–2 per cent. for 1989–90.

  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take further steps to stop or discourage sporting links with South Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Government policy on sporting links with South Africa is set out in the Gleneagles agreement. We remain fully committed to the agreement and take every opportunity to give effect to that commitment.

  Pollution (Irish Sea)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Department in conjunction with others to monitor the level of pollution in the Irish sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Regular monitoring for a wide range of purposes and substances takes place in the Irish sea, undertaken mainly by the National Rivers Authority in the case of rivers and estuaries and the Fisheries Departments for offshore site. The Department of the Environment also contributes, as does the work of dedicated research agencies such as the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many single person households with an existing rates liability can expect to benefit from the poll tax transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I estimate that about 110,000 single adult households will benefit from the community charge transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much more the rate support grant figure for 1989–90 would be increased if 2,000 of the residents of Langbaurgh were black.

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

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help will be available under the poll tax transitional relief scheme to private tenants who presently pay a combined rent and rates bill to their landlord.

  Mr. Chope
  Private tenants who pay a combined rent and rates bill to their landlord will be eligible for community charge transitional relief on the same basis as other chargepayers. They will be entitled to transitional relief provided that a comparison between their assumed rates bill for 1989–90 and either one or two assumed community charges (depending on the number of community chargepayers in the property) shows an increase of more than £156 a year.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowance he has made for local factors when setting the levels of community charge or poll tax which he considers will meet standard spending needs for local authorities in Northumberland.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend's detailed proposals for the calculation of standard spending assessments were set out in the draft revenue support grant distribution report issued at the time of his announcement to the House on 6 November. The same method will apply to all authorities with similar functions and will make use of a large number of indicators to reflect local conditions.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the administrative costs of the poll tax transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  An estimate of the administrative costs of the community charge transitional relief scheme will be 708
  made on the light of a study being undertaken for the Department by Peat Marwick McLintock and discussions with the local authorities associations.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for ;he Environment when his analysis of the effect on various households types of the losses and gains upon introduction of the poll tax using the charges listed in his 6 November statement will be available.

  Mr. Chope
  Shortly.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take note of the representations made by Stoke on Trent city council expressing its concerns about the Department of Environment letter of 6 November about the loss of £18 million of Government grants to charge payers in the city; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  All representations, including those from Stoke on Trent city council, will be taken into account before my right hon. Friend makes final decisions about the revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 120, what were the changes in the regulations to ensure that people being cared for in the community will receive the same relief from the standard community charge as those in residential care homes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Regulation 6 of the Community Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989, which were laid before the House on 7 December, prescribes, among other things, two extra classes of property for the purposes of the standard charge. One class covers property which is unoccupied because the person who formerly lived there is resident somewhere else for the purpose of receiving personal care. The other covers property which is unoccupied because the person who formerly lived there has moved in order to provide personal care to someone else. The maximum multiplier for both classes is zero for 12 months after the property becomes unoccupied. Charging authorities have discretion to allow a longer period of relief for such properties.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many students there are in full-time education and receiving an increase from their employers since qualifying for the 80 per cent. student discount under the poll tax rules.

  Mr. Patten
  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that these statistics are not available.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of the number of student nurses who will give up their training because they are unable to meet the full cost of their poll tax obligation.

  Mr. Patten
  No estimate is necessary since no such effect is likely.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what would be the full cost of extending to student nurses the rights to poll tax rebates available to other full-time students;
  709
  (2) what is the likely number of full-time student nurses who will be obliged to pay the full cost of the poll tax.

  Mr. Patten
  I understand that there are approximately 43,500 pre-registration nursing students in schools of nursing, and that by the end of March next year there will be approximately 1,500 nurses being trained under Project 2,000. Project 2,000 student nurses will qualify for student relief from the community charge. Over the next few years the scheme will be extended to cover all pre-registration nursing trainees receiving their training in schools of nursing.

  Based on these figures, and an average community charge of £278, the revenue forgone from extending student relief to all pre-registration students would be about £9·3 million.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each local authority the total as returned by community charges registration officers of(a) the numbers of persons subject to a personal community charge, excluding students eligible for relief under section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, (b) one fifth of students eligible for relief under section 13 of the 1988 Act and (c) the estimated full-year equivalent of the number of individuals liable to contribute to a collective community charge of the authority in 1990–91, in response to the notice issued on 21 November under section 139A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The response to the notice was excellent and the results demonstrate that authorities have been very successful in compiling their community charges registers. Every community charges registration officer made a return although one return received at the last minute was illegible having been corrupted in the course of facsimile transmission.

  The total of the forms received is 99·95 per cent. of the Government's estimate based on OPCS information. The information for individual authorities has been laid in the Library of the House.

  I do not propose to recalculate the figures circulated with the consultation letter of 6 November 1989 to local authority associations using this new information until I have completed my consideration of the representations made in response to that letter.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he could give the total amounts of support from central Government for the expenditure of Somerset county council in the years 1987–88, 1988–89, and 1989–90 and the latest estimate for such support for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: The available information is as follows:

  Central government grants1 to Somerset county council

  £ million

  1987–88

  89·7

  1988–89

  94·3

  1989–90

  93·5

  1 Comprising rate support grant, specific and supplementary grants.

  Somerset county council, as a precepting authority, will not receive revenue support grant in 1990–91 and no estimates of specific grants payable in 1990–91 are available for individual authorities.

  Lakes and Rivers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those lakes and rivers in England and Wales that show signs of acidification.

  Mr. Trippier
  The second report of the Department's acid waters review group, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, identified those areas of the United Kingdom that are susceptible to acid deposition as well as the location of known acid waters. Further studies under the Department's air pollution research programme are continuing and will be published.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has recently received any representations regarding the implementation of the unified business rate in England and Wales.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the small business community on the introduction of the unified business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has received a number of representations from individual businesses and business organisations on aspects of the new unified business rate in England.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from businesses in the south-east of England regarding the implementation of the unified business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from businesses in the south-east and elsewhere on aspects of the new unified business rate.

  As a result of representations from bodies representing small businesses, my right hon. Friend announced on 27 July that the threshold for more generous transitional arrangements would be doubled to £15,000 and £10,000 rateable value for properties, respectively, in London and elsewhere. He also announced on 6 November his provisional view that the non-domestic rating multiplier for 1990–91 would be 36p, a figure below that expected by the business community and generally welcomed by it. And, on 7 December, he laid before Parliament an order to allow where necessary for larger annual reductions in rate bills during the transitional period than previously expected.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the unified business rate for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 29 November, at column 252.

  Globe Theatre
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision about the scheduling of the Globe theatre.
  711
  Mr. Trippier
  Having considered the advice of his professional advisers English Heritage and representations received, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today included the remains of the recently discovered Globe theatre on the schedule of ancient monuments. I should like to acknowledge the leading part which the developers, Hanson, played in financing the archaeological excavation which led to the discovery of the remains.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to expand the numbers of council houses and cheaper rented houses in rural communities to deal with the increase in homelessness and the developing queues for rented housing.

  Mr. Chope
  We have planned for a major increase over the next three years in public funding through the Housing Corporation for new subsidised rented housing development by housing associations. Some of the extra resources will go to rural areas, and we have recently announced an increase in the targets for the Housing Corporation special rural programme aimed at smaller villages. Rural areas should also benefit from the encouragement we have given to private investment in the rented sector through deregulation of rents and tax relief under the business expansion scheme.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 December.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My official engagements for Wednesday 13 December are:

  Meetings with ministerial colleagues, DOE Ministers and Officials.

  Cabinet Committee meeting.

  Ministerial meeting.

  First order questions.

  Address national parks conference.

  Cabinet Committee meeting.

  DOE official engagement.

  Meeting with colleagues and officials.

  Barn Elms
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards there are for the preservation of the reservoirs at Barn Elms, Barnes.

  Mr. Howard
  Section 8 of the Water Act confers duties on the water companies in respect of all their land to further conservation, protect the landscape and public access and provide for recreation. These duties are enforceable by the Secretary of State who has approved a statutory code of practice, debated in the House in July, on conservation, access and recreation which gives guidance to companies on the performance of these duties and promotes good practice.

  Section 152 of the Water Act further provides that water companies may not dispose of land in national parks, the Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of special scientific interest without the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation; and that the Secretary of State may require that such land be first offered for sale to a suitable conservation body or that it be indefinitely protected by convenants or management agreements.
  712
  Barn Elms reservoir was notified as an SSSI in 1975 under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. 1 understand that the Nature Conservancy Council, which is responsible for this matter, is considering the representations it has received about its proposal announced in 1988 to denotify the reservoir as an SSSI. If Barn Elms reservoir remains an SSSI it will fall within the scope of the controls under section 152 relating to disposals of environmentally sensitive land.

  The safeguards are in addition to the ordinary protection afforded by planning legislation.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Oxfordshire county council concerning the community charge levels for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received a letter from the cluef executive of the county council making representations on the proposals for the grant settlement.

  The Secretary of State will consider the points made before he makes his final decisions on the settlement.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from local authorities about the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to revive inner city areas.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A wide range of action is being undertaken under the Government's Action for Cities initiative to revive our inner cities. Expenditure under the initiative has increased from £3 billion in 1988–89 to £3·5 billion in 1989–90. In developing our policies for the future we will seek to develop a genuine partnership between all those involved in the regeneration of their areas. On 6 December I announced the formation of a new ministerial team to spearhead and co-ordinate action in the inner cities. Each city action team and inner city task force will have its own Minister committed to advising and assisting the CAT in its vital regeneration work.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to increase grant rates for London housing associations.

  Mr. Chope
  The annual review of grant rates is currently under way.

  City Grants
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses for rent have been provided with the aid of city grants; and if he will make a statement.
  713
  Mr. Moynihan
  One city grant project providing dwellings specifically for rent has so far been approved —the construction of 22 flats at Coach lane, North Shields.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many authorities in West Yorkshire are considered for city grants in their area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Applications for city grant are invited from three of the five local authority areas in West Yorkshire. The new grant has been very successful since its introduction in May 1988 and the available resources are being fully utilised by projects within the areas from which applications are invited.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many city grants have been awarded to Nottingham since 1988; and what is their total value.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Ten city grants totalling £7·5 million have been approved to support projects in Nottingham. This is the largest number of grants approved for any local authority area.

  Green Bill
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had about funding for local authorities tor measures in the proposed green Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with representatives of the local authorities to discuss local authority finance, including the case for additional spending. In addition we have considered carefully the responses from local authorities to the several consultation papers issued by my Department proposing legislation to improve the effectiveness of local pollution control.

  Telford
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Telford development corporation to discuss the future of the town.

  Mr. Chope
  I last met Mr. Frank Jones on 29 November when we discussed a number of matters of mutual interest.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of money is allocated for improvement grants for the year 1989–90; what amount is proposed for the year 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We make general allocations to local authorities to cover spending on the whole range of housing activities. Within their total resources, and the requirements of the housing legislation, councils are free to decide how much to devote to improvement grants, and how much to other purposes.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions he intends to make on the drawing up on the next 10 years strategic plans to ensure that rural development is adequately provided for; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A framework for planning at the local level will be provided by regional guidance and revised and simplified strategic plans. We have already issued guidance to help metropolitan and London authorities prepare unitary development plans. For other areas, a planning policy guidance note issued for consultation on 27 November encourages county councils to prepare advice for the Secretary of State on regional planning issues and to review their structure plans. These will include policies on the rural economy, based on current Departmental advice.

  Development Programmes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that developers take full account of environmental considerations and consult with relevant environmental authorities before embarking on development programmes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Local planning authorities are required to consult a wide range of bodies on planning applications and to take all material considerations into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission. These provisions have been widened and strengthened by the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 under which applicants must provide environmental statements for projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects; the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission must be consulted about all applications to which these regulations apply. While there are no statutory requirements for developers to consult public bodies with environmental responsibilities prior to submission of planning applications, developers are advised (for example in my Department's recently published booklet "Environmental Assessment—A Guide to the Procedures") to undertake such consultations so as to ensure that schemes are designed with environmental considerations in mind.

  Homelessness (Wakefield)
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of homeless people in the area of the Wakefield district council; what action has been prepared to help these people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The City of Wakefield metropolitan district council reported 832 households as having been accepted as homeless during the period from the third quarter of 1988 to the second quarter of 1989.

  Homelessness was one of the issues discussed by officials of my Department and representatives of the authority at a meeting last month to discuss the council's housing investment programme submission. It is one of the factors taken into account in making the HIP allocations, being announced this week.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the new measures of protection the water consumer will now have available as a result of the completion of water privatisation.

  Mr. Howard
  The Water Act 1989 established a new regulatory framework to accompany privatisation which will ensure the protection of customers in respect of the quality and standard of service they receive and the price they pay.

  These measures include the establishment of a new National Rivers Authority, separate from the companies, with direct responsibility for the health of the water environment and regulation of environmental standards, and the introduction of a new drinking water inspectorate which will help ensure that the new legal standards for drinking water quality are met.

  A new independent regulator of the water and sewerage industry, the director general of water services has been appointed. His main tasks are to enforce the new system of economic regulation of the industry and to protect the interests of customers.

  Companies will be subject to a new system of price control. Customers' interests will be protected in respect of the charges they pay as these will be limited in the first instance by the K factors set by the Secretary of State. It will be the director general's responsibility to ensure that these K factors continue to reflect correctly the obligations imposed on the companies. He will also have a duty to ensure that the prices fixed by the companies are fair between different classes of customers, so that domestic and industrial customers both pay their fair share.

  The director general will also be responsible for monitoring the companies' performance in providing satisfactory levels of customer service and for ensuring that they comply with the conditions under which they are appointed. These provide amongst other things that the companies prepare and publish codes of practice for customers setting out the services to be provided and to publish codes of practices on disconnections and on leakage. A guaranteed standards scheme has been established setting out certain standards for day-to-day relations between companies and domestic customers. If standards are not met then customers will be entitled to a payment or credit of £5. In addition companies are required to prepare asset management plans and submit them to the director general. This provides an assurance to customers that companies have made long-term plans for the maintenance of their underground assets and for the expenditure and investment required to maintain and improve their systems.

  Customer service committees will be established to represent customers' interests in each of the ten regions. The CSC's, who will report to the director-general, will be able to investigate complaints and report on any matter which appears to them to affect customer's interests.

  Privatisation will also provide a spur to greater efficiency and thus benefit the consumer.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total value of the planned investment programme over the next 10 years of the privatised water companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  The estimated investment expenditure by the 10 newly privatised water and sewage businesses in 716
  England and Wales, required by the programmes of which account was taken by the Secretaries of State in setting the initial levels of K, is £24·6 billion in prices prevailing at November 1989.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to increase the monitoring of global warming.

  Mr. Trippier
  The science review working group of the WMO/UNEP intergovernmental panel on climate change, chaired by the United Kingdom, is assessing the requirements for monitoring with regard to global warming and climate change. The Government will take the panel's report, due in the autumn of 1990, into account in planning appropriate monitoring programmes.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any assessment has been made of the contribution to global warming made by nitrate and nitrate fertilisers.

  Mr. Trippier
  Assessments of the effect of fertiliser use, including those containing nitrates, on the emission of nitrous oxide from soil have been made but are subject to great uncertainty. The state of understanding of emissions and future concentrations of all the major greenhouse gases is one of the topics included in the science review, chaired by the United Kingdom, of the intergovernmental panel on climate change which will report in the autumn of 1990.

  Pollution (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations are being made regarding environmental pollution from eastern European countries.

  Mr. Trippier
  No representations have been made recently. However, the Government are working actively to encourage the adoption of environmentally sound and sustainable policies in eastern European countries. To assist with this my Department has just announced a contribution of £50,000 for the east Europe programme of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Efforts are being pursued specifically through the group of 24 and its working groups on aid to Poland and Hungary and also through the 300 million ecu aid fund for these countries established by the European Community. We are urging that pollution surveys should be undertaken in Poland and Hungary as a first step in establishing an environmentally-sound base for sustainable aid in those countries.

  Fossil Fuel Power Stations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many fossil fuel power stations the Government expect to have been retrofitted to reduce sulphur emissions by the year 1992.

  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom is committed to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large plants by 20 per cent. by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003. Meeting this commitment will involve a range of measures by United Kingdom industry, including
  717
  retrofitting at least 12,000 MW of electricity generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. The Central Electricity Generating Board has already begun to retrofit Drax power station, which contributes one-eighth of CEBG output, but the retrofit will not be completed until after 1992.

  Research
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned percentage increase in expenditure by his Department on environmental research in 1992–93 over the current year.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total increase in planned expenditure by his Department's environmental research programme in the next financial year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The expenditure by the Department on environmental research is planned to increase by 20·6 per cent. in 1992–93 over the current year, amounting to an increase of £7·4 million over the provision for the current year of £36 million. Of this increase, £5·2 million is planned for the next financial year.

  Funding, Sheffield
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what private and public funding has been hitherto available to the Sheffield development corporation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have made available £17·5 million grant-in-aid to Sheffield development corporation between its designation in June 1988 and the end of March 1990. A further £19 million has been allocated for 1990–91.

  It is estimated that private sector investment totalling nearly £200 million will have been committed to developments within the corporation's area by the end of the current financial year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra resources local authorities will receive over the next two years to tackle the problem of homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 4 December at column 36.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the problems caused for Luton by outside local authorities housing homeless people in the borough who subsequently become eligible for housing by the borough council.

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

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of homeless people in the area of Barnsley district council; what action he is prepared to take to help these people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of households reported to my Department as having been accepted by Barnsley 718
  metropolitan borough council as homeless during the period from the third quarter of 1988 to the second quarter of 1989 was 160.

  Homelessness in the area was discussed at a meeting between councillors and officers of Barnsley metropolitan borough council and officials of my Department in early October to discuss the council's housing investment programme submission, and is one of the factors involved in making decisions on the housing investment programme allocations for 1990–91, being announced his week.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of homeless people in the Greater London area on 29 November.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities make returns to the Department on numbers of households accepted as homeless on a quarterly and not daily basis.

  The figures for the latest quarter ending 30 June 1989 are in the Library.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources housing associations will receive over the next two years to reduce the problem of homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  The Housing Corporation, which provides grants and loans to housing associations, will receive an additional £36 million in 1990–91, and £37 million in 1991–92, as part of the Government's homelessness initiative. This is additional to the Housing Corporation's main programme of capital expenditure, in the distribution of which a high priority is given to schemes designed to alleviate homelessness.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the likely effect of his recent announcement on homelessness, 15 November,Official Report, columns 243–44, on those who are currently sleeping rough.

  Mr. Chope
  It is too early to say what will happen to particular groups of people. We have invited bids from local authorities and housing associations, for the £250 million of extra resources we have made available to tackle problems of homelessness in the pressure areas, and we are also inviting charitable, and voluntary organisations to apply for further resources to intensify and improve their services to people who are actually or potentially homeless.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for the number of households accepted as homeless.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards the maintenance of green belt land.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend continues to be fully committed to upholding green belt policy as set out in planning policy guidance note 2.

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the necessary technology exists to implement the Government's identification card scheme for association football.
  719
  Mr. Moynihan
  The working party which was set up by the football authorities to undertake preparatory work for the national membership scheme has issued an invitation to tender to the seven companies and consortia which are bidding for the contract to operate the scheme. It will be for the Football Membership Authority to decide on the technology on which the scheme should be based and to ensure that it has been tested properly.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his policy for increasing the provision of low-cost rented accommodation.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have taken a variety of measures to encourage the supply of rented housing, including the deregulation of private letting and the encouragement of private investment in housing associations. In addition public funding for the Housing Corporation is being substantially increased from £815 million this year to £1,736 million by 1992–93, mainly for the development of new rented housing by housing associations.

  Recycling
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to require householders to segregate their household rubbish for recycling.

  Mr. Heathcoat- Amory
  The Government have no such plans at present, but my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry will be monitoring closely the results of the "Recycling City" experiment in Sheffield which involves the issue to several thousand households of blue bins for the purpose of segregating recyclable waste. If successful it is hoped that the experiment, which is receiving Government support, will be widely replicated.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to encourage the spread of waste recycling practices and technology.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department is currently considering adding recycling to the categories of project eligible for support under the environmental protection technology (EPT) scheme which encourages the development of environmentally responsible technologies. In addition my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are supporting a range of studies and research projects relating to waste recycling and the "Recycling City" project in Sheffield in which several thousand households are participating.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to visit Sheffield to observe its experimental waste recycling project.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit the "Recycling City" project in Sheffield, but I opened the kerbside collection stage of the project on 21 November. The project will be closely monitored by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Stonehenge
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by English Heritage on the establishment of a new visitor centre at Stonehenge.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am pleased to say that agreement has recently been reached between the Ministry of Defence and English Heritage about an access route, across MOD land, to the site of the proposed new visitor centre at Larkhill West, just north of Stonehenge. There remains a considerable amount of detailed preparation and planning work to be done but I know that English Heritage will now be directing their energies wholeheartedly, in discussion with MOD, the local authorities and other interested parties, towards making significant early progress with these next stages.

  English Heritage's aim is to develop a visitor centre worthy of Stonehenge's international importance as a world heritage site and a major attraction to tourists. It hopes that the centre will cater for up to 1 million visitors each year and plans to include a full, imaginative interpretation of Stonehenge using the latest exhibition techniques to inform visitors. In recognition of the importance which the Government attach to the development of appropriate visitor facilities at Stonehenge, we included in the £3 million additional funding which we are allocating to English Heritage in 1990–91 a sum of £500,000 to enable extra resources to be used to be put into working up the project as rapidly as possible.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in salaries for chief executives and chairmen of the water authorities over the past two years and since flotation.

  Mr. Howard
  The chairmen of the English water authorities, and those chief executives appointed to the authorities' boards by the Secretary of State, received salary increases of between 8·7 per cent. and 10·1 per cent. With effect from 1 July 1988 and an increase of 7·5 per cent. with effect from 1 July 1989. The salaries of chief executives who were not board members were a matter for the authorities themselves. Following the flotation directors' salaries as well as staff salaries are now for the privatised companies to determine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was responsible for approving the salaries of the chairman and chief executive of the Welsh Water Authority.

  Litter
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to encourage householders and businesses to be more accountable for the litter outside their premises.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall continue to encourage householders, businesses and everyone else to take a responsible attitude towards litter, wherever it might be. We are currently looking at ways to involve commercial frontagers in the cleaning up of their immediate environment.

  Dogs
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the registration of dogs.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have received 1,600 ministerial letters and 2,500 letters from members of the public which expressed a wide range of opinions on the subject of dog registration. The same was true of the 300 responses received to the consultation paper.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total provision for Estate Action over the current year and 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The Estate Action budget for 1989–90 is £190 million. A further £190 million will be made available for 1990–91.

  Private Tenancies
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any estimate of the rate of decline in the number of private tenancies since the introduction of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The fundamental reason for the introduction of part I of the Housing Act 1988 was to increase the supply of privately-rented accommodation. It is too early to make a firm assessment as to the impact of the new regime on the rental market. We shall be carrying out detailed evaluations as soon as practicable. But initial impressions are very encouraging. In particular, it is estimated that more than £350 million has been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting homes on assured tenancies. With an average price of £50,000 per property, that means an extra 6,000 to 7,000 homes available for letting.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department provides to those concerned about the quality of their drinking water.

  Mr. Howard
  The Water Act 1989 and regulations made under it clarify and strengthen the requirements for drinking water quality. In addition to the local authorities' continuing role of checking the quality of water supplies, the new drinking water inspectorate will seek to ensure that drinking water standards are met. Also, it is now a criminal offence for water undertakers to supply water which is unfit for human consumption.

  Trafford Park
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will pay an official visit to Trafford park.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I hope to be able to take up my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Trafford park later next year in conjuction with a visit to the Trafford park industrial council AGM.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any indication of the savings being achieved by local authorities as a result of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering for certain services.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No precise figures are available at present, but the evidence suggests that substantial savings can be achieved as a result of the new requirements for competition in local government services. This is true whether work is awarded to an outside contractor or is retained in-house. As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 1 December at column 212 the results of a research project on the effects of compulsory competitive tendering should be available in the spring.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to take action against local authorities which fail to let contracts under compulsory competitive tendering on an impartial basis.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 to direct that an authority shall cease to have power to carry out certain types of work or that they may only carry out such work subject to specified conditions, if it appears to him that the authority have acted anti-competitively or breached any of the other requirements of the legislation.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the minimum and maximum contract periods specified in the Department of the Environment's circular on compulsory competitive tendering; what are the periods prescribed by the Welsh Office for Wales; and what are the reasons for the differences between the two.

  Mr. Patten
  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Specified Bodies) (England) Regulations 1988 specified minimum and maximum contract periods for the activities subject to compulsory competition under the Local Government Act 1988. They are as follows:

  Tablel I

  Specified periods for authorities with education functions

  Activity

  Minimum period years

  Maximum period years

  Collection of refuse

  5

  7

  Cleaning of buildings

  3

  4

  Other cleaning

  4

  6

  Catering for purposes of schools and welfare

  4

  5

  Other catering

  4

  6

  Maintenance of ground

  3

  4

  Repair and maintenance of vehicles

  4

  6

  Table II

  Specified periods for authorities without education functions

  Activity

  Minimum period years

  Maximum period years

  Collection of refuse

  5

  7

  Cleaning of buildings

  4

  6

  Other cleaning

  4

  6

  723

  Activity

  Minimum period years

  Maximum period years

  Catering for purposes of schools and welfare

  4

  6

  Other catering

  4

  6

  Maintenance of ground

  4

  6

  Repair and maintenance of vehicles

  4

  6

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Specified Periods) (Wales) Regulations 1988, as amended by the Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Specified Periods) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 1988, specified the following periods:

  Table III

  Specified periods for authorities with education functions

  Activity

  Minimum period years

  Maximum period years

  Refuse collection

  5

  7

  Building cleaning

  3

  4

  Other cleaning

  3

  5

  Catering

  3

  5

  Ground maintenance

  3

  4

  Vehicle maintenance and repair

  3

  5

  Table IV

  Specified periods for authorities without education functions

  Activity

  Minimum period years

  Maximum years period years

  Refuse collection

  5

  7

  Building cleaning

  3

  5

  Other cleaning

  3

  5

  Catering

  3

  5

  Ground maintenance

  3

  5

  Vehicle maintenance and repair

  3

  3

  Differences in the specified contract periods reflect decisions made by my predecessor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in the light of circumstances pertaining in England and Wales respectively.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the grant-in-aid to English Heritage is planned to increase over the next two years.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are allocating an additional £3 million to English Heritage in 1990–91 and an additional £3·02 million in 1991–92, taking its total grant-in-aid in that year to £79·8 million—a 56 per cent. cash increase over 1984–85. These significant extra sums reflect the Government's recognition of the importance of the heritage to the quality of life, and its major contribution to the tourism industry. The increases will enable English Heritage to build on its successful record in several different ways. It will be able to invest more in the maintenance and presentation of its key historic sites—already a source of significant enjoyment and education for an increasing number of adults and youngsters. I am particularly pleased that some of the increase can be earmarked for preparatory work on the proposed new visitor centre at Stonehenge—one of our most outstanding national monuments. Other areas of English Heritage's724
  important responsibilities which will benefit from these extra resources include archaeology and the review of some lists of historic buildings which were produced in the early 1970s and are not up to the standards of the more recent lists.

  Action for Cities
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the achievements of the action for cities programme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Excellent progress continues to be made in the regeneration of our inner cities under the Government's action for cities programme, expenditure on which is planned to increase from £3 billion in 1988—89 to about £3·5 billion this year. Unemployment in the 57 inner city target areas has fallen by nearly a quarter over the last year. Massive investment is taking place in reclaiming derelict land and in new factories, housing, shopping centres, roads and other infrastructure. Recorded crime fell significantly in the Metropolitan police force areas over the last year. The Government are working in partnership with business, local government, the voluntary sector and local people to build on the progress already made and to ensure that the pace of inner city regeneration is maintained. On 6 December I announced the formation of a new ministerial team to spearhead and co-ordinate action in the inner city areas. Each city action team and inner city task force will have a Minister to advise and assist it in its vital regeneration work.

  Housing, Hackney
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Hackney to discuss housing.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The Department has regular contacts with the borough and has recently held a meeting with the council in the current housing investment programme round.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the toxic waste material which is held in Wath upon Dearne, Rotherham to be removed.

  Mr. Trippier
  My officials are in close touch with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the other parties involved. We are pressing hard for the early removal of this material.

  "Keep Safe" Scheme
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will report on the progress of the "Keep Safe" security grants scheme in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This crime prevention scheme was first approved by my Department in 1985. Some 5,500 security installations have now been completed. The scheme has received a total of £386,000 in urban programme funds to date, of which £141,900 has been approved for works to be undertaken this year.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the National Rivers Authority has taken against polluters since it was established.

  Mr. Howard
  The National Rivers Authority has taken positive steps against polluters by the prosecution of offenders, the issue of warning letters, and the recovery of costs relating to pollution incidents. I understand that since 1 September the NRA has decided to institute legal proceedings in 102 cases of water pollution.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken to secure international agreement on the need for action on the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Trippier
  We actively support the work of the inter-governmental panel on climate change and in particular the United Kingdom chairs its working group on scientific assessment. The United Kingdom is leading efforts to gain support for an international framework convention on climate change. This was unanimously supported at the recent conference of environment Ministers in the Netherlands. Our leading role in promoting international initiatives on climate change was underlined by the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations on 8 November.

  Rents
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet housing associations and local authorities to discuss proposals to determine criteria for affordable rents.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning frequently meets representatives of local authorities and housing associations, and questions of rent policy are discussed when appropriate.

  Hot Food Shops
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support he has given to Bexley council in its attempt to control the number of hot food shops in Welling.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's development control policy note 11 "Service Uses in Shopping Areas" gives advice on the planning considerations which are relevant to proposals for hot food shops.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families accepted as homeless are currently living in(a) bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (b) other forms of temporary accommodation.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  New Homes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has on the number of new homes which stand unsold and unoccupied.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not collect information on the number of new homes which are unsold and unoccupied.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for changes in the environmental criteria relating to major public inquiries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have no proposals to change the procedures for major planning inquiries. Environmental considerations will invariably be an important issue at such inquiries. In the case of planning applications made on or after 15 July 1988 for many projects likely to have significant environmental effects, developers are also required to provide an environmental statement of the implications to their proposals.

  New Towns
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the policies of the Government on future new town developments.

  Mr. Chope
  The new towns programme in England is coming to a conclusion. New settlements however are an option that planning authorities in England can explore, in co-operation with private developers, in formulating their housing policies. New settlements could have a role to play in reducing pressure for new housing in existing towns and villages, but whether to proceed by this means and the finding of suitable locations is generally a matter for decision at the local level, through the development plan process.

  My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for planning or new towns in Scotland or Wales.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice and support is being given by his Department to those bodies bidding to hold the 1996 olympic games in Manchester.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government wish Manchester every success in its bid to host the 1996 olympic games and will offer the bid team whatever promotional help they can. We have already offered assurances about paying full regard to the olympic rules and byelaws and doing all within our power to facilitate entry and unrestricted movement to members of the olympic family.

  Projects (Kirklees)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of city grants that have been made during the current year to projects in Kirklees for(a) housing, (b) industrial and (c) commercial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  in the current financial year, city grant of £222,649 was approved for an industrial project at the
  727
  Ringway industrial centre in Kirklees on 5 April 1989. The project, costing £788,000 in all, involves the development of 1·75 acres of former railway yard to provide four business warehouse units, with landscaping and car parking facilities.

  Regeneration Projects
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much city grant has been awarded to regeneration projects in Derby since July.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Two offers of city grant totalling £1·6 million have been made to support projects in Derby since July 1989.

  Housing, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach decisions on grant applications for new homes to rent and for sale on the Lower Grange estate in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  On 13 November, my Department received an application for Estate Action support in respect of the dwellings on the Lower Grange estate which the City of Bradford metropolitan council intend to refurbish.

  Housing (Land Prices)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the average land price content of the average priced house in the south east, the north west and England and Wales as a whole in 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The table shows average land prices per plot as a percentage of average new house prices. Land prices are restricted to purchases by the private sector of sites with planning permission and are therefore directly comparable with the average price of new houses than all houses (including secondhand purchases).

  Land price per plot as a percentage of new dwelling price

  1979

  1988

  South East (excluding London)

  20

  45

  North West

  14

  15

  England and Wales

  17

  34

  Climate Change
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role the United Kingdom delegation played at the Noordwijk conference on climate change.

  Mr. Trippier
  I believe the United Kingdom delegation contributed positively to a final declaration in which the nearly 70 countries present were able unanimously to endorse our call for an international framework convention on climate change, to support the work of the inter-governmental panel on climate change, and to recognise the need to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide. Maintaining this international consensus will be essential to effective action to combat the greenhouse effect.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the world's carbon dioxide emissions come from the developed world and the underdeveloped world.

  Mr. Trippier
  Figures for carbon dioxide emissions from developed and undeveloped countries are subject, to uncertainty due both to the definition of the terms and the assessment of emissions for particular countries. Recent estimates, defining developed countries as industrialised countries and centrally planned economies suggest that the undeveloped world accounts for about 15 per cent. of world carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to legislate to put control of all forms of pollution within the same statutory framework of regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Pollution control requires different forms of expertise. The Government will be bringing forward legislation to provide more effective frameworks for controlling pollution best dealt with at the local level, and new systems at the national level for controlling the most dangerous or difficult processes.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Environment if he will make a statement on the ways in which the concept of integrated pollution control will help to protect the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  Integrated pollution control (IPC) adopts a preventative approach to pollution control. The most polluting substances will be prevented or minimised at source and all substances will be rendered harmless. IPC applies the concept of the "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost" which provides an inbuilt dynamic to higher standards as techniques and technology improve. IPC will seek to achieve the best practicable environmental option, taking account of the effects on the environment as a whole.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what predictions can be made about the levels of pollution from internal combustion engines between the present time and 2010.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has asked Warren Spring laboratory to revise the projections of exhaust emissions from road transport previously published in 1987 to take account of the new emission regulations agreed this year and the full range of current traffic projections.

  Company Awareness
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage British companies to be more aware of environmental concerns.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department aims to increase the level of environmental awareness generally. It supports the Department of Trade and Industry in the latter's business
  729
  and environment programme, for example by working with the DTI and others to organise conferences for industry on environmental issues.

  The Department of the Environment also operates an environmental protection technology scheme, which encourages technical innovation through grants to aid the development of low waste and pollution control technology. The Department has recently published a booklet "Clean Technology" obtainable from the EPT Office, Room B357, Romney house, 43 Marsham street, London SW1P 3PY.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Sports Council; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My most recent formal meeting with the chairman of the Sports Council was on 16 November at my meeting with the chairmen of the regional councils for sport and recreation. We discussed a number of issues including the Sports Council's grant-in-aid for 1990–91, my recent working party report on sport for people with disabilities, school sport and the impact of the new local authority capital expenditure rules on sport.

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit the Tyne and Wear development corporation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no plans to visit the Tyne and Wear development corporation at present. However my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities plans to visit the corporation tomorrow.

  Football Spectators Act
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he expects the provisions of the Football Spectators Act to be fully operational at all grounds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We want the national membership scheme to be in place as soon as practicable. We will approve its introduction when we are satisfied that it will be effective, workable and safe. Against this background, it will be for the Football Membership Authority, in conjunction with the chosen supplier, to come forward with an acceptable timetable for implementation.

  Wildlife and Trees
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the impact of pollutants on wildlife and trees especially in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's review groups on acid waters and terrestrial effects have assessed the impacts of pollutants on freshwaters, crops, trees and vegetation in the United Kingdom. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In the north and south-west of England, in Northern Ireland and in many parts of Scotland and Wales, there are areas with soils and underlying rocks sensitive to acid
  730
  deposition. In some of these areas the deposition of pollutants has caused water and soil acidification. The principal impact on wildlife is a reduction of fish and invertebrate species in affected streams, and a consequent reduction in habitat for species which feed on them. The terrestrial effects review group identified air pollution as a potential stress on trees, but was unable to specify where or to what extent trees were adversely affected. The Department has decided to set up a further review group specifically to look at the latest evidence on the impact of air pollution or tree health.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to legislate to separate local authority responsibilities in the regulation and management of waste disposal.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Environmental Protection Bill will include measures to separate local authority waste disposal operations into arm's length local authority controlled companies. The waste regulation authorities will then be responsible for the licensing and enforcement of both public and private sector facilities.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of households who have been evicted as a result of mortgage arrears in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest information on building society mortgages covers the 12 months to 30 June 1989. The Building Societies Association reported that societies took 12,730 properties into possession during this period. This figure represented 0·166 per cent. of building society mortgages outstanding at 30 June 1989. In the year to 30 June 1988, 21,000 properties were taken into possession, which represented 0·288 per cent. of outstanding mortgages. Figures for other mortgage lenders are not available.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the projected increase in the budget of the Housing Corporation between the present year and 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  The Housing Corporation's capital programme of grants and loans to housing associations is planned to increase from £818 million in 1989–90, to £1,736 million in 1992–93, more than doubling over three years.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has a meeting scheduled with Nirex before Christmas, to discuss the disposal of low and medium level nuclear waste.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has a meeting scheduled with Nirex before Christmas, to discuss the disposal of low and medium level nuclear waste.
  731
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has a meeting scheduled with Nirex before Christmas to discuss the disposal of low and medium level nuclear waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

  North Sea
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has on whether algae, in the North sea, have given off significant quantities of dimethyl sulphide; and if he will make a statement on the next stage of the Natural Environment Research Council project on evaluating seasonal cycles in the North sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that measurements of dimethyl sulphide (DMS) taken on NERC cruises as part of the NERC North sea community research project show a pronounced seasonal pattern. High levels of DMS in spring and summer, coinciding with the period of maximum algal activity, contrasted with low levels in the autumn/winter. Maximum DMS values in water occurred in April/May with high concentrations along the coast of France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. These results suggest that in the spring/summer the North sea algal production of DMS contributes at a rate equivalent to 25 per cent. of the rate for man-made emissions over Europe.

  The 15-month NERC observational cruises programme in the North sea in now concluded. The next stage of the project involves detailed data analysis and interpretation, and the incorporation of data into models of the seasonal cycle of parameters in the North sea.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards compliance with the proposals made by the European Environment Commissioner on 29 November to clean up the North sea; and if he will estimate the likely cost of this programme to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  The hon. Member may be referring to a proposal published by the Commission last month for a directive concerning municipal waste water treatment. If adopted, this would establish, inter alia, minimum standards of treatment before disposal for sewage from populations above a certain size. It would apply to discharges to all inland and coastal waters across the European Community. No discussions have yet taken place within the Council of Ministers on the proposals. The Department has commissioned Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd to assess the likely impact, including the cost, of certain aspects of the proposals. Their report is due early in the new year, and a copy will be made available to the House.

  Radioactivity (Sellafield)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what problems with the levels of airborne radioactivity in the B-30 receiving pond facility at Sellafield have been reported to him in the past year.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering bringing in any statutory procedures regarding disconnection for non-payment of water rates, by either a private or public authority.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Section 49 of the Water Act 1989 already lays down the procedure a water undertaker must follow before a water supply may be disconnected for non-payment of charges.

  Housing (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why Lambeth borough council has been refused participation within the London mobility scheme for housing.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand that the London borough of Lambeth is currently suspended by the joint committee of the London area mobility scheme from the Greater London mobility scheme because it has not been contributing sufficient lettings to it. The suspension will, however, be lifted as soon as performance improves.

  In the meantime tenants wishing to move from the borough can still do so through the other schemes operated by the London area mobility scheme—including the inter-borough nomination scheme and the mutual exchange bureau.

  Trees
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis he has made of the effects of acid deposition on trees; and what steps he is taking to mitigate the effects.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An initial analysis of the effects of air pollution, including acid deposition, on trees was made by the United Kingdom terrestrial effects review group (TERG) in a report published in July 1988. Copies of the report are available in the House of Commons Library. Since then, additional scientific data have come to light both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Consequently a sub-group of TERG has been set up specifically to evaluate these extra data. The group will report in January 1991.

  In order to mitigate the effects of acid deposition on the environment as a whole we are making substantial reductions in sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from large combustion plants at a cost of over £2 billion. In addition we have agreed major reductions of NOx emissions from motor vehicles at a cost of about £1·5 billion per annum.

  Housing (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total value of dwellings owned by Blyth Valley local authority calculated on the basis of 1988–89 right-to-buy sales and the total loan debt outstanding.

  Mr. Chope
  Under part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, in determining housing revenue account subsidy, the Secretary of State may infer aggregate values of houses and other property within local
  733
  authorities' housing revenue accounts from the average values of any of the houses and other property they have disposed of. The latest figure calculated on this basis for Blyth Valley is £158 million. This is subject to variation in the light of any futher information supplied by the local authority.

  The total outstanding loan debt on dwellings in the ownership of Blyth Valley district council for 1988–89 as reported to the Department of the Environment by the local authority was £40·2 million.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated business rate, in tabular form, for shops with a floor space of 500 sq ft, 2,000 sq ft, 5,000 sq ft, and 10,000 sq ft for each of the years 1989–90 to 1994–95 if situated in Sheen road, Richmond, showing percentage increases for each year over the actual for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible at this stage to make the estimates for which the hon. Member asks.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 6 November his provisional view that the national non-domestic rate poundage for 1990–91 would be 36 pence. In subsequent years the poundage will increase by the rise in the retail price index or by such lesser amount as the Chancellor of the Exchequer determines.

  The valuation office is currently carrying out a revaluation of non-domestic property and is required to deposit with local authorities the new rating lists in draft by 31 December.

  There will be transitional arrangements to phase in the effect of the uniform business rate and the revaluation. The maximum increase in rate bills for properties in London will be 20 per cent. in real terms for those with new rateable values of £ 15,000 and above and 15 per cent. for those with values between £500 and £14,999. Large reductions in bills will also be subject to phasing.

  NCC and Countryside Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations of policy led to his decision to retain the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council as separate bodies in England.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government took into account the ecological, demographic and social circumstances in England and decided that the needs of nature conservation and the protection and enjoyment of the countryside would be best served by the retention of separate bodies for those purposes in this country.

  Conservation Agencies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he will adopt to provide environmental auditing and accountability of the proposed new conservation agencies in Great Britain.

  Mr. Trippier
  The new conservation agencies in England, Scotland and Wales will be directly accountable to the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales, respectively for the stewardship both of their individual and joint functions.
  734
  Environmental auditing is normally understood to mean the quantification of environmental costs and benefits in the economic or development context, rather than a means of assessing the work of public agencies.

  Radioactive Contamination (Harwell)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to clean up the radioactive contamination at the Harwell tank farm, following the discovery of radioactive waste contamination on 24 May; what assessment has been made of the effects on Atomic Energy Research Establishment workers and members of the public of this leak; and what has been the cost of the clean-up operation to date.

  Mr. Trippier
  Low level radioactive contaminated water from the tank farm area is being treated in the Harwell effluent plant. The effect of the contamination on workers and members of the public is insignificant. Approximately £20,000 has been spent on the clean-up operation to date.

  Boundaries
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce regulations governing the height of trees and hedges which form part of boundaries between private properties, similar to planning regulations which currently govern the height of boundary walls.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of understaffing at Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and what proposals he has to meet the problem.

  Mr. Trippier
  The staff compliment for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was increased from 219 to 240 from 2 October 1989. Staff in post at 1 November 1989 was 199. Most of the vacancies are for pollution inspectors and to fill these posts Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are undertaking a recruitment campaign offering exceptional salary increases of 28·5 per cent. over those offered in the last recruitment round.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the annual report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  The annual report for 1988–89 will be published as soon as possible in the new year.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often samples of the flue gases from the Rechem plant at Pontypool are analysed for dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyl content by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will summarise the results of such analysis by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution since 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  Flue gases from the Rechem plant at Pontypool are sampled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and analysed specifically for polychlorinated biphenyl approximately twice a year. Figures are
  735
  considerably less thay 0·01 mg/m3. Sampling and analysis for dioxins and dibenzofurans is carried out less frequently. The latest summary figures for January 1989 are:

  Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins (total)—less than 0·025 ng/m3

  Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (total)—0·12 ng/m3

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest total number of staff employed by(a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (b) the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Trippier
  Staff in post in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution at 1 November were 199.

  Staff in post in the National Rivers Authority at 31 October were 6,332.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which regional office of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be responsible for meeting the environmental demands of Cleveland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The regulatory responsibilities of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in Cleveland will be discharged by the Northern region of HMIP, based in Leeds.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if replacements have been found for the three senior inspectors who resigned in 1989 from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: One senior member of staff resigned from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in 1989 and will leave at the end of the year. Arrangements are in hand to appoint a successor. Two senior members of staff resigned in 1988. Their posts have been absorbed into the reorganised structure of the inspectorate, details of which were announced on 2 October 1989.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reasons were tendered by the individuals concerned for the resignations from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution by Mr. Michael Thayer and other senior inspectors.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: It is not customary to disclose details of personnel matters.

  Environment White Paper
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the proposed White Paper on the environment; and whether it will outline the structure of the proposed Scottish heritage agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  We intend to publish a White Paper by next autumn; it is too soon to comment on the detailed content.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on how many people are involved in monitoring air pollution in(a) the United States of America, (b) Britain and (c) other member countries of the European Community.
  736
  Mr. Trippier
  This information could be obtained only at excessive cost. However, the United Kingdom acid deposition and air pollution monitoring networks, referred to in my answer of 7 December to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) are co-ordinated by about 33 staff at Warren Spring laboratory. Some of these sites are run by other consultants.

  Many local authorities and other organisations in the United Kingdom monitor air pollution for their own purposes.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him by the local authority associations and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on the funding of pensions liabilities; and when he will respond to such representations.

  Mr. Christopher Patten
  I have received a number of representations on this subject. I shall be responding shortly.

  South Downs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to designate the South Downs as a national park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The South Downs is already designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. My right hon. Friend has no plans to designate it as a national park.

  PSA
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on his meetings with the Property Services Agency staff unions;

  (2) when he next intends to consult trade unions about the privatisation of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend met the PSA trade unions on 26 September. It was a constructive meeting and he looks forward to having further meetings with them as the PSA progresses towards privatisation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 6 December,Official Report, column 412, he will specify in what respects the briefing document sent to hon. Members by trade unions in respect of Property Services Agency legislation, was tendentious.

  Mr. Chope
  My judgment is based on the document as a whole.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housebuilding in the public sector, starts and completions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest figures for housebuilding up to the end of October 1989 were released on 4 December 1989. A copy of the press notice is in the Library.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the future of Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Trippier
  As Britain's national mapping organisation, the Ordnance Survey has earned wide respect and recognition for its surveying and cartographic activities. At the same time, the Government have encouraged Ordnance Survey to develop and expand its business on increasingly commercial lines. It is therefore proposed that Ordnance Survey should become a next steps agency and this is expected to take place in 1990.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the average management and maintenance costs per dwelling owned by housing associations in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: The information requested is not available. The hon. Gentleman will, however, find some information on this subject in a report called "The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England" by the centre for housing research, university of Glasgow. Copies of the report, which was published earlier this year, are available in the Library.

  Pollution (Mersey)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the current pollution level of the Mersey; and what measures are planned to improve its quality.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: The water quality of the Mersey estuary has improved since 1980 as a result of North West Water's programme of building interceptor sewers to divert sewage from outfalls to sewage treatment works. This continuing programme, which includes construction of a major new sewage treatment works at Sandon dock in Liverpool due to open next year, now forms part of the Mersey basin campaign project to improve the water quality and landward aspects of the Mersey system at an overall estimated cost of £4 billion. The project involves North West Water, central and local government, and business and voluntary organisations.

  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring river and estuarial quality, and for securing any improvements which it considers are needed to meet new statutory water quality objectives to be set by the Secretary of State.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.
Lord Acton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

East Timor: Policy
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy concerning East Timor.
Lord Reay: My Lords, our policy is to support the role of the United Nations Secretary General in encouraging a bilateral settlement between Portugal and Indonesia over East Timor. Such a settlement should take fully into account the interests of the people of East Timor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister affirm that this Government stand by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 1514 of 1960 asserting the right of self-determination to all peoples? If so, will the British Government take the initiative in urging the United Nations to hold a plebiscite in East Timor so that the people there can decide what their future should be?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. In 1982 the United Nations Secretary General was asked to promote talks between Portugal and Indonesia with a view to reaching a bilateral settlement. We support that process and believe it is the right way forward. We believe that it is the most realistic policy to pursue and in that we are supported by the majority of our European Community partners.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that since 1975 a cruel but forgotten war has been waged in East Timor at the instance, mainly, of Indonesia and that over 100,000 people have been killed in that war? Further, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have been selling arms to Indonesia; and against the background of what the noble Lord said in his initial reply is that not inconsistent? Can he say whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to sell arms in those circumstances? Will the Government use the offices of the United Nations to see whether or not this war can be brought to a just end and self-determination given to the people of East Timor?
Lord Reay: My Lords, with regard to the question about arms, arms are sold to assist Indonesia's legitimate external needs. We do not include items likely to be used for internal repression. We are concerned about infringements of human rights wherever they occur, including Indonesia. The Indonesian Government have been made aware of
1294
our concerns, including those relating to recent incidents.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a member of the IPU-sponsored delegation of parliamentarians from Britain who were allowed a fleeting visit to East Timor in March this year, I ask one or two quick supplementary questions—or perhaps one. Is the Minister aware that the delegation was supposed to meet Bishop Belo, the head of the Catholic Church in East Timor, but that when we arrived he was not available for us to visit? Is he concerned for the safety of Bishop Belo, who is sometimes outspoken in his criticism of the Indonesian authorities with regard to human rights, particularly in view of the violent dispersal of a group of supporters outside his house on 4th November this year?
Can he comment on the EC's point made to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights last month that the human rights situation in East Timor is still far from good, especially as regards not allowing access for recognised human rights groups like Amnesty International to visit East Timor?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was aware that the noble Lord was a member of the delegation which visited East Timor last March. Our understanding is that most members of the delegation found conditions rather better than they had expected. The noble Lord will remember that the delegation was allowed to visit Bekora prison immediately it asked to do so and was allowed access to prisoners without Indonesian officials being present.
The incident on 4th November outside the house of Bishop Belo is a matter of concern to us and to the European Community and we shall continue to watch the situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for rising again, but can the noble Lord say how the Government are able to ensure that the arms sold to the Government of Indonesia are not used in the war against the people of East Timor?
Lord Reay: My Lords, all I can say is that we have no evidence that military items sold to Indonesia have been used in East Timor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord answered no to my first supplementary question. Do I understand that to mean that the Government do not accept Resolution 1514 of the United Nations General Assembly asserting the right of all peoples to self-determination? How are the Government attempting to put that resolution into effect if all they are concerned about is negotiations between Portugal and Indonesia? Is it not the right of the people of East Timor to decide their own future? Will the Government insist through the United Nations that that is carried out?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the talks between Portugal and Indonesia which we hope will lead to a bilateral settlement are taking place under the aegis of the Secretary General of the United Nations. He was requested by the United Nations to do exactly that.

1295
I have no doubt that any agreement reached under his auspices is bound to take proper account of the interests of the people of East Timor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord must make the Government's position clear. Do they accept the United Nations resolution of 1960 asserting the right of self-determination? The first answer the Minister gave was no. I cannot believe that the British Government do not accept that resolution.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I answered no when the noble Lord asked whether we would take any initiatives other than those I have mentioned. At the moment we are not taking any initiative except to encourage the process, leading, we hope, to a bilateral settlement under the auspices of the United Nations.

Fish Stocks: Conservation Methods
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether conservation of endangered sea fish stocks can be carried out by methods which do not involve the wasteful return to the sea of quantities of dead fish which have been caught and killed in nets.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I agree that discarding fish is wasteful. We are working with the fishing industry to develop technical conservation measures which minimise the number of undersized fish which are caught in nets and then have to be discarded.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, and I recognise the difficulties. But cannot human ingenuity devise some improvements in the system so that boats do not have to dump fish of high quality, of species which are scarce and in demand? For example, could there not be better co-ordination among all concerned when a quota is approaching completion?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's concern. However, in a mixed fishery of various species, as we have in the North Sea, the issues involved are complex. We need to be sure that whatever measures are introduced are effective and free from major disadvantages. A consultation paper was issued to the industry on 14th November and further discussions were held on 7th December. We hope shortly to be in a position to approach the European Commission with agreed proposals.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a major problem is the use of nylon monofilament gill nets? These large nets break, sink into the sea and become ghost nets for years, catching fish, diving seabirds and seals. If the Government
1296
were prepared to ban their use they could advance conservation and also curb pollution of the seas caused by dead and rotting fish in the nets.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are dealing with two separate issues here. As the noble Lord will know only too well, we are dealing with the problem of monofilament nets as it relates to inshore fisheries and the difficulties caused particularly in the area south of Barra and north of Northern Ireland. The question we must address regarding white fish stocks is how to prevent discards, which are large. To that end we have several measures, including further consideration of square mesh as opposed to diamond mesh and a reduction in the number of meshes around the cod ends. These measures have been produced by my department in co-operation with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to get round a difficult question and to try to bring about effective conservation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the whole House will agree that this is a difficult problem and that everyone is looking for a solution. I am pleased that the Minister has been in close touch with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Has he given thought to the federation's suggestion concerning the type of gear carried on fishing boats, which if illegally used can frustrate any progress on net size? Has he considered the federation's suggestion that there should be only one net per boat? Is he aware that industrial fishing vessels using small nets frequently collect immature fish? Is he sure that the by-catch of 10 per cent. is enforced rigidly, and is it not perhaps too high?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support of one of the measures in the consultation paper which was indeed suggested by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I am in almost daily touch with the federation on these matters. The prohibition of the carriage of both the 90 millimetre net and the 70 millimetre net on board the same ship is a matter we are addressing. I have to point out and warn the noble Lord that there are difficulties in this matter; in particular, difficulties with some of our European partners. It is absolutely no good going ahead with conservation measures that are not agreed with Brussels as well.
Regarding the other matters, the answer is: yes, there are problems with industrial fishing; but, as the noble Lord will recognise, there is also a considerable amount of financial gain involved not just to other countries but also to Britain. Therefore we must move carefully if we wish to curb that particular fishery.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that our partners, especially the Danes who are very competent at industrial fishing, are sticking to the by-limits of 10 per cent., or are they in fact sticking to the agreement made some years ago?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, I should say that we do our very best to ensure that enforcement is effective. As he will no doubt recall, the very famous case

1297
concerning a Danish fisherman who was not entirely in charge of his own vessel in Stornoway has been dealt with by my enforcement department.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has not the matter become even more urgent in the past few days because of the alarming new proposals put forward by the EC Commission for severe reductions in the quotas, especially as regards haddock and cod?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the short answer to that question is yes. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government, along with many other member states, have made quite clear to the Commission that the proposals which have come forward from the Fisheries Commissioner, and their timing, are wholly unacceptable at this stage.

Rover Group Disposal
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any approach from the European Commission for repayment of the recently revealed £38 million given to British Aerospace in the Rover transaction.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, discussions are taking place between officials of the DTI and the European Commission, but no conclusions have yet been reached.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, as time has moved on, is it not quite apparent that this sweetener which was given to the group could in fact be only one sweetener in a basket of many? Can the noble Lord tell us whether other sweeteners were offered and taken up? If that is so, why was your Lordships' House not told about this on previous occasions when the matter was raised?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have been scrupulous in observing the proprieties and have made the necessary disclosures through the Estimates and other reporting procedures.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before probing the matter in this House, should we not wait for the report of the official committee which was set up in another place which has the power to get to all of the facts? We would then be probing on the facts and not on guesswork.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the point just made by my noble friend. However, it is not for me to set down the Questions on the Order Paper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, were not the two original Statements of 13th and 14th July 1988 made in this House? Therefore, is there not a burden on this Chamber to ensure that these Statements
1298
were not in any way misleading? Further, would it not be true to say that this case would not be re-opened by the Commission if the Commission had given its full approval to the terms of the deal at the time it was struck? If the Commission had done so, there would be no question of re-opening the matter as regards the conditions of the transaction.
Moreover, is it not the case that on 13th July 1988 the then Secretary of State announced that the European Commission had that morning decided the outline terms upon which it would be willing to close its state aid procedure? He then went further on the following day and said:
"As I informed the House yesterday, the Commission has approved the final terms of the acquisition after certain changes in the structure and scale of the March agreement".—[Official Report, 14/7/88; col. 981.]
How could the Commission approve the final terms if it did not know them? Further, if the Commission did not know them—as has recently been revealed—was that statement true, misleading or false?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps may answer just two of those supplementary questions put to me by the noble Lord. He raised first the point about reporting to Parliamenent. Detailed financial matters are always reported to Parliament through the medium of Estimates; and, as the noble Lord will be aware, these are not normally laid in this House.
To turn to the question about the European Commission, we had reached agreement with the Commission when these additional items became necessary. We took the view that they were consistent with the Commission's terms as they did not affect the competitiveness of Rover Group production and therefore disclosures were not necessary. Any question of re-opening the procedure would have jeopardised the deal.
That last point is rather important. I should remind your Lordships that the Rover Group had lost some £3,000 million in the period leading up to the deal being concluded by my noble friend. Moreover, the group was in prospect of having to make a further £1,000 million or £2,000 million of investment which it did not remotely have. Therefore, I am certain that the Government at the time, in the form of my noble friend, were quite right to see to it that the Rover Group passed into the private sector.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the department which I had the honour to head during this particular time demonstrated a commitment to 1992 and to the European Community which is unmatched by any other department or by any other government within the European Community? Will he further agree that as part of my responsibilities as Secretary of State I had to take into account not only the claims of Brussels but also the claims of 40,000 people who worked for Rover, and their families; the 50,000 people who work for the distributors, and their families; and the many tens of thousands of people who work for the suppliers of Rover?

1299
Moreover, will my noble friend also agree that over the years of this decade we have done more to remove the causes of unemployment in this country than any other government in the past?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I readily pay tribute to my noble friend's enthusiasm for these matters when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, since I joined the department in a more junior capacity I have been running hard to keep up with him.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister explain why further payments would have jeopardised the deal if these had nothing to do with the deal because it had already been settled?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, had the matter been re-opened with the European Commission, I have no doubt that it would have taken some time to conclude further discussions. The fact of the matter is that British Aerospace was highly dubious about entering into the deal. I have a feeling—indeed, I think that it was the view at the time, and it was the right one—that the company would have walked away.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I must repeat my question: on what basis was it stated that the Commission had approved the final terms of the acquisition?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Commission had concluded the application made at that time by my noble friend's department. It had agreed the outline of the arrangements which were in place. The details which were subsequently discussed did not affect the outline.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is there not a much deeper principle involved here? According to the published correspondence between the chairman of British Aerospace and the Secretary of State, there was a deliberate attempt to withhold information and thereby deceive Parliament.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord that that is quite incorrect; there was never any question of misleading Parliament.
Noble Lords: Withdraw!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if that is the case, why was it that in the correspondence offers were made as to different methods of withholding this information from Parliament? There was a time when deceiving Parliament was a cause for resignation. Therefore, has parliamentary and political morality sunk so low in the past 25 years that this is no longer the case?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord has studied with his usual care the correspondence to which he refers. However, if he does so he will find that he is mistaken.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may appeal to the Leader of the House in this matter. Am I not right in thinking that if biting and offensive remarks are made it is in order to move that the Standing Order relating to such remarks be read by the Clerk?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I believe that my noble and learned friend is right, but on this occasion we should do well to move on to the next business.

Local Government Structure
3 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will, as a matter of urgency, look at the structure of local government to determine whether there is now a case for a national system of single tier local government based largely on the district councils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we do not intend to commission a study of the structure of local government. As my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities recently told the Association of County Councils centenary conference,
"We certainly have no intention of embarking on any major re-organisation of the structure of local government".
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is now generally recognised that the 1972 reforms were a mistake and that much of local government is now administered over too large an area and by authorities that are too remote?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is fair to say that the Government have introduced a number of reforms since 1979. I can only draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who said that as a pragmatist he believed that another reorganisation was something that we needed like a hole in the head, and that reorganisation is not on the agenda.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, after government action, local government in London is entirely different from that of the rest of the country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, to an extent the local government of London has always been different from that of the rest of the country.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposal about local government made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is one of the wisest for a long time? I urge him to press his colleagues seriously to consider the matter. As one who served on a district council for 20 years, I can speak with some knowledge and authority. I would go so far as to say that the ratepayers under that system received a better service than they have ever received.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all I believe that it would be fair to say is that a considerable element of reform has taken place during the past decade. Many in local government—and this was particularly so when I was at the Guildhall last night—are happy to consider the prospect of calm waters and a peaceful future ahead.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while there is a great deal to be said for district councils, they are unsuitable for functions such as governing London? One of the great defects that we have instituted by what the Minister calls "reform" is that the capital has no body which is responsible for it as a whole. Will he therefore look again at that question? Since the Tory Government abolished the late-lamented London County Council, have we not been without a body responsible for London as a whole? That need is noticed by every citizen of London every day that we live.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I did not notice it this morning.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper goes rather wider than the capital. I suggest that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, concerns the possibility of introducing a single tier of local government. We believe that for the average man in the street, albeit on the Clapham omnibus, the county is still something with which he identifies more closely than any other part of local government.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, do the calm waters and peaceful future to which the Minister just referred include the provision of community care?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that question goes rather wider than the Question that lies on the Order Paper.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we shall all have been interested in the Minister's response when he said that everyone, including the passenger on the Clapham omnibus, appreciates the benefits of the county council. When is it proposed to reintroduce the metropolitan county councils, which include the GLC and the large metropolitan counties that existed before the 1985 Act?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that when the noble Lord comes to read the Official Report he will see that my answer was couched in terms of the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, might have been referring to a single tier of government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the competition for the ministerial under-statement of 1989 is still open. The Minister has made a valiant attempt to close it with the statement that a number of reforms have been made over the past 10 years. Does he agree that all those reforms have tended to weaken local government in favour of central government? Does he agree that the reform that is required—although we do not dissent from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—is to give local
1302
government wider powers and greater relevance to people's lives?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that government should provide a form of institution with the least possible inconvenience to the public, which is an approach slightly different from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the noble Lord's debate the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will ensure that their speeches conform to a length in the spirit of these short debates. In that of the noble Earl, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of nine minutes.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
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 a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred, and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee: —

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

David, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Templeman, L.

Wilberforce, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed.

Statutory Instruments: 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 a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of

1303
Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payment to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in its publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

Airedale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Blatch, B.

Boston of Faversham L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 19th December at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rural and Suburban Communities: Change
3.5 p.m.
Lord Parry Lord Parry rose to call attention to the post-war changes in the rural and suburban communities of Britain; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the hurly-burly politics of Wales at any time over the past 40, 30 or 20 years, it would hardly have been thought likely that I should be rising in your Lordships' House at this time to put forward the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Yet here I am. It would have been thought less likely that I should have been citing in aid the Financial Times, which I have with me because last Friday, almost anticipating the discussion that I hoped we might have in the Chamber, it produced a supplement which I consider to be important and basic to that discussion.
The supplement was headed by an article by Bridget Bloom. I know that many of your Lordships

1305
will have read it. In the course of the next 15 minutes, I shall attempt to summarise part of it so that it can be read into Hansard and be a part of our record. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have put down their names to take part in the debate and to those who are in the Chamber. I am especially looking forward to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who has been in touch with me about some of the concerns that we share.
In the article, the Financial Times claimed that there was nothing short of an industrial revolution in reverse taking place in the rural areas of Great Britain. That is an interesting concept in itself because if a revolution is an explosion of energy then we should at some time expect to see an implosion of return force. It has been a mighty long time coming as the industrial areas and the industrial cities have sucked out of the rural areas some of the brightest and best of their talents and their resources. Bridget Bloom quoted Professor Hall of Reading University who a couple of years ago said that a profound decentralisation of the population was taking place on a large spatial scale. He went on to define two areas in Britain that were obtaining some benefit out of the commercial and industrial changes that have taken place over the past 30 or 40 years.
Most of us are used to referring to the golden triangle and its importance and the benefits to the people who live within it. Professor Hall referred to the golden belt and the golden horn and suggested that developments were taking place along the motorways which were to the real benefit of the small communities and some of the older towns and rural communities that were sited within them. None of us will quarrel with that. We have a similar example along the M4 which is only history repeating itself, because when Isambard Kingdom Brunel pushed the Great Western Railway westward from London there happened by accident the development of small commercial and industrial villages which became small towns and communities.
In the article to which I have drawn attention Professor Howard Newby of Essex University is mentioned. He now heads the Economic and Social Research Council. He declared in a ringing phrase,
"for the first time since the industrial revolution, technological change is allowing rural areas to compete on an equal basis with towns and cities for employment".
The professor went on to say:
"The most obvious sign in the countryside itself of the new rural revolution is, without doubt, the spread of 'development'".
It is interesting that throughout the article the word "development" is always put in inverted commas. The article goes on to describe "development" as:
"a proliferation of new houses, housing estates, new roads and motorways, superstores and business parks which you will see … on a drive northwards from London into East Anglia—through Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, past provincial centres such as Ipswich, Norwich and Cambridge and around a score or two of once sleepy market towns such as Woodbridge, Diss, Wymondham or King's Lynn".
The professor says:
"The same phenomenon can be observed westwards from London, beyond the Home Counties. Professor Hall defines the Golden Belt as embracing Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Oxfordshire
1306
and Northamptonshire, as well as Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The Golden Horn, he argues, stretches from the Isle of Wight to Lincolnshire and takes in Hampshire and West Sussex too".
That means that either accidentally or on purpose there has been a spreading of the benefits of the industrial commercial society at precisely the time when the heart of our great cities has been emptying. When we found in the gracious Speech from the Throne the other day the Government's reference to bringing in legislation to restore the depradation and decay that has gone on in the inner cities, it seemed to some of us that that should be extended to the towns and villages—the urban and rural areas with which we are familiar in England and Wales.
There are two critical reasons, the experts say, why this movement is taking place. One is the communications revolution, the revolution in the art and state of technology which makes it possible for individuals to run their enterprises from rural settings now just as easily as they once did from the centre of cities—in fact more easily. All of us have been sad and have examined the problem from time to time, but this has coincided with the decline of agriculture as the basic underpinning of the economy of the rural areas.
The problems faced in agriculture have themselves strangely enough given new opportunities in the sense that new uses have had to be found for land. New employment has had to be found for people, usually based on the land. The challenge has been to people to move out into the rural areas.
The continuing loss of jobs in agriculture has meant that any job that can be created in rural areas is vital. I am glad that there is agreement on this; it is difficult to be sure how many jobs have been created in the rural areas because of the strategies, the devices used by successive governments. I shall come back to that in a moment.
In the three years to last January, for example, under the new unemployment statistical analysis it is possible to point out that there was a decline in unemployment in some of those areas that I have listed, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Devon and Dorset, and even in Cleveland there was a falling off. However, I totally agree with the article in the Financial Times; there is a downside to these developments. I keep saying that I agree with the Financial Times. In Welsh politics we used to say that The Times was as much behind the Tories as the Tories were behind the times. That was one of our endearing little quips in our arguments.
Today I am happy to say that I agree with the Financial Times in many of the points that are made in the article, particularly that there is a downside to the developments. All the bodies such as the Rural Development Board and the Rural Development Council and others which are concerned realise that the downside weighs very heavily on the future and the prospects of the rural community. Village schools are still closing and for 15 per cent. of the rural population without use of a car, access to medical facilities, shopping and other services is difficult. There are pockets of real poverty persisting.
I wish to invite noble Lords in a sense to come with me on another journey, the one which I take

1307
when my duties here are ended every week. We go out of Paddington westward on the splendid 125 train. The first part of the journey is comfortable and we live in the style to which we have increasingly grown accustomed. As we head westwards, it is possible to be very comfortable on the train. But the further west we go, the less efficient the service becomes.
That is true of the economy of Great Britain: the further out one moves from the centre, the more difficult are the living conditions for people. Noble Lords may wish to come all the way with me and leave the trunk route at Swansea—most people leave it at Port Talbot because they come to London using their company car or their personal vehicle and park at Port Talbot. That is what I did on Tuesday; I am not dodging the issue. People avoid getting off the train at Swansea and climbing into a dilapidated DMU unit or a utility springer train, finding themselves almost as part of some Hogarth cartoon of medieval discomfort as they rock westwards to the place where I grew up.
I shall tell noble Lords a word or two about the town from which I came. At the turn of the century its population was rising towards 9,000. Its population today is something less than 3,000. That reflects the drain, the blood loss, the energy loss of the rural areas of Britain that has happened throughout our lifetime. The most melancholy thing we had to do was to go to the railway station which we had in Nayland in the blissful days before Lord Beeching. We had to go there and see our friends off to find work in the industrial conurbations.
Noble Lords might come to the conclusion that everything is fine in Great Britain and that such things do not go on any more, but they do. It is just that we are too far away to notice. If we are looking for a real villain in this perhaps we should look at the preoccupation that we have had with the centralisation of resources when we might have been far better had we localised them and kept them safely based in the community.
The population of the town which I know was about 3,000. As various events have occurred, such as the closure of the naval dockyard, trained and educated personnel have moved away and enriched other communities as they depleted our own. The Trinity House service base for the whole of Wales closed down. The fish market closed down and the fishing fleet moved away. All the time it was a story of decisions being taken outside the community but which affected the community. That community had no means of representing itself against the decisions taken to its disadvantage.
I am anxious to insist in our debate today that we do not become smug when some of the policies work effectively and some of the areas benefit, and we do not assume that there is a universal benefit and that life in Great Britain, as we move towards 1990, is comfortable and easy for everybody. In many ways it is more difficult for people living in a small country town today than it was in the days of my childhood. There are fewer services. We have five chapels without a resident minister. Two churches which
1308
once had a vicar and two curates are now staffed by one vicar. We have support services on the private side which have closed down. There are support services on the public side starved of funding.
I know that the Minister is a reasonable and intelligent man but it would be quite wrong if, when he rises to speak in the debate, he were to lead the House into an easy assumption that everything that has been done in the past 10 years has been absolutely marvellous and that what we need is more of the same. I was chairman of the Wales Tourist Board when the change of government occurred. I must say that I used to prefer it when I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber looking this way. The incoming Government immediately carried out an analysis of all quangos and boards in order to see which should be swept away. The word "quango", incidentally, was a term of abuse. What I find fascinating is that, 10 years on, many of these boards are strengthened. They have greater powers than they have ever had and the present Government boast of the successes that they have achieved. However, when Professor Beryl examined the Wales Tourist Board, he found it to be cost effective and doing a good job. I was chairman at the time. I shall quote from the annual report of the Wales Tourist Board, which shows one effective contribution to the economy of the rural areas of Wales. It states:
"Total revenue from staying visitors in Wales in 1988 is therefore estimated … to be in the order of £740 million, an increase of some 6 per cent. on 1987 … Wales will have earned at least £375 million from day visitors, giving a total revenue figure of about £1,115 million, at current prices, during 1988".
I am now into the final minute allotted to me so I cannot talk about demography. However, I can give a reminder concerning a quotation from another article in The Times that:
"the lush fields and country lanes of rural Britain sometimes conceal social problems of a very similar nature to those of the inner cities, where poverty is more immediately visible. A study two years ago by the Anglican diocese of Hereford—the most rural in the Church of England—which drew on an unpublished Department of the Environment investigation of five rural areas concluded that 25 per cent. of all households in the sample areas were living in or on the margins of poverty".
Perhaps we shall hear something more about that. I rest my case. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships. When considering this question I had to think long and hard about the changes that have occurred since the last war. I must admit that I am at something of a disadvantage in this respect as I have not seen as many of those years as other noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred specifically to the problems of Wales and mid-Wales. I shall concentrate my remarks more upon the other side of the country, the East Coast, for the simple reason that it is an area of which I have far greater experience. One of the main problems that occurs in our rural society is that housing in part of the areas referred to as the "golden triangle" or the "golden horn" is rapidly becoming too expensive for anyone who is not on a good salary. Spiralling prices

1309
have been noticeable in places such as Norfolk and Suffolk and have resulted in many people being priced out of the market. As house prices have risen so sharply, those who have land to build on or who already have houses are not renting them but selling them. Renting does not give a realistic return on their capital assets.
If we are to tackle this problem, we must do something to make sure that more housing is available, especially for those on low incomes. The stock of local authority dwellings has not been as high as many people feel it should be. Indeed the introduction of the right to buy has meant that much local authority housing stock has been removed from the rented sector. Even if that local authority housing stock is initially sold cheaply to local authority tenants, it does not remain at that cheap price but immediately rises on resale to the prices level demanded in the private sector. Often such dwellings are resold very quickly. We must do something to create a situation whereby local authorities, housing contractors or others are given an incentive, or are directed to find an incentive, to provide rented accommodation which stays in the rented sector.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this field but I am only saying that one must allow local authorities to build new houses while still taking into account such factors as green belts. Local authorities must ensure that such houses remain within the rented sector. This is a problem and central government must at least encourage local authorities in this regard.
Moving on from the housing problem, I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to the problem of rural transport and the effect that it has on the rural community. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to the golden areas in our society. They are golden areas if one can afford to buy a house there and to run a car. If one has a family and one member of that family has to stay at home to look after the others, two cars are needed in rural areas, for the simple reason that the local bus services are not good enough. There are no two ways about it, in rural areas one needs a car to get about, particularly if one lives in a small village, a hamlet or an isolated house.
Since the deregulation of buses in 1986, there has been a marked decline in bus services after an initial expansion period when competition first came about. This is not surprising. New bus services were set up and companies tried to make money out of new routes, but often they found there was simply not enough demand to justify keeping large, expensive buses running. It is true to say that in suburban communities the same problem occurs, though the distances involved may be less and people who live in urban suburbs tend to be slightly better off and to be car owners. However, although it may be of a lesser magnitude, the same problem arises.
I took the liberty of looking at the Beeching Report, which I discovered was printed in the year of my birth. Beeching suggested that local transport systems should be integrated. He suggested all-encompassing bus services to fit in with the remaining train services. I was alarmed to discover the number of local train stations that have been scrapped although they stand on still existing lines.
1310
We now have a bus service which does not cover anywhere near the same number of stops as 26 years ago. We do not have the interconnected train services which used to exist which meant that one could always get to a main station in order to travel on somewhere else, and there are no bus services to take up the slack.
After deregulation there was a subsidy of 5p per mile of travel. This subsidy has decreased to 1p per mile for rural areas and will be phased out in April next year. There is also some talk of getting rid of the subsidy on fuel, as the National Audit Office claims that it is too unspecific. The subsidy is effectively worth £135 million. Private companies have found out that they cannot justify providing services to small rural communities, especially the more dispersed rural communities where there may be only one household or person in a village who needs the bus service as everyone else may be a car owner or may own two cars. Thus, the result is that everyone needs a car.
This is a circular situation which forces anyone who is on a low income out of such rural communities. But, once that has occurred, where shall we find a workforce for the less well paid jobs? If there is a growth in light industry, what will happen to those people who work on the shop floor? It is worth pointing out that even the most hi-tech office needs someone to clean it. Someone will have to look after the office furniture, for example. Unless one is prepared to pay a very high wage one must be dependent upon the local community.
Effectively, we are pricing out much of the local community. We are saying that people must have an income of x in order to live in the rural community, because with less one will be totally isolated. The village of Fakenham in Norfolk has only two buses each morning to Norwich, which is the nearest city, and two or three buses returning in the evening. In addition, there are a couple of buses in the middle of the day. The Education Act 1944 required local authorities to provide school buses and many people are dependent upon the school bus service.
Thus people are increasingly isolated. Old-age pensioners are increasingly hard hit. They may be too old to drive a car even if they can afford one. The young in our rural communities are often totally isolated. It must be a miserable existence for a 15 year-old living in a small farmworker's cottage who cannot even visit friends after school hours. People wonder why there are problems with vandalism and hooliganism in rural areas. I suggest that pure boredom may be a factor.
One can expand that and point to small villages which have only one bus every market day to take people into the local market town. One can build up the scenario, building up more circles, all leading to the fact that one has to be rich to live in the countryside; and if one is not rich one does not live in the countryside.
I should like to draw some conclusions. Unless the Government are prepared at least to encourage local authorities and property developers, and indeed the transport industry as a whole, to cater for the less well off we shall find that the yuppie idea that one is nobody if one does not have a salary of x thousand

1311
pounds a year, own one's home and have two cars will become a reality with very strong roots and a reality which we cannot possibly escape.
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for initiating the debate. It raises important human issues about housing, work, the quality of life and the need to maintain valid communities. Having been brought up in the Danelaw I cannot emulate his Celtic eloquence, but I shall try to contribute from my experience of rural communities. I want to say how much I admire the patent sincerity of the noble Lord in telling us about the East of England.
The subject is of particular interest to bishops because we spend much time looking for the best way to serve rural communities in a time of rapid change and with a diminishing number of clergy. Indeed, we are always hopeful that noble Lords in this House will encourage their sons, grandsons, nephews and godsons to opt for ordination rather than going into banking or a similar career. We also find that the drift to the country tends to cream off those who would be natural leaders in urban communities. The problem arrises in that direction as well.
As some of your Lordships will know, there is at present an archbishop's commission, chaired by a Member of this House, looking into rural issues. The competition that will come from the European Community will undoubtedly intensify agriculture in the quality lands, thereby possibly leaving the uplands, the hill country and pastoral counties to deteriorate. I hope that the Government will monitor the situation so that there is no deterioration.
However, change is inevitable in any living entity. Rural and urban communites change because they are shaped by the people who live in them—from forest to arable and back to forest again for hunting parks; from strip fields and common land to enclosures and back to the near prairies that we have at present for large machinery. That will continue. The countryside is bound to change. We are now talking about setting aside land and extensification of land in order to avoid building up more and more surpluses.
Since agriculture has been and probably always will be the main rural industry it is bound to affect village communities. The challenge to achieve self-sufficiency in food has produced a slimmed down, highly mechanised industry. I am told that 300,000 people have left farming since 1946 and there are one-third fewer farms. In addition, 9,000 people—which works out at about 20 people a day—are leaving the industry every year. I am told that there will soon be a labour famine in agriculture. Agricultural colleges are not up to strength, and the county of Dorset is training more hairdressers than agriculturists. That is probably a digression, but I hope that that fact will not be overlooked.
Already noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned what derives from changed agricultural fortunes—redundant farm buildings, empty farm
1312
cottages, school rolls falling to the point of closure, village shops no longer able to pay their way, and family businesses such as those of blacksmith, joiner, wheelwright and even tailor disappearing. Into the vacuum have come those from over-large towns and cities seeking space and fresh air. As a result, villages are tending to become dormitories for commuters or settlements for the wealthy retired. The young and those who work on the land, as we have already heard, cannot afford property at present prices.
Yet I should add here that not all changes are bad. The villages of yesteryear were often much inbred. People tended to live imprisoned lives with no focus beyond the parish pump. The new influx into the villages has undoubtedly brought new life to rural communities. Furthermore, the new general awareness of rural needs and the value of balanced communities is itself an advance.
Of course change is permanent. There are various attitudes towards it that can be struck. One can try to succeed where Canute failed and reverse the tide. One can be an ostrich, an attitude which I am afraid is sometimes taken by Church people who say, "Change? I see no change", and take refuge in nostaligic dreams about the picture postcard village. One can think that any change is progress and be a futurist. There is nothing special about trying to live in the future. It is just as unrealistic as trying to live in the past. On the other hand, one can study the changes and influences and even harness them with an eye to preferred options. In some ways we ought to be glad that the countryside is changing because one can only steer a moving vehicle.
It may be that the old method of unveiling a master county structure plan was too cumbersome. From central government we look for strategic thinking, strategic planning and aid. We certainly need those. National countryside planning guidelines are preferable to the detailed monolith of a structure plan which can gather dust. The Country Landowners' Association has asked that such guidelines should be concerned with the protection of good land, provision for rural housing, transport, light industry, conservation and leisure. It is good that the recent government White Paper has called for frequently updated statements of country policies, even including district and parochial needs, for thus local people are able to take responsibility for the kind of community that they want.
However, there is a limit to the way in which central planners can shape the countryside. I have much sympathy. I realise how needed new village projects are. People need a place to live and, when they go there, they need services. Yet the danger of trying to build a village ab initio is that, in spite of intentions to the contrary, it becomes a rural housing estate without a soul. I should prefer to see selected bigger villages enlarged, given a secondary school, a doctor's surgery, a resident parson and a policeman, with revived local shops and some light industry. Such major villages could serve a series of satellite villages or hamlets. They would focus development and be an antidote to ribbon development and diffuse, sporadic housing.
When I was rector of a group of 12 rural parishes on the Lincolnshire Wolds and drove my own

1313
35-seater parish bus, I was also on a government inquiry into rural transport. We were so often defeated by the scattered, very small settlements that we were trying to link. We were also hampered by inflexible rules for the operation of coach services. So it is good that a certain deregulation and flexibility now obtains. It may interest noble Lords to know that a rural transport adviser has been operating as an experiment in the Evesham and Leominster areas. The brief has been to investigate needs and to advise individuals and groups on all transport matters. It has proved successful, but sadly the post is now in jeopardy because of lack of permanent funding. We must face up to the fact that transport in the country requires subsidy. This is not luxury; it is necessity.
I mentioned the relationship between gathered communities and the proper provision of transport. That indicates a further urgent need; namely, to view the countryside as a whole. A single government department for agricultural and rural affairs is needed.
It has been argued before in your Lordships' House that low-cost housing is a primary need if villages are not to become mere dormitories where people who live in careers and not places sleep the night. In the county of Hereford and Worcester, 60 per cent. of the incomes outside cities and towns fall between £80 and £160 a week, including overtime. Such incomes are inadequate to buy the houses which are available locally. House prices in the county have risen by 30 per cent. over the last two years—the second highest rise in the whole country. Many of the council houses have been sold and local authorities can spend only 20 per cent. of their house income on replacement. They should have more money to spend on the replacement of stock.
Rural housing associations, which play such a key part in that, also require further resources. I understand that at present the Housing Corporation spends only 2 per cent. of its funds on rural schemes, although 20 per cent. of English people live in the country. I am glad that my own diocese, along with other rural dioceses, is seeking to release parcels of glebe land for Section 52 agreements. However, we need to be reassured that such low-cost housing will not be on the open market a second time round. If the properties are rented, we need assistance in making the rents approachable.
In this whole debate, I believe that it is important not to lose sight of why we want to retain mixed communities of human scale in the countryside and in the country towns. Why do we want them to be mixed as to age, work, income and experience? To begin with, we want to forfend rural deprivation, which is real though often hidden. It is far less well advertised than its urban counterpart. If one lives down a long lane, has five children, is perhaps a single parent family with no car, one lives in a rural slum.
Furthermore, surely we want communities in which a cross-section of the people can be known and valued. We want communities where people are aware of the past and ready to engage with the present and the future. We want people to be able
1314
to exercise that mutual care and neighbourliness which was so well known in those communities of old. We want communities which are deeply aware of their natural environment and which can keep the economy and the ecology together. But if we are to have those communities and if they are not to disappear from sight, there must be strategic thinking and resources from central government. Such communities are an antidote to trends which would divide and compartmentalise our nation. They enable us to see work and leisure—indeed, life—as a whole.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parry, on this afternoon enabling us to discuss rural and suburban communities. We are importantly, but so often, invited to discuss inner cities—their decay, unemployment and transport problems—that it is refreshing to escape to the rural suburbs, although their position today is perhaps hardly pure sunshine either.
Increasingly, as this century has moved forward, planning and building design have been more and more on people's minds. This afternoon we are invited to call attention to post-war changes in rural and suburban communities. Since I believe that the way those areas are planned and what their buildings look like have been major impacts on their present shape, it is about those that I wish to speak. I believe that this takes up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in his opening speech: namely, that it is development which is on everyone's mind when they speak of the post-war situation in rural suburbs and in suburbia.
I suppose that the hey-day of suburbia was the Metroland portrayed so memorably by John Betjeman early in his life—a time when the Metropolitan Line had just been opened and suburbia was a leafy arcadian paradise. Since then, development and planning have arrived. Some cities, like Siena, have had effective planning control since about 1250, but, although we had building regulations in Queen Anne's reign, large-scale planning in both town and country is a 20th century development in Britain.
Because we have a growing population, an increasingly mobile population and, according to the Government, an increasingly wealthier population, planning control of post-war rural and suburban Britain is surely here to stay. We should all ask ourselves what policy, in either direct control or at least guidelines, Her Majesty's Government believe should be exercised in planning terms to influence what should be permissible on the grounds of land use and in the design of buildings or their aesthetics. This I see as, at one end of the spectrum, relationships with the general environment—one might say the landscape—and, at the other, with specific buildings, including everything in between and, as has already been mentioned, the increasing occurrence of villages which are soulless and have no central locus such as public houses, churches and other principal features of the past.
I should like to congratulate the Government on their constructive attitude to strategic and land use

1315
planning; for example, in the issuing of guidelines or more detailed, strict instructions in such crucial fields as the use of green belt land, the conversion of agricultural land to industrial or domestic use, the general allowability of the alteration of land use by afforestation or deforestation, and whether a new village or even a town may be constructed in a certain area. I note with satisfaction that the Secretary of State for the Environment, for the second time recently dismissed with costs against the developer—that is the important point—a development proposal appeal which went right against clearly expressed government policies.
This general land use planning is all to do with making a positive contribution to the local environment as it concerns, for example, design, scale, density and access—almost the view from one's window. Land use planning control is difficult because the British public are naturally conservative and, to exaggerate in order to illustrate the point, tend to take the view, "If it's new, I don't like it". This view is obviously unrealistic because we are both a growing and a shifting population, and alteration cannot be avoided. Indeed it would be a gross dereliction of duty to take a sentimental view of the landscape and to try and preserve it unaltered.
There are well-known safeguards such as planning inquiries and referrals to the Secretary of State. There is an analogy here between planning control and modern views on the proper role of medicine, which is that prevention is better than cure. It is better to know people's views on the multi-faceted aspects of good design and get the planning control guidelines right from the start than to be insensitive or uninformed about these and to have to resort to endless public inquiries. It is upon the aesthetics, or what it is going to look like, that so many of these inquiries and referrals are made.
Since art is in the eye of the beholder, there will never be a total consensus of opinion on good design. How often in Islington—not exactly a suburb or a rural area, admittedly—am I faced with the statement, "nobody consulted us", only to be told that the development proposals fall within the planning guidelines and that such consultation is not needed or would give rise to unacceptable delays.
I should like to move now more specifically to good design translated into good individual buildings. There are others more qualified than I to go into the more arcane aspects of the meaning of the word "aesthetics". My dictionary says of aesthetics,
"Belonging to the appreciation of beauty, having or showing such appreciation, artisitic, tasteful, the branch of philosophy dealing with the principles of beauty and tastefulness".
"Good design translated into good buildings must be the aim of everyone involved in the development process. The end product should be buildings which are well designed for their purpose and their surroundings". Those words are not in fact mine, but those of a draft DoE circular of several years ago—it is undated—called "Draft Circular on Good Design and Development Control". It seems to hit the subject of this debate right on the nose, and was apparently generally welcomed by the RIBA; but it
1316
never saw the light of day by being rendered into the form of an official policy circular. I have today given the Minister who is to reply notice and a copy of the quote. Now I ask him formally what happened to it, and why was it shelved? Perhaps, in the well-worn phrase of this House, he will be kind enough to write to me.
Good design cannot be achieved by control and regulations only. Good design is essentially the responsibility of the developer and his designer. Too detailed control can restrict innovation and impede creativity. But surely the way to improve the standard of building design is to improve the standard of "the designer".
While I congratulate the Government on their attitude to strategic and land use planning, I should like to ask them why they have done little to improve the quality of building designers. I believe that in France, for example, a building design may not be proposed by anyone who has not had it prepared by someone qualified in design. This is not the case in the United Kingdom where, to be blunt, some proposals are put forward and accepted for alterations to, for example, buildings in conservation areas and villages by people who cannot even draw. Your Lordships would not seek medical advice from a quack; so why do we get so much building design from quacks? If there is a shortage of architects or otherwise qualified designers, what proposals do the Government have to remedy it and encourage more men and women to follow such a career?
While the constructive use of planning control can facilitate good design and prevent thoroughly bad proposals, there are other methods by which planning authorities can encourage better standards. They can set a good example themselves in their own undertakings by employing able staff or carefully selected consultants. Architectural competitions encourage the obtaining of high quality design on important sites, whether the developer is or is not an authority, and importantly foster public interest in good design—witness the National Gallery extension.
Authorities can establish awards for good design and mount exhibitions to illustrate environmental objectives and development opportunities—particularly in conversion or rehabilitation, which is important in rural communities—carefully considering representations from the interest and often considerable knowledge of national and local groups concerned for the environment and conservation. The Secretary of State, in the exercise of his planning functions, may seek to promote architectural competitions. It is by a somewhat analagous Victorian equivalent that we have the glorious building in which we are now sitting.
Recent circulars from the Government to planning authorities have advised them not to interfere too much in the aesthetics of individual buildings except in conservation areas. General planning control should be concerned with the relationship to all neighbouring development; the main criteria being scale, density and height, access, layout, landscaping where possible, materials, provision for car parking and service vehicles, traffic generation, noise and atmospheric pollution.

1317
Planning authorities from the Government down should make it clear what their standards and criteria are, both generally and specifically; and help developers to see more clearly how better design can contribute to the success of their proposed development and the future of the area in which it will be built. A balance has to be struck between the essential elements of control and the conditions in which good design can flourish. It must flourish; after all, the public can largely avoid the work of other creative people such as artists and musicians if they do not look at their pictures and do not go to their concerts. But they cannot avoid buildings.
In conclusion, I believe that buildings should be warm and friendly, inviting, stimulating and uplifting. The designer cannot divorce himself from social concerns. This applies particularly to rural areas, although, perhaps the pith of what I have been saying is rather more suburban and high density than other speakers who have spoken particularly about the situation in rural communities. In the words of that eminent architectural internationalist, Walter Gropius,
"The satisfaction of the human soul"
should be the aim of good design whether rural or suburban.
To that I say, "Hear, hear!".
3.58 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for coming in and extending this debate by a few minutes but there are a number of points I should like to make. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the right reverend Prelate made a point which I feel I must take up.
The first point concerns small industries in the countryside. I have two examples in our village where there are two industries. One is a small printer's business with six full-time and four part-time people. The owner wanted to retire. He sold the business to another printer who was to carry on, and he himself made arrangements to move elsewhere. He had actually moved when the other printer who had bought the business could not find the money or something happened and a developer jumped in, bought it and is now applying for permission to build houses.
The other example is at the other end of the village where there is a carpenter whose main business was making palettes. I know that palettes are not beautiful things stacked up 60 high in the countryside and near housing, but nevertheless he employed quite a few people. Pressure from the neighbours to have him moved was quite strong. So he said, "All right, if I can find a developer who will give me the money to develop land for housing then I will move". In fact that has just happened and he has moved. So there are two industries in the village of Nazeing where that has happened in the past year. That trend is happening quite a lot and it is serious. A village is dead if there is no work in it. When it is purely a commuter village it is a very bad thing indeed.
I must declare an interest at this point. There is one partial solution to the problem. It could help if there were to be a little more leniency in allowing
1318
redundant farm buildings to be let for small industries. However, in order to do that there is an appalling amount of bureaucracy to get through. Most county councils insist that one has a tenant, knows his occupation and has everthing arranged before one asks for planning permission. When that is done one asks for planning permission. I may say that I have done that twice and on both occasions that tenant that I had in mind could not wait. So as I had no tenant the proposal had to be dropped.
I believe that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, in his seat a few moments ago. His rural commission does a tremendous job in trying to get together councils, farmers and tenants in order to solve these difficulties. I know that they have been solved in many cases. But there is a considerable slowing down in making use of what are in many cases very good but redundant farm buildings. I should like to appeal to the Government on that score. I believe that they are now a little more lenient than they were two or three years ago. Nonetheless if one is in a green belt area it is quite difficult.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned extensive farming. I could spend a long time on this subject. I should however just like to say that during our debate on the Queen's Speech and the subject of the rural environment and the rural areas, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made a very strong point about how the Government planned to use extensive farming or set-aside or whatever to reduce food production. Shortly after that debate I went home and found my wife weeping in front of the television set. She was watching the terrible famine in Ethiopia. I believe that we must think very carefully about the reduction of food production in the world today and not only in regard to the areas which are given publicity. There are 800 million people on a starvation diet and 400 million of those people are in fact starving. I believe that we should be very careful about reducing food production.
Perhaps I may now broach the subject of housing in the countryside. The noble Lord is quite right. There is no doubt about it: there will be a shortage of farm workers because the increased efficiency and mechanisation, among other things, that have taken hold of farming in the past 40 years have been quite fantastic. The figures quoted are quite right. Large numbers of people have left and are still leaving the industry. That makes a tremendous difference to the villages.
What worries me is what is happening to the houses. On the farm in Scotland which I used to farm and which my son now works there were a couple of quite nice but redundant farm cottages. They were sold by the landlord to a developer who turned them into one house which was far beyond anything that a local person could afford. That is happening quite a lot in country areas particularly near big towns or if the property is near a station. I do not know how one solves that problem. It is very tempting for a farmer to achieve the prices that are possible but it reduces the number of ordinary houses for ordinary people. I should like to see something done to stop that happening.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also made the point that he would like to see that

1319
stopped. I do not know what can be done but I should like just to make that point.
4.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Parry has done well to raise this very important subject in your Lordships' House this afternoon. It is particularly well that it should be done in this House, which is perhaps better known as the Westminster branch of the Country Landowners' Association rather than the Westminster branch of the agricultural section of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The noble Lord has done particularly well to draw attention in such a vivid speech to the advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation and their effect on suburban and rural communities. He has done well to draw such a high quality of speeches, though perhaps a small quantity, from other noble Lords. It is interesting to note that the question of suburban and rural communities attracts so many fewer speakers to a debate in your Lordships' House than does the subject of museums and works of art. I wonder whether there is any moral to be drawn from that.
In particular I valued the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who reminded us that the very real problems that we see in our countryside and suburban areas (though particularly in our countryside) are not new. They should not be contrasted with some golden age of agricultural communities in the past. We can look at both fictional and historical references for that. Selecting drastically, I recall in the early part of Flora Thompson's Lark Rise to Candleford the very grim description of appalling, subservient conditions endured by rural labourers in the mid-19th century under their landlords in north Oxfordshire. I recall of course even more vividly the biting history of J. L. and Barbara Hammond's description of the condition of life of the rural labourers in the early part of the 19th century. So if anyone believes that things have become worse in the 20th century and somehow we should be looking back to a golden age, he should certainly think again. Nevertheless, rural poverty and rural deprivation is still a very real question.
The Church of England's report on rural poverty notes that 25 per cent. of people in rural areas are living at or near the margin of poverty. Of course the great majority of those people are elderly. They suffer not only from lack of financial resources but from lack of many other resources necessary to a decent life, to which I propose to refer in a moment.
My role from these Benches is to consider the political implications of a Motion of this kind, what sort of policy changes are appropriate and what is wrong with the policy that we are adopting at the moment. It is quite clear that our policies to protect the rural economy and the quality of life in rural areas are not working. A number of noble Lords have made extremely valuable points about the policy implications of the situation as they see it. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the question of rural transport and its decline. Quite rightly, he pointed to the effect of the 1986 Transport Act which
1320
produced a temporary boom in more innovative and flexible transport but with a long-term decline in such a way that things are very much worse than they were previously. For the first but not the last time I say that that is the effect of allowing unbridled market forces into the provision of basic public services.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, made very effective references to the whole question of planning and county structure plans. I know that at the moment planning is unpopular. People have the idea that planning means stopping people from doing things. I hope that the House will take the view that that is not the case, particularly when talking about county structure plans. It is in county structure plans, and it could be in regional structure plans if that were the appropriate tier of local government, that proper protection has to be given for the provision of housing for those in need, for the provision of transport, services and employment where necessary.
The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, indicated an intention to cut out county structure plans and to turn that responsibility over to the district councils. I should be delighted if, perhaps not by positive statement but by implication, the present Secretary of State has abandoned that intention. It would have been extremely damaging and I hope that that proposal will never be revived.
My noble friend Lord Parry referred to the whole question of communications—not just transport but other forms of communication. Again I make a political point; namely, that the privatisation of our basic public services has led to a threat to the supply at a fair price of water, electricity and gas to our rural communities. I make the point that it is only pressure, particularly from this House—and it does this House credit—that has prevented the Government from allowing market forces to be untrammelled and has deliberately protected rural areas from over-charging for those basic public services.
The point has been made about the necessity for affordable housing in rural areas. Noble Lords who took part in the debates on the two major housing Bills which were enacted during the past two years will recall that it was pressure on the Government from this House which went some way—in our view, nothing like far enough—towards protecting the need for rural communities to have rented housing at a price that they could afford. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, it also went some way towards preventing the resale of existing rented housing stock. We have not gone anything like far enough. The situation is most unsatisfactory and the role of public housing, particularly in rural areas, will have to be restored and will be restored under the next Labour government. But at least it was your Lordships who saw the problems because of your knowledge of rural areas and because of the great and evident threat in the Government's proposals.
Reference has also been made to other forms of social services; for example, rural schools and the provision of sub-post offices, village shops and

1321
health centres and health facilities accessible to people living in rural areas. In all of those social services the trend towards the dominance of market forces, which is the characteristic of this Government, has over the past 10 years led to a diminution in the quality of services which are essential for a civilised life in rural areas.
There are areas as regards which the Government can congratulate themselves. I also wish that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, were still in his seat. It is undoubtedly true that the Rural Development Commission, being the amalgamation of the Development Commission and CoSIRA, has shown the way for active and benevolent intervention in rural areas. The 27 rural development areas which have been declared since 1984 have produced in broad terms—although not in every single area—an increase in population and a decrease in unemployment during that period. That showns not only that the Rural Development Commission is doing a good job but that the principle of intervention through rural development areas is worthwhile and should be extended. That applies to the provision of workshops and small business grants as well as to the other activities of the commission.
My noble friend Lord John-Mackie and other noble Lords referred to the role of farming in rural communities. It must be accepted that, in employment terms, farming is no longer the dominant employer. I was shocked to learn that more hairdressers than agriculturalists are now being trained in Dorset. One way in which farming could provide a particularly benevolent influence in rural areas would be if it were thought of as part of the process of conservation. Training in farming should be combined with training in conservation. The major demands which will face this country in conserving our natural habitat and environment should be made part of the responsibilities of the farming community. Its members live there and know what it is about and they have an interest in preserving our countryside—at any rate, they frequently proclaim an interest in doing so. Therefore, let us ask the farming community to put its money where its mouth is and contribute towards the conservation of our countryside.
There are many areas in which Government policy could contribute to a better quality of life in our rural and suburban communities, if only they did not feel ideologically constrained from doing so. The contrast that we must make is between the Government's policies in general—which have a curious combination of reliance on market forces and reliance on direct regulation and rule from Whitehall—and the more liberal and democratic policies—and I beg pardon to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for using those two words in a non-partisan sense—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is interesting to note that when the noble Lord needs words to describe something which is really good, they are the words that he finds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not usual to use the word "socialism" from this Dispatch Box, although I have done so when I have felt
1322
particularly impassioned about a subject. However, I am delighted to know that on this occasion my words find favour with the noble Baroness.
The contrast that we must make is between the Government's reliance on market forces and Whitehall rule and a more flexible and democratic way of running things which I proclaim to be the policy of the Labour Party. In our recent policy statement we undertook a very substantial review of the relationship between central and local government. It resulted in proposals for regional policies and regional government which would largely bring back to people living in rural areas—because many of the regions would have larger rural components than the country as a whole—and would largely overcome the ideological difficulties, to put it at its mildest, which the Government now have in dealing with the problems of the rural economy.
We can look at the future at its worst in the recent words of the Town and Country Planning Association. It spoke of the prospects of our countryside becoming a sterile food factory; a noisy fun palace; a concrete jungle; the preserve of the affluent; and a decaying museum piece. We believe that the policies that this country should adopt towards rural areas should be dedicated to nullifying that prediction and those possibilities. They should be directed towards preserving and increasing a healthy and flourishing countryside.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we do not often bracket together rural and suburban communities. Traditionally we think of rural communities as declining and suburban communities as expanding. But increasingly rural areas are now showing signs of prosperity and growth, despite the decline of employment in agriculture and other primary industries.
The closing remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were filled with a prophetic view of the future which was one of gloom. As a countryman, it is not one that I recognise in the future that I see ahead.
It is important that full and effective use is made of available land in existing urban and suburban areas, and planning authorities have a responsibility to encourage this. But it should not be at the expense of often precious areas of open space, nor should it render these areas as a whole less pleasant places in which to live.
Essentially it is a matter of achieving the right balance between development in the suburbs, in the cities and in the countryside. There is a a lot of vacant and recycled land in urban areas whose use for housing would be beneficial. To take the South-East as an example, over half of all development there is on such land. But it would be self-defeating to allow residential areas to deteriorate.
Whenever extensive areas of new housing are built there will be the need to ensure that a full range of services is available. This, too, is dealt with through

1323
the planning system and by ensuring that the developers meet a fair share of the costs.
Our overall aim is to maintain a thriving countryside through a sensible balance between farming, conservation, recreation, employment creation and the needs of rural communities. Our twin objectives—to achieve a healthy rural economy and an attractive rural environment—reinforce each other. Our policies provide a framework for achieving these objectives.
The Government's main task is to guide and encourage others. We want to encourage the enterprise of all those who live and work in rural communities and to see increasing activity by the private and voluntary sectors. We are also anxious to see that the best posssible use is made of limited public funds, by making full use of opportunities to influence others and by concentrating activities in areas with the greatest needs. But we do not hesitate to take direct action where it is necessary.
In many rural areas the efforts of all concerned have been rewarded. The population of the rural areas of Britain increased by 10 per cent. between 1971 and 1981. Employment and economic activity have become more diversified and in many areas the unemployment rate is now well below the national average. But there are still many rural communities with problems, often related to their remoteness from the main areas of economic activity or to a rapid decline in employment in traditional industries, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out to your Lordships' House. Other rural communities suffer from the problems of success, with shortages of low-cost housing and strong pressures for extensive new development.
We have taken many steps to help deal with these problems. The farming and rural enterprise package that my department, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other colleagues launched two years ago set out the steps that we were taking to encourage a flourishing rural economy sensitive to the wider needs of rural areas. We have achieved a great deal since then.
The Government sponsor specialist agencies to do much of the work in implementing their policies for rural communities. In England, the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by my department, is the Government's main agency for diversifying rural enterprise. In Wales, similar tasks are undertaken primarily by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. In Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board fulfil broadly similar functions.
These agencies have a star-studded list of achievements to their credit. Most importantly, they get people and organisations in the private voluntary and public sectors to work together to deal effectively with rural problems. Increasingly the agencies are making more efficient use of their resources by targeting their activities on areas of the greatest need. For example, in October the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales launched a special rural action programme which targets resources on the less prosperous areas.
1324
It is important that development in rural areas respects the environment. We also have important specialist agencies to protect landscape and wildlife. We shall be bringing legislation forward to your Lordships' House in the new year to recognise them and make them more effective.
The private sector has the most important role in ensuring that rural communities do well in the long term. Private sector involvement in rural areas helps them to thrive and to sustain essential rural services. The Government are keen to encourage that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, the development of tourism provides a good example of that. Tourism is already a significant and well-established industry in a number of rural areas. Visitors to the countryside spent around £3.2 billion in 1986. If trends established over the last 15 years continue, tourist expenditure in the countryside could increase by around 60 per cent. in real terms by the end of the century. The Government are playing their part and assistance is available for tourism in areas of special need. In Wales, I know that the national tourist board, of which the noble Lord was formerly chairman, is presently running a rural tourism drive aimed at improving the quality and range of tourist facilities and services in the Principality. With regard to the noble Lord's remark, I say only that to review a quango is not to deny its excellence.
Some government agencies have also developed partnership schemes to stimulate other types of private sector activity. The Scottish Development Agency, for example, has a scheme called PRIDE. A revised version of similar schemes in Wales, known as DRIVE, was launched on 1st September.
Voluntary organisations also play a vital role in encouraging rural economic and social development, and the Government are anxious to work closely with them. Central government funding of the voluntary sector has risen by about 92 per cent. in real terms over the last decade and in 1988–89 it was some £2.1 billion. Voluntary organisations such as the rural community councils frequently help rural communities to analyse problems and find a way forward. They help to deliver services, provide advice, encourage enterprise and provide a link between authorities and the rural community.
We are today issuing a new edition of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7: Rural Enterprise and Development. It will remind local authorities of the need for a balanced approach to proposals that may help the rural economy but may also affect the rural environment. It will re-emphasise the importance of sensitive planning in special areas, such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, drew to the attention of your Lordships' House.
Our efforts to develop a thriving rural economy sometimes need to be supported by special action to maintain or enhance the provision of particular services. I should like to take this opportunity to summarise briefly for your Lordships what we are doing in this matter already. In July 1988 we announced our rural housing initiative which, for the first time, set out a specific policy on low-cost housing in smaller villages. The right reverend

1325
Prelate drew your Lordships' attention to the question of whether or not the Government monitored change. This policy is based on the fact that the Government have monitored change and thus changed policy.
We have greatly increased the public funds available to the Housing Corporation, so enabling it to establish a special rural programme aimed at expanding the role of housing associations in villages with a population of under 1,000. By 1992–93, this will be providing some 1,500 houses a year for rent and 350 for low-cost sale. Also, following the extensive debate in your Lordships' House on last Session's Local Government and Housing Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew the attention of noble Lords, we are introducing a scheme in some rural areas whereby housing associations can repurchase former shared ownership dwellings when the occupier moves on.
We are also taking steps to help and encourage landowners and developers to provide new houses at prices or rents that local people can afford. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, drew this point most succinctly to your Lordships' attention this afternoon.
In February 1989 we announced changes to planning rules whereby local planning authorities may exceptionally release small pockets of land for low-cost schemes to meet local needs. Rural areas will also benefit from the encouragement we have given to investment in the private rented sector.
The right reverend Prelate drew your Lordships' attention to the possibility of the development of new village communities and gave his own preference as the expansion of small villages into larger and better serviced villages. The only thing of which I can assure the right reverend Prelate is that whichever route is chosen the amount of protest, I suspect, will be similar. The right reverend Prelate also drew attention to the Archbishop's commission on rural areas. We welcome the setting up of the Archbiship's commission and the work which it has undertaken. The department will be most interested to hear the result of the commission's work when it reports to Synod in November 1990.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, drew attention to the different system in France, and I have to say—because it is with regard to the design and the quality of design—that if I was standing in any other part of your Lordships' House than the Dispatch Box, speaking on behalf of the Government, I, too, might have some rather stronger views on this subject. But I would draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, the fact, with the basis of a stronger concept to the view of design in France, that Mr. I. M. Pei's little pyramid in the Tuileries has not resulted exactly in consensus and happiness by the consumers of that great country, in terms of the pleasure it has provided.
The Government recognise that small schools in rural areas do an excellent job. However, they may reach a point where even disproportionate resources cannot compensate for their size. Where alternative schools are readily accessible and there are surplus
1326
places in the area, rationalisation may be the answer. But we realise that many small village schools have to be retained, because of the geographical isolation of the communities they serve, especially where the alternative schools available would necessitate unacceptably long journeys to schools for young children.
Deregulation under the Transport Act 1985, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred, has opened up the way for operators to provide bus services in rural areas on a commercial basis, and local authorities have powers to subsidise the running of services not provided by operators commercially. As a result of this, new rural services have been provided in many areas. The Transport Act 1985 also introduced the Rural Transport Development Fund to assist the provision of rural bus services in England. The Rural Transport Development Fund is run by the Rural Development Commission, with up to £1 million a year available from Department of Transport grants for up to 50 per cent. of each innovative rural transport scheme, and these are available to a maxim um of some £25,000. Seventy-five grants totalling £693,000 were offered in 1987–88.
I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred glowingly to the Rural Development Commission funds towards innovative information and advice projects in rural areas. I know that sometimes the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, insinuates that this Government operate like a libertarian party in the western part of America. However, I assure him that they do not believe in that concept as he sometimes insinuates they may do.
The Rural Development Commission has achieved a great deal in a vast range of activities to improve rural services but we are not complacent. Government departments and their agencies monitor the position to identify problems and to see what action can be taken. The Rural Development Commission expects to publish no less than three new research reports on rural services early in the new year. A report on the provision of basic utilities will review the availability of mains electricity, water and sewerage in rural England. It will assess the deficiencies in provision and comment on how they might be overcome. A study on rural sub-post offices will review the impact of the Post Office's part-time community post office contract for smaller sub-post offices. A report on village services will assess the overall position on the availability of rural services and take a look at the future.
The Government are optimistic but not complacent about the future of rural communities. However, we believe that there are enthusiastic and enterprising people living within the rural community and the Government are committed to their future. They are taking care to see that they develop their full potential for the benefit of the whole community.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, we have had a good little debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his last

1327
sentence and, indeed, for much of what he said. He did not push what he had to say, despite his natural partisan pride, into complacency, and I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On the issue of unemployment in rural areas, since I mentioned the improvements which have taken place within the golden triangle, I should have said that in the latest list of unemployment statistics there are 10 places where unemployment is over 9 per cent. in the rural areas, and there are several places where it is very much higher than that.
As I accepted the discipline of the Chief Whip to within 60 seconds, I did not have the opportunity to pay my tribute to the development board for rural Wales and its predecessor for the work which they have done or to mention the strategy for the future which is called "Strategy for the 1990s" launched by that development board. I was grateful to the Minister for mentioning that. Some of us remember the effect on Wales of the Labour Party's document Wales—The Way Ahead and some of this latest strategy is based on that. I see a former Secretary of State for Wales joining in with a smile late in the debate. I thank all noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Museums and Galleries: Current Problems
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth rose to call attention to the state of museums and galleries and to matters of concern to them, including treasure trove and the export of works of art; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is still, although only just, "Museums Year" which lasts throughout 1989. Further, it is the centenary of the formation of the Museums Association. It is therefore very appropriate that we should debate museums and galleries together. I am sure that all your Lordships will join in wishing the Museums Association another century of great activity and help.
When I tabled my Motion, I was not sure how other noble Lords who are expert on this subject would view it. However, when I look at the galaxy of talent which is to speak, I am very comforted. I know that the debate will be splendid and I thank all those who are to take part.
It would be invidious to mention names, except for one—our maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. He has told me something of the line he is going to take and how he intends to avoid being too controversial. I said to him that it is quite right to do that when making a maiden speech on political matters, but on a subject such as the one we are discussing today, however controversial he wants to be the better.
When I look at the position of the museums and galleries of this country in general, the first matter which strikes me is that over the past few years local
1328
museums and provincial museums have relatively improved their status and position. Of course, if I say "relatively" one asks: relative to what? In that respect, the national museums and galleries have shown a decline. Do not misunderstand me, my Lords. Part of that decline is their own deliberate choice; that is, they have built up out-stations throughout the country and they and the National Heritage have often ensured that great works of art go to the provinces rather than stay only in London and Edinburgh. That is a course of action which I am sure is to be applauded. It means that the country as a whole is taking more and more interest in what I call the general artistic background of the country, particularly what is happening in their own localities. The individuals and the local councils responsible for that growth are to be congratulated.
I said that there was a relative decline of the national museums and galleries. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that because, of course, they are, and must remain, the centres of excellence and learning in this country, recognised as the equal of any in the world. They are museums and galleries enjoyed by visitors from all over the world.
Indeed, quite recently, the Government recognised that fact. They gave £40 million grant to improve the structure and to help with necessary repairs to the national museums. I know that all your Lordships will be grateful for that. I do not wish to appear churlish but I wish that it had been the £100 million suggested when the question arose of the Thyssen collection. However, we must be thankful for small mercies. If that sum could be increased in the next year or two, then the basic worries of the national museums would disappear. We should know at least that they were structurally sound and in a position to safeguard and conserve what is so important: our greatest national treasures.
I have received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Molson, regretting that he is not able to be here today; his health does not permit it. The letter states how anxious he is that the money should be spent with care and points out that the galleries have not been accustomed to this task because it has been done by the PSA. Of course, that has changed but the noble Lord believes that the five museums which receive most of this money should look to the Museums Association or others to help them to ensure that it is well spent.
The grant for acquisitions by museums is pitifully small. I think I am right in saying that the grant for all the national museums would not be enough to buy the Canova, a subject of which we are all aware at the present time. It certainly could not buy a top class French impressionist work. However, with the help of the National Heritage in particular, the museums and galleries have shown great initiative. Something of great importance happened recently. I may or may not have my facts right, but I think it was the National Gallery and the National Gallery of Wales which together bought a Claude. It will be displayed for some time in one place and for some time in the other. That may well be a good example to follow, but I must issue a word of warning

1329
Pictures are fragile. We must be careful that this does not become too general a practice.
I said that the national museums and galleries have had their worries removed to some degree. But money is at the heart of everything, and the heroic efforts of their sponsors and friends are not enough. I favour charges, but I know that this is a controversial issue. I have suggested as a compromise that in the winter there should be no charges but that in summer, when many visitors come, there should be charges. Everyone would understand that.
My Motion mentions two specific points; the export of works of art and treasure trove. I should like to draw the House's attention to the 35th annual report of the Reviewing Committee for the Export of Works of Art. It is well worth reading. It is entertainingly written and full of good material. One general matter in the report filled me with dismay. In the past five years the committee has managed to stop the export of eminent objects valued at £19 million, but objects valued at £80 million have gone abroad. In other words, only one-fifth of those important objects have been saved for this country. Ten years ago the ratio was 50:50. There is a lesson here which the Government should take seriously to heart.
Despite that, the report says that the committee is comforted by the success of the "in lieu" provision—noble Lords will know what I mean by that—and by the fact that the douceur has encouraged many people to come to private arrangements with the national museums or other public museums. It points out, however, that with the changes in taxation the douceur is now worth only 10 per cent. instead of 15 per cent. I fear what the result of this will be. People may say that it is not worth doing for 10 per cent. I ask the Government to take a special look at this point and to increase the douceur to 40 per cent, approximately the same level as before.
As I read and re-read the report, I come more and more to the conclusion that the work of the committee is creaking. I shall explain what I have in mind. The Waverley criteria remain the best that we could have but beyond that there are serious deficiencies. I refer in particular to the "indefinite stop". Most noble Lords will know about the indefinite stop, but I cite again the example of the Canova. We have just learnt that the Minister for the Arts has stopped its export for another four months. During those four months there may be a successful appeal. It will then be open for the owner to say that he will not accept the £7 million. What will happen then? All the money will have to be returned to the donors who were so generous. The owner may be in a position in 18 months to ask for another export licence.
What can one do? One cannot warm up cold meat. It may not be possible to raise the money a second time. The cost may be very much higher. The owner may say that the work of art is more valuable because it has the imprimatur of the reviewing committee. We are in a mess on this issue. I beg the Government to do what they have been asked to do and which they undertook to do 18 months ago. I ask them somehow to ensure that this indefinite stop
1330
procedure is allowed a second time. It used to happen. This is a matter of the greatest importance. If they do not, they will have to take the blame for what happens to the Canova.
I must be careful with the time that is available to me and so I shall not go over the other weakenings set out in the report. I suggest, however, that the Reviewing Committee for the Export of Works of Art should form a special working party made up partly of its members and partly of people from outside. They should study the various deficiencies in the present system and report to the Government. I suggest that such a working party should do this because it knows the position so well.
The delays in regard to treasure trove have been even worse. Three years ago I asked a Question in which I said that this should be a matter of urgent study. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, agreed and said that he would take the matter on. We were all much encouraged. The noble Lord left that post and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, took it on. He was equally enthusiastic, and after 18 months, with a certain amount of prodding, he gave all kinds of assurances. He asked us to be a little more patient and he said that it would happen soon. Eighteen months have gone by and nothing has happened. This cannot be allowed to wait. Many noble Lords will have read in the newspapers of what has happened in the meantime. Treasures such as the Icklingham bronzes have been slipping away. People are advertising in Australia and America the kind of things that have been taken out. I beg the Government to think about this.
I have a specific recommendation to make. We do not have the same problem in Scotland because we operate not only treasure trove but also what is known as bona vacantia. Under this system of law, if someone dies intestate and has no relations, his estate goes to the Crown. We in Scotland have the two principles side by side. Why cannot England and Wales do the same? I am sure that the matter is very complicated and difficult. Indeed, it must be if, after three years, it is still unresolved. However, here is something which is working in Scotland. If it were implemented here it would ensure that the opportunity will be there to save those items which are not gold or silver but which are of immense importance to the country.
I shall give one last example. The Coppergate Helm was discovered in Yorkshire. It was found by a worker. He reported it to the authorities, although it was not of gold or silver. However, it was immensely important and perhaps the most important helm ever discovered in this country. The worker was given a derisory reward by York City Council. But if we had the bona vacantia system in place the worker would have been given the right figure, according to the worth of the discovery. In any event, he would have done exactly what he did do, but others might have been encouraged to do likewise.
I believe that many people, including the great majority of those who use metal detectors, would welcome such a move. If the Government say that they will do something very quickly, that is fine. However, if not, please let them adopt this solution. I beg to move for Papers.
4.51 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to say a few words in this short debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Perth. As a past chairman of the reviewing committee, he is an authority on the export of works of art. Decisions on these matters are geared to current values which then affect what a gallery or a museum can afford to buy.
The Motion mentions "treasure trove" and to me that is an interesting subject, especially as I live on top of a Roman camp. However, it is a subject of concern to museums of antiquities. My concern is with galleries. It relates to my interest in the visual arts. There is some separation between antiquities and galleries. I am a little apprehensive when galleries start adding artefacts to their collections to stand beside or in front of paintings or sculptures.
The National Gallery of Scotland is small in size and filled—thanks, in part, to the noble Duke the Duke of Sutherland—with works of very high quality. Recently the gallery has undergone a refurbishment exercise with many of the walls being covered in a dark claret colour which is alien to the paintings of the Dutch and of the Flemish schools and to those of Turner. However, the addition of furniture and clocks has helped to humanise the gallery.
But perhaps the trustees should guard against treating the building as a gentleman's palazzo rather than a gallery, the charm of which is due to its size and the uncluttered display of its works. In fairness to Mr. Tim Clifford, the gallery's imaginative and genial director, I should say that my comments are subjective and that they come from the descendant of a long line of austere Scots, some of them Quakers. As to the future, I hope that future expansion will be provided by the proposed Museum of Scotland which will be able to cater for any overflow of the Scottish paintings.
New acquisitions are of concern to all galleries and museums. Those of us who travel through Western Europe are able to enjoy wonderful galleries and collections. We must do all we can to compete with them, if for no other reason than to increase the cultural inheritance available to visitors both from home and from overseas.
My noble friend mentioned the overseas visitors and the great temptation there is to introduce charges at any rate during the summer months. The Government must realise that an increase in the size of purchase grants is long overdue. Opportunities for acquisitions come regularly and galleries should be able to take advantage of them, especially when they are right for their particular gallery. A recent example of this was the help given by the Heritage Memorial Fund to assist the purchase of the Alan Ramsay portrait of Sir Hew Dalrymple for the Portrait Gallery.
As my noble friend said, the Government's record as regards buildings and their fabric has been good. Throughout the country they are helping to restore the fabric of galleries and museums. In Edinburgh they have made a generous allocation of £2.5 million for air conditioning and other improvment to the Royal Scottish Academy. Due to the fact that the building belongs to the National Gallery, that money
1332
has been passed on to the academy by the trustees. No strings have been attached on the way and the Royal Scottish Academy's rights and privileges will be respected and preserved.
Perhaps I may touch upon the plight of the non-national museums, especially the Scottish Maritime Museum, the Scottish Mining Museum and the Summerlee Complex, which record our recent industrial past for the benefit of future generations. The work is shared by several other museums throughout Scotland, These museums perform a national role, as instanced by the prefix in several cases of "Scottish". Their importance was emphasised when the Miles Report was published on behalf of the Museums and Galleries Commission in 1986. I should like to quote a few sentences from the report. They read as follows:
"What has been facing us in the last two or three decades is the rapid decline and disappearance of established and mainly heavy industries. An awareness of this fundamental change has led to a desire to preserve and record relics of industry as inherently admirable achievements".
The report goes on to describe the few sources of funding available mainly from the Manpower Services Commission, from the Museums' Council, from the national museums and from local authorities. Since then the role of the Manpower Services Commission has changed to employment training and therefore that source of funding has dried up. The two national museums in Edinburgh which have industrial sections need all their resources for their own departments. Moreover, local authority funding will not materialise without a lead from government.
At present the non-national museums are left without any revenue funding from the Government to pay for the staff needed to preserve for future generations a record of Scotland's recent industrial past, which is in fact the history of the whole of the central belt. Recent efforts to persuade the Scottish Office to recognise the worsening situation have been to no avail. I earnestly hope that the Government will see their way to making some effort to fill a gap which is gaping open.
Finally, perhaps I may touch upon the choice of trustees and museum staff. If they are knowledgeable and have the right qualifications, the institutions will thrive and exude self-confidence and happiness. However, too much emphasis can be given to the business side of the matter. I am a little worried when I hear that the directorship of the Museum of Wales has gone to a businessman and that the deputy directorship of the Tate Gallery has gone to a merchant banker. In Scotland, the chairman of the National Gallery is a merchant banker, Mr. Angus Grossart; moreover one trustee, Dr. Begg, is an accountant, while another, Sir Norman MacFarlane, is head of Guinness.
While the energies and abilities of such people must be acknowledged, as well as their discrimination in works of art, they have been chosen for their powers as businessmen and not as aesthetes or scholars. Therefore the chairman must rely heavily upon the director for aesthetic advice. These few comments are offered without wishing to minimise the splendid way in which the national galleries are run.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I shall start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for introducing the debate and for the excellent speech he made in so doing. I should also like to say what an honour it is to follow a real live artist in a debate. Indeed, it is most rare as we are mostly "slippered Pantaloons" who look at such matters from a theoretical point of view.
I sometimes wince when I hear talk of saving our heritage. No one is going to tear up very valuable pictures; nor will they smash up any furniture. Too often, our heritage appears to consist of Dutch, French and Italian pictures, French furniture and German porcelain, much of which has arrived in this country purely fortuitously because people bought it on the grand tour.
Our first priority should be to save buildings and their contents in the place for which they were designed, and gardens and landscapes. I am glad to be able to say that the capacity of trustees and directors is ameliorating. When I first entered the other place the controversy over the Lane pictures was raging. Being an innocent character from the North, I assumed that art being a civilising influence there would be give and take about the future of those pictures and that everyone would behave in a civilised manner. Far from it. I found that the directors of English galleries behaved like cats squabbling over a piece of fish. That position has improved.
We must also hope that architects have improved, although that hope may be frustrated. My conclusion is that the first priority should be the national trusts. They do more than anyone else to preserve our heritage. Let no one say that it is unnecessary. Look at the fate of George Square in Edinburgh. That was a charming form of architecture unique in Europe, but it was not well known, expensive or grand. It was ruthlessly pulled down by the University of Edinburgh and a hideous building was put in its place.
I should like to congratulate the National Heritage Memorial Fund, whose chairman I see preening himself in his place. It seems to be on the right lines. It made a mistake by buying an expensive Picasso, but in general it does not seem to have been overtaken by the folie de grandeur. It has a variety of valuable smaller treasures. The art world has become big business. We now know that Sotheby's does not only set big prices; it lends the money. I suppose that that is legitimate, but it seems odd.
The first thing that I think should be done is that governments should get together. There should be some international agreement on exempting works of art from taxation. Secondly, few works of art should be refused an export licence. If they are, it should be a complete refusal. Their export should be forbidden. If those articles are of priceless value to the country and the heritage their retention should not depend upon whether a gallery can raise the amount of money needed to keep them.
I also put in a plea for some generosity among the major galleries of the world. I am not especially keen to return the Elgin Marbles but I should not passionately oppose it. I should like to see some of
1334
the dozen and dozen of Canalettos in this country returned to Venice. To see two or three along the Grand Canal would be a great pleasure. As tourism spreads around the world many more people would probably see them than now do.
I should not be averse to returning some altar pieces to appropriate churches. I am not sure about putting renaissance altar pieces into Gothic churches, but they would look extremely well in the right church.
Those who run our galleries should appoint as trustees not just the rich and the great but artists and suchlike. There are some artists among trustees but the tendency is to appoint people who may be able to raise money. Although artists' taste is not always impeccable, they have a big part to play in preserving art. I should like galleries to be far more adventurous and buy modern art and art by living artists. It is rather horrifying to find that nearly all the great masterpieces in the Tate were given to it. The number of pictures that the Tate bought before they became popular and well known is very small. One has looked in vain for five or 10 years for any Scottish pictures. Now that they are worth £500,000 each the Tate is only too anxious to have them.
The great crime of the art world is to keep pictures in cellars. It is far worse than many things for which people are gaoled for years. I should be extremely reluctant to put more and more pictures into our galleries if they cannot hang them. Incidentally, I do not much favour big galleries. My favourite is the Maurishui's at The Hague, which is comparatively small.
I come now to the National Gallery for Scotland. There is a great deal of anxiety in Scotland because it has now closed some of its rooms. I am glad to be able to say that the Director has assured me that they are closed for one or two hours a day only. If anyone wants to see the pictures he will open the rooms. Furthermore, unlike most foreign galleries, it is not closed for the whole afternoon or on one day a week. Although it is a great pity that any of our national galleries should be closed, the position is not yet disastrous. The director believes that it will worsen because as civil servants' pay goes up the cost of attendants goes up. That is something over which he has no control. As the pictures are not insured he is bound to keep a fairly high level of attendants in the various galleries. I beg the Government to take that matter seriously. If more galleries are similarly affected or if the closures become longer I hope that they will make the funds available. They have, as has been said, done a good deal about the fabric of galleries, but they have not so far been generous over the running costs.
It is apparent, if one looks at the Scottish position, which I believe is duplicated elsewhere, that there may be demands to keep necessary pieces of our heritage. The annual grant to galleries will not cover that demand. There should be a reserve fund. We are deeply indebted to the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland. The glory and core of the Scottish National Gallery are the Sutherland pictures. If he wished to sell them he might get £80 million or £100 million. He has forgone the interest on that money for perhaps 70 or 80 years. He may be generous

1335
enough to go on for ever but he might need to sell one for some reason and the gallery's annual grant would not look at it. The Government were prepared to put up 100 million for the Thyssen pictures because they thought that they were prestigious. If they were prepared to do that, they should be prepared to put up a large sum for objects which are incomparably more important to this country. We should express our deep gratitude to the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, and others like him who have not followed the enterprise culture which we are told by the Government is so important to us. They have values which are other than merely monetary.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Perth for initiating the debate which gives me an opportunity to address the House for the first time on a subject close to my heart. When people mention museums and galleries it is almost inevitable that the first matter that arises is fine art. I am glad that my noble friend mentioned the subject of treasure trove because that is the side upon which I intend to hang my plea to the Government. I wish to talk about archaeology rather than fine art. My noble friend's remarks about treasure trove arise, and become more urgent, as a result of metal detectors and their use by unscrupulous people. Over a period of time such machines are becoming more powerful, more sophisticated and more discerning; in other words, we can find out what something is very much more easily. In unscrupulous hands the metal detector is a dangerous tool.
I know that there are responsible users who restrict the use of metal detectors to a code of practice that their association has brought out, but that code of practice does not have the force of law. Metal detectors are also useful for sweeping lines of road improvements after other methods of archaeological detection have been tried. We have recently used metal detectors on my estate before planting a wood for set-aside. I am relieved to say that we found nothing but 20th century agricultural artefacts.
Unfortunately, more unscrupulous users have raided archaeological sites during the course of excavation. That is at the worst end of the scale. They have also removed objects from sites of archaeology awaiting excavation. Some people have merely "done over" fields, of which there are many in my part of the world, simply because things have been found there before. Coins and such objects that have been found are in no way reported and without any record of their exact location and archaeological layer they are useless to the archaeologist, even if valuable to the finder. The recent removal of the bronzes which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned from Icklingham in Suffolk is a case in point. What appeared in a New York gallery may have been beautiful and valuable, but that is all. Those bronzes tell no story.
Therefore I was hoping that the Government might introduce legislation to license metal detectors and make some form of law to support the voluntary
1336
code of practice which I gather the more responsible people use. I also understand that the chairman of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has announced that his organisation is evaluating jamming machines so that metal detectors can be discouraged over a small area.
Turning to scheduled ancient monuments, I had hoped that the Environment Protection Bill from the Department of the Environment, foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech and now published, would contain further legislation to protect scheduled monuments. It is well known that the Department of the Environment and Norfolk County Council are worried about the lack of protection of monuments. Considerable correspondence and topic papers have passed between them.
In a nutshell, what is felt in Norfolk is that the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1981 should be rescinded for Class 1 because it permits the destruction of monuments by ploughing and other agricultural practices. Proof of damage is needed in this case and the only way of finding out whether damage has been done to an earthen monument is by excavation which leads to further damage. It is a defence, in an attempted prosecution for damage to ancient monuments, for people to say that they were not aware that the monuments were scheduled. There are no enforcement powers to reinstate monuments which have been damaged without consent.
As was suggested by the last speaker, by contrast legislation protecting ancient buildings is far more powerful. The remedies suggested would be to revoke Class 1 of the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order and to make it an offence to disturb an ancient monument unless it was part of an approved management regime and make powers to reinstate emergency repair or compulsorily to purchase such a monument. That would be the case with a listed building under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. We should extend such powers on scheduled monuments to local authorities so that they could carry them out under that law.
By the time the Environment Protection Bill has passed into law and bearing in mind the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as well as various other pieces of protective legislation which the Government have brought forward in the past few years, archaeological remains have fared extremely badly. A "water soldier", which is a small aquatic plant floating in a dyke in the Norfolk Broads, has more protection than many long barrows.
Further, perhaps I may say a brief word about rescue archaeology. I think it is now accepted that developers need to pay for rescue work. Perhaps I may take two examples from what has happened in Norwich. Anglia Television has put forward a considerable amount of money for this with the extension of its television studios. With the Castle Mall shopping precinct in the centre of Norwich, the developers have put forward no less than £600,000 for the excavation of an important early Norman and medieval castle precinct.
The recent discovery of the Shakespearian theatre south of the Thames has drawn attention to the scale

1337
of the problems and put forward some solutions. However, when the Government themselves or a government department are the developers, it is not quite the same. Again, perhaps I may quote examples from a Norfolk County Council paper on two or three developments by government bodies. One is by the Department of Transport, the Norwich southern bypass. The paper says:
"This will cut through an area which is archaeologically one of the richest and most important in Norfolk. It will be close to the prehistoric Henge Monument at Arminghall, and the Roman town of Venta Icenorum. The archaeological programme for a watching brief and for detailed investigation … [could] cost around £144,000".
It says, regarding the Dickleburgh bypass on the A.140 trunk road, that field patterns in this country are often assumed to be medieval or later. The framework of the hedgerow system in that area, being either side of the Roman road from Caistor St. Edmund through Scole to Colcheser, is likely to be Iron Age in origin. It is a unique opportunity to look at a landscape from this early period. That would cost some £30,000.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not here because his department has equal problems at King's Lynn in the development of the new Crown Courts. They are being built on an extremely important medieval site at Austin Street, next to St. Nicholas Chapel. The site is of medieval tenements, close to the medieval shoreline. Archaeological investigations on this site alone would cost some £129,000. The problem is that the Government do not pay for archaeological investigations in these cases; nor are sums included for archaeological investigations or rescue archaeology in cost-benefit analysis.
As I understand it, the Government insist that rescue archaeology should be through English Heritage. English Heritage has received, according to my knowledge, an extra £.100,000 for this purpose. Norfolk is only one-fifteenth of the area of England and Wales and f100,000 could go on one project alone in Norfolk.
In summary, archaeology is not always a fully understood science and the benefits of its work and interpretation are often underrated. For that reason, I urge the Government themselves to lead in rescue archaeology and to pass legislation that will protect our achaeological heritage from greed, ignorance and other pressures lest our heritage and our understanding of it and ourselves be lost forever.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, on behalf of the whole House, on his excellent and well informed maiden speech. He certainly chose a subject which he knows well because he was at one time chairman of the south east area museum service and also a very able chairman of the East Anglian Tourist Board. I am sure that we look forward to hearing him take part in debates in your Lordships' House, especially when he speaks on subjects which he knows so well.
The debate today is certainly timely for two good reasons. First, it suitably marks the end of Museums
1338
Year, which was so designated as 1989 marks the centenary of the Museums Association. Secondly, the year has happily culminated in the Minister for the Arts winning extra funds from the Treasury for the national museums whose needs were desperate because of neglect over many years of their basic structures. However, it is rather ironic and salutary that the year also ends with yet more instances of great works of art leaving this country, either by legal or illegal means. That includes archaeological artefacts.
As chairman of English Heritage, I wish to express views on those two issues. The principal interests of English Heritage are the preservation and presentation of English historic buildings and monuments. But, just as importantly, English Heritage is the statutory adviser on heritage matters to the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have to say therefore that English Heritage was extremely disappointed with the recent decisions by the Secretary of State not to take legal action in relation to the removal from Woburn of "the Three Graces" by Canova without listed building consent. English Heritage is concerned that neither the local planning authorities nor the Department of the Environment have chosen to exercise their statutory powers in spite of the advice they obtained.
There is no doubt in our minds that fixtures and fittings, of which works of art such as "the Three Graces" are a prime example, which form part of an architectural ensemble, or statues designed at the time to fit formal historic gardens, are an integral part of a historic building. We submit that the listed building was constructed to display the Canova statue, and hence its removal removes the reason for the building. Therefore listed building consent was and is required for its removal. As a result of this decision, there is now growing public concern over the removal and ultimate inevitable export of many similar objects.
Although it is the view of English Heritage that legislation is more than adequate, clearly its application is not. There is no doubt that there are many misunderstandings about the law relating to fixtures and fittings in listed buildings, and as regards precisely what objects may be covered by listed building control. It is clearly in the public interest and that of private owners that the law should be clarified and new guidelines issued. English Heritage is therefore taking the initiative. I have convened a meeting of all interested parties, both public and private, at the end of January to discuss the issues. I hope that in the long run agreed guidelines may prove beneficial to all concerned as no one wants to see an ever increasing flood of objects leaving the country.
I understand that in a statement my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment welcomed this initiative. He acknowledged at the same time that the legal advice he received was that "the Three Graces" would normally be considered as part of the listed building. Nevertheless, there are many owners who feel strongly that such objects are chattels and in many cases the proceeds from their sale are often devoted to desperately needed repairs to historic buildings. I

1339
sympathise with these objectives, but perhaps I may remind owners that listed building control does not necessarily prevent any changes, if there are good reasons for them. It does, however, ensure that there is proper public debate of the issues when listed building consent is sought.
I turn now to the illicit removal of artefacts from archaeological sites. This is perhaps an even more difficult subject. We cannot hope to protect every site in the country from treasure hunters. Nonetheless, we are considering whether we can pinpoint the most important sites at risk rather more narrowly to assess the possibility of extending better protection to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, said, we are also looking into the possibility of further research into electronic devices, although there are limitations on their use. I must say, however, that for as long as there exists a market, particularly overseas, for this kind of object, it will continue to be difficult to protect our sites. Perhaps the time has come to look again at the advantages which ratification of the 1970 Unesco convention might bring. I ask the Government to consider that again.
I shall now return to the general subject of museums. I very much welcome the new realism which is apparent, particularly in national museums. This is especially evident with the long overdue introduction of admission charges at the Science Museum and other museums. I hope that charges will soon be made compulsory at the Victoria and Albert Museum. As one of the last nations in the world to cling to what I consider to be the outmoded Victorian ethic of free museums, it seems strange to me that the last people who are ever consulted about the desirability of charging are the public. However, when they are asked—especially overseas visitors—they overwhelmingly think that charges are justified.
It is also claimed that attendance figures fall dramatically when charges are made. However, the figures when admission was free were, to say the least, fanciful, and sometimes almost imaginary. One cannot therefore say that figures have fallen 40 per cent. from a figure which never existed to begin with. I do not suggest for one moment that charging alone will solve the financial problems of the national museums. However, I wish to remind the House that there are over 1,000 independent museums in this country, all of which have to charge to survive and many of which are in the forefront of innovation of museum techniques and presentation and which regularly appear as winners in the Museum of the Year awards. The debate this evening is not about them, and perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there.
5.26 p.m.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, we have talked a great deal about money for the arts. I shall talk entirely about museums and galleries. These should be kept in the manner to which they should be accustomed. However, this requires vision and prescience as well as money.
1340
It was something like 18 years ago that this House debated the introduction of admission charges for museums. Lord Clark of "Civilisation" fame made a speech giving cogent reasons for not adopting that practice. I too am opposed to admission charges. I know it is courtesy to declare one's interest in this House. I have a rather grubby card. It is grubby from more than 30 years of use. It is my membership card of the International Association of Art Critics and it gives me free entry to every museum and gallery in the world. Presumably, if charges were introduced here I would obtain free entry to British museums and galleries also.
As your Lordships will know, our galleries and museums are filled in the summer by many young foreigners, avid for opportunities to look at great works of art free of charge. Collectively, as tourists, they inject money into this country. Would museum charges discourage them and decrease their numbers? Certainly we know that even the voluntary charge at the Victoria and Albert has resulted in a considerable reduction in visitors.
Patronage of the arts has the unfortunate reputation of being considered elitist. It is considered that only a small percentage of people are regular aficionados. I shall give the annual attendance figures for the four major London galleries and museums. The British Museum has 4 million visitors, the National Gallery 3 million, the Tate Gallery 1.75 million and the Victoria and Albert 1.7 million. As I have already said, the figure for the Victoria and Albert Museum is way down on the figures that existed before the voluntary charge was introduced. Those figures add up to about 10.5 million visitors. I should have thought that compares quite favourably with attendance at football matches, cricket matches, and even with the television viewing of snooker. I do not believe that one can say that 10.5 million people are an elitest bunch, even though many of those are the foreigners aforementioned and people like myself who go more than once.
I suppose that an argument could be made that if that many visitors were asked for a donation, even voluntarily, that would raise significant revenue. However, I imagine that after administrative costs the sum raised would pay for about one square foot of a Van Gogh. The national museums should be funded with much more money than at present, and museum charges, objected to by most museum people, are not the answer.
All civilisations are remembered for their arts before all else. Successive governments should be trustees for future millenia and must consider the judgment of history if they fail to supply the wherewithal. At present the national museums have trustees. They have been selected for their knowledge and judgment in the visual arts. Yet when a really important work is destined for export they are not trusted and must go cap in hand to the Treasury for money. That seems to me to be an extremely top-heavy and cumbersome way of trying to keep artistic works in this country.
I have nothing more to say except to give this awful warning to the Government. In the 1890s the banker Gustave Caillebotte, who was himself a very fine painter, died leaving what was unquestionably

1341
the greatest collection of impressionist paintings to the Louvre. The Louvre took a handful. The rest were sold to America. Anyone thinking that the Americans scoop up all Europe's art would be mistaken in that particular case; it was just that the French did not want them. That, I hope, is an awful warning to the Government to look to the future. They should fund the buying and keeping of all the great works in this country before any suggestion of export licences has to be considered.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for not being here when the debate began. I am afraid that my excuse is the vagaries of air traffic. My aeroplane back from the Continent was the best part of an hour late in arriving.
The two previous speakers have both referred to admission charges at the national museums. One of them was for and the other was against. The trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum are somewhere between those two positions. We have been very concerned over the past year or more about the relative decline in our grant for running costs as against the increase in those running costs, particularly this year when the running costs grant went up by just 3 per cent. and our salaries and wages, fixed centrally by the Treasury, rose by 10 per cent. In that context one is bound to look at every possible means of covering one's costs. We have again reviewed the possibility of compulsory charges for entry.
The grant that we have received for 1990–91, at 13.7 per cent., has greatly relieved our immediate anxieties. It is by no means excessive for our needs against the pattern of previous years but at least, provided that wages and salaries do not go up by too much next year, it should enable us to survive for another year without having to cut back our activities. For that relief we are indeed grateful. It has also meant that we have decided not to introduce compulsory admission charges, although that matter is kept under review.
The voluntary donation system that we have now was introduced to provide the museum with enough money to enable it to reopen on Fridays, cost constraints having compelled it some years ago to close on Fridays. We are now open every day. That was also a welcome relief to us.
So far as we can judge, we do not believe that the introduction of compulsory charges would be a panacea for our ills given that one would want to grant certain exemptions and reductions for children, students, old people, and so on. There might also perhaps be a free day. The additional revenue that we would receive would not be tremendous, but nonetheless that is an option that in certain circumstances we would have to and would consider. For the moment, however, we continue as we are.
While speaking about money I should also reflect that the grant for next year for our buildings at the V&A will enable us to keep our building programme
1342
going. It will also enable us to start work on the adaptation of the Royal College of Art building which is reverting to the V&A next year. So far that is good news. We are at least able to keep pace with our problems.
The other matter to which I should like to refer is that which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, just now; namely, the export of works of art. The system that we have had in this country is creaking under the strain. From where I view it that strain is related very much to the fact that the V&A, the national museum of art and design, simply does not have the purchase funds to enable it to offer to purchase many of the works that are stopped by the reviewing committee in case they can be purchased by one of the national museums and galleries for the nation.
The Woburn Canova, to which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred, is a case in point. I have already told the Minister for the Arts that the V&G, as the custodian of the national collection of historic sculptures, would be very happy to take responsibility for the Woburn Canova. The V&A would be happy to house it while its original home at Woburn cannot take it, and, if it was decided that it could eventually go back to Woburn, to be responsible for its care and conservation there.
However, the price tag on the Woburn Canova is such that if the V&A were to try to buy it out of its funds we should purchase nothing else for seven years. That is not a price that we can possibly pay. It is not possible for us to acquire an object of that magnitude, in the sense of price, unless we can get help from outside. Outside in that context and for that kind of sum of money means not a private appeal to sponsors but an appeal to the Government for a Treasury grant, perhaps from the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, is due to speak later in the debate. Perhaps he will comment on the matter.
I wonder whether the time may have come when, rather than leave such matters to the initiative of individual national museums and galleries, that is a responsibility which the National Heritage Memorial Fund should take on. Where export licences are suspended the National Heritage Memorial Fund should decide, with whatever expert advice it wishes to take, whether the object should be acquired for the nation. If so, it should arrange for funds to be made available and deposit the object for custody with whichever institution it thinks most appropriate. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, will thank me for that suggestion.
I should like to make only one other brief point; namely, that the restructuring at the Victoria and Albert Museum which was discussed in a debate in this House in March is going ahead nicely. The organisation is now virtually in place, the senior appointments have nearly all been made and the museum is, I am glad to be able to say, beginning to settle down. It is likely to be a better place as a result. I was glad to see a letter in the Independent this week which suggested that at least one visitor to the museum already felt that that was happening.
5.40 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the law of treasure trove has its origins in Anglo-Saxon times when it was a kind of fiscal policy to recover bullion for the Crown and to discourage hoarding or secreting of wealth. By today's standards it is an anachronism and some strange legal assumptions are required on the part of a coroner in order to arrive at a conclusion. Objects discovered in the ground are classed as treasure trove only if they have no known owner, which is fair enough, but also if it can be established that the original owner hid them with a view to their eventual recovery. Your Lordships will not be surprised that this is a matter which cannot always be decided sensibly after several hundreds or even thousands of years, and the legal presumptions for doing so hardly bear even a scintilla of common sense.
Perhaps even more importantly, only gold or silver objects may qualify as treasure trove. Thus, many other antiquities, some of great importance to archaeologists—or others which, in many well-known cases, are of great intrinsic value and should be reckoned as national treasures—are, nonetheless, for all practical purposes, unprotected, except by the inadequate law of trespass or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act. In passing, one might note the unique Romano-Celtic bronzes from a known site at Icklingham in Suffolk which were stolen from a Norfolk landowner and exported to the United States where they have recently surfaced to be hawked around in an unedifying way. They were not covered by the law of treasure trove.
However, the law does not give adequate protection even to gold and silver. There have been several cases where that has been clearly shown. Wanborough, near Guildford in Surrey, with which the Surrey Archaeological Society and, incidentally, my wife were concerned, is perhaps a classic example. Initially, a few Iron Age and Roman coins were found and the coroner's court was informed. Unfortunately, in the proceedings, the location of the site was given in open court. Thieves raided the site by night, removing large quantities of soil for processing. In spite of commendable police activity, an estimated £2 million worth of coins were removed, many of which later turned up in the European markets. I need not dwell on the anxiety and distress caused to the householder and his neighbours.
The point about that incident is that although the police prosecuted for theft several of those who physically removed or handled the coins, almost all the prosecutions failed. That was largely due to technicalities in the treasure trove law, in particular the vexed question of whether or not the coins had been buried with a view to recovery. It was then argued that the precise gold and silver content of the coins had not been determined. Lastly, there is the fact that a decision of a coroner's court is not legally binding in a criminal court.
Changes in the existing law are needed which would, first, widen the scope of items which could be treated as treasure trove. Secondly, they would
1344
remove some of the frankly ridiculous legal requirements—for example, as I have already mentioned, whether or not the goods were originally hidden with an intent to recover them. The world-famous Sutton Hoo burial treasure may serve to illustrate that. Since it did not fit into the law's eccentric mould, it might have been sold piecemeal but for the generosity of the landowner, Mrs. Pretty, who saved it for the nation. Thirdly, such alterations to existing legislation should try to make certain that if archaeologically important finds slip through the loose mesh of the net they are not simply sold off by the finders without museums and others having a statutory opportunity to record and assess them, and to purchase them at a fair valuation if that is thought appropriate.
None of the proposals affect the landowner's rights. In 1982 a Bill passed through all its stages and failed only because it ran out of time. Along the way, the objection which the Government raised was concerned with landowners' rights. I understand that such objections have now largely been overcome.
In February 1988 the Department of the Environment issued a consultation paper and gathered evidence on the matter. It is understood that the department believes there is no hurry to resolve the issue. If that is so, it is an opinion held only by the department, not by the informed public, many of whom maintain that it will soon be too late.
Some speakers may rightly press for the Government to ratify the 1970 UNESCO convention on the illicit import, export and transfer of cultural property. But that can only be valid if we ourselves have a viable law concerning our antiquities, which we do not as yet have.
Finally, we should note that our legal provisions covering portable antiquities are way behind those of most European countries and simply do not compare with those we gave our erstwhile colonies. Frankly, I suggest that, after initiating enormous and, in some cases, dubious social and other major changes, the Government should now use their time in tidying up what they might consider to be smaller but nevertheless important issues.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, over the decades, those of us who are interested in fostering and promoting the arts and our culture have owed much to my noble friend Lord Perth. Today, he has again put us in his debt, both by his Motion and by the speech which he made in initiating the debate. When I first met him in this connection, I was in the anomalous and barely supportable position of being a Treasury Minister with responsibility for art galleries and museums.
I naturally tend to have a somewhat periclean approach to the problem; namely, wishing to foster the arts with due regard to economy. It is on that basis that I venture to ask certain questions of the Minister of which I gave him notice through the Lord Privy Seal. First, can he tell us what is the totality of public funding of the arts? I find it very difficult to estimate with so many different sources; in particular I have no idea what the in lieu scheme

1345
is worth and what the douceur appendage is worth. If he could give us those figures and compare them with a decade ago I believe that we shall be much enlightened.
The second point that I want to make is that I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Perth and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that we should seriously consider admission charges. We should consider them not as though there was a complete dichotomy between free admissions and charges. My noble friend suggested that one way of reconciling these two was to have part of the year free and part charged. My noble friend Lord Armstrong mentioned another way; namely, one weekend day free, one midweek day free and the rest charged, but perhaps one day more highly charged than the others.
We should remember that my noble friend Lord Armstrong reminded us that the admission charges at the V & A were designed to provide for—and were successful in achieving—the opening of the museum on an extra week day. When the matter was debated on a Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I had the feeling that the Government favoured admission charges but wished to preserve the freedom of choice of the trustees. That seems entirely reasonable, but if so would not the Government be justified in saying: "Here is our grant"—desirably a bit higher than at present—"we will maintain it in line with inflation, but in addition to that we will match revenue from admission charges pound for pound." That would make the trustees consider the matter afresh and seriously.
The third matter I wish to raise—taking it purely as an example—is "the Three Graces", the Canova. I leave aside the question of listed building controls to which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred, and also the rather disquieting report that there is an intermediary in the Cayman Islands which may frustrate every endeavour, I suggest that the advance of a large sum such as that mentioned may well be disinflationary. Retirement of debt is ultimately disinflationary and the Government have done nobly in that respect. It is immediately somewhat disinflationary in that the proceeds are unlikely to be wholly or mainly spent on consumer goods imported from abroad. The same thing could be said—could it not?—of a great work of art particularly if the payment were coupled with a stipulation that the proceeds should be used for conservation of the fabric and other contents of the place from which it came.
I ask the Minister: is that compatible with the Waverley scheme? If not, should not the Waverley scheme be altered in order to provide for it? That brings me to my last point: how far is the Waverley scheme consistent with our obligations to the single European market in 1992? How far is the extremely restrictive scheme of the French consistent with their obligations to the single European market? If the French scheme, as I think, is clearly not consistent, what are the Government doing to put that right?
5.55 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for initiating this debate. I hope that he will forgive me
1346
if I correct one thing that he said. He spoke of a painting by Claude which had been shared by the National Gallery and the National Gallery of Wales. It was not a painting by Claude; it was a painting by Poussin, "The Finding of Moses". The National Heritage Memorial Fund contributed £2 million towards its purchase because we thought it a very good idea that the two galleries should share.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund is keenly interested in the question of export controls. I have no doubt that, from our point of view, it would be more convenient if we were much more vicious about it and did not allow anything to be exported. I am not in favour of that. I believe wherever possible there should be a flow of works of art between countries. What we have to do is become a great deal richer than we are: then works of art will flow into this country instead of out of it. It is absolutely essential that the present system—which I approve of—should be made what we all thought it was and provide for an indefinite stop. We have heard a lot about Canova. If we raise £7 million for that, it is not much good if the chap then says, "I am not going to have it".
I should like to add that I am also not in favour of creating a list of 100 or so prime objects. Somebody says, "We will draw up a list and we will never have those exported." That is a bad idea, first, because nobody will agree on what the list should contain. Secondly, if by some great stretch of diplomacy the list is agreed by everybody, the first thing that will happen is that something will turn up which everybody wants to stop being exported and it will not be on the list. So let us not have any of that nonsense.
If the system is to work as it is meant to, it is essential that museums, galleries and the National Heritage Memorial Fund should be adequately supplied with funds. I am a great optimist. During the 10 years that I have had the honour to be chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund we have been treated marvellously by the Government. They have never let us down. The Minister for the Arts has said that the matter of funding for museums and galleries and for the National Heritage Memorial Fund is being considered. I await with optimism the outcome of that consideration. I am full of hope.
It is very important that the National Heritage Memorial Fund should have plenty of money. Apart from helping to buy things, it gives us a very strong position from which to bargain with other people. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that we have just pulled off a bit of a coup. I do not know whether noble Lords have heard of the Trumbull papers, which are the Downshire archive. Noble Lords will be glad to know that they have been withdrawn from sale and we can take it that they will remain in toto in this country in perpetuity.
On the funding of the National Heritage Memorial Fund—I know that the Government will be generous—there is one thing we must watch. The Government must not be tempted to give us a huge sum of money and say, "Now you have all that. You

1347
will now be a central purchasing agency for museums and galleries." Museums and galleries must be given adequate funding.
There are two reasons why I say that we must not be made a central purchasing agency. First, unless museums and galleries can buy their own items they become fossils. It is therefore very important that they should be able to make purchases. Secondly, looking after movable heritage—museum objects—is only half the function of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Some would say that much the more important half is dealing with wilderness, mountains, bats, birds, bees, and, above all, country houses and their contents. So please, my Lords, do not make us a central purchasing fund; and please do not be seduced by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that I should be very cross with him; I am absolutely furious! We shall make it up—but his is a bad idea and should not be followed.
Another reason why the National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot be a central purchasing agency is that we are not a milch cow. We are either a safety net or a fire engine. We are there to deal with emergencies, not with ordinary run of the mill business.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund is a memorial fund. We have not forgotten what happened to our predecessor, the National Land Fund. It started in 1944–45 with £50 million. It had £60 million left in 1956. The Government said that it was too much and clawed back the original £50 million. That was a bad way to treat a memorial fund.
The trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund will resist any such thing happening again. We have come to the conclusion that we should keep a reserve fund that we shall not invade by commitment unless we have a positive guarantee that we are able to restore the invasion as well as continue with our ordinary work.
That is all I wish to say—except what fun we shall all have with the Canova. I do not know how the cookie will crumble, but it will be fun.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I am sure that everyone will agree that it has been a very interesting debate for which we are primarily indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It is not always a pleasure to be placed at the end of the debate for the obvious reason that what one wishes to say has often been pre-empted by other speakers. Nevertheless, on this occasion it is a particular pleasure for me because I follow the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. I can therefore say that in my judgment the best work in the field of the arts that Parliament has done for as long as I can remember was the creation of that fund. Not only is the fund a very good idea but as chairman of it the noble Lord has conducted it extremely well.
Having spent five years in the middle 'seventies dishing out public funds through the Arts Council I am full of admiration for anyone who is doing that to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris,
1348
has done and who can escape criticism. It requires a dexterity, tact, wisdom, firmness and imagination which are not generally present in large quantities in most people. The noble Lord has all those qualities and we ought to be grateful to him. He has made a great success of the fund. The only criticism that I have heard of it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, this afternoon in relation to the Picasso.
The other gratitude that I wish to express is, oddly enough, to the Minister, Mr. Luce, who has recently secured—in a climate which is not normally favourable to a great deal of government expenditure—extra funds for the arts which will enable a number of good things to happen and to which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, referred.
I hate having to whinge, in particular when a Minister has scored a success such as he has recently. However, it would be wrong not to face realistically the problems with which, in spite of these funds, museums still have to contend. If one talks to almost any museum director or trustee about the problems of museums they will almost without exception say that their main problem is the maintenance of the fabric of their buildings; and that neglect over the years has caused the problem now to become so enormous.
I was recently talking to the director of the Tate. He applauded the Government's intention to put the buildings right over the next 10 years. But he pointed out that this year the extra £800,000 towards buildings, even if upgraded for inflation over the next five years, would produce only about £5 million. The estimate is that about £12.5 million is needed just to remedy the worst defects, now, of that not very large establishment. The chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum has already spoken to us this afternoon about the position of his museum. I spoke also to the director of the museum. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. However, I understood from her that there is need for about £100 million, of which half is to remedy past neglect. One cannot spend such money over a short period. But looking over a lengthy period, that is the sum required to put right what has not been done. That does not apply under this Government in particular. It goes back much further. I hope that it is not a political matter but a national matter in the broadest sense. It is one that must be attended to. We are talking only about basic maintenance: heating, wiring and drains, for heaven's sake, which have an effect on conservation.
Lastly, I hope that any noble Lord who has not done so will read this admirable book by Sir David Wilson on the British Museum. Anyone who is interested in our museums should read it. It is quite first class. One may not agree with all that it says. Many noble Lords may not agree with it on the subject of charges. Sir David is very much opposed to those. However, it explains how the museum works, what it does and what its problems are in an extremely concise manner and with great imagination. I greatly enjoyed it. I commend it to your Lordships.
He states that they need £20 million by 1996 in order to bring the building up to normal good

1349
housekeeping standards, and that it will be extremely difficult to raise the extra money needed simply to strengthen the floors. It is therefore a very serious matter. I am sure that the Government are attending to it. They have made a start but it is no more than that.
That leads me to my main point. It is absolutely right to encourage museums to look to the private sector for funds, but only on this basis: that the Government are responsible for the basic purposes of the museums. Those consist of maintaining the fabric, keeping the objects that we have within the fabric in a proper state of preservation and presenting them to the public, and ensuring that the museums have enough skilled staff to achieve that objective and to keep the galleries open.
On this last point, staff costs are now 90 per cent. of running costs. Staff salaries are determined by the Treasury scales. It seems quite self-evident that the Government should fund their own awards. If that is not done it presents the museums with a very serious problem and galleries have to close through shortage of staff. If the Government will look after what I shall call the basics then it is reasonable for the museums to approach the private sector generally, as they are doing, for acquisitions. They are much helped by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and the Government have made special grants. They have shown willingness to do so in what some of us may have thought was the mistaken case of the Thyssen; it was mistaken only in the context of our other needs.
However, it is essential when talking about the need for money for maintenance that we do not give the impression that we are letting the Government off the hook on acquisitions. We must continue to have the money needed to make acquisitions because museums and nations die if they stop adding to their wealth in this respect. But whatever happens, the first priority is the preservation of the fabric and the objects that we already have.
In money terms, purchase grants have remained the same since about 1980. They now buy only about 57 per cent. in RPI terms. In "art object" terms it is an average of about 25 per cent. In many cases it is about 10 per cent. and in a few it is far less than that. However, the museums have done well in their approach to the private sector.
A few days ago I read of a case in the Financial Times. In spite of my connection with it, perhaps I may call it a normally reliable newspaper. The articles told of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich having restored and refurbished the Queen's House, Inigo Jones's first building, with £5 million from the Government, corporations and charities. But it is now to close from October to April in order to allow corporations to use it for conferences, entertaining, and so forth. It is hoped that that will raise £200,000 a year for the museum. To close the museum to the public for six months a year is a high price to pay for such sponsorship. I hope that that will be carefully weighed by museums which go out for private patronage.
When I was chairman of the National Trust I was pressed by the British Tourist Authority to open
1350
houses during the winter because there was such a demand from tourists who come here throughout the year. We tried to do so, but conservation is a hindrance. One wants objects, particularly textiles, to have a rest during part of the year. They will not have a rest if they are entertaining business clients and conferences.
My time is up so I cannot talk about the stop on the exports of works of art as I had wished. However, I understand that there is a flaw in the present system which the Government are examining. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the problem and therefore there is no need for me to describe it further. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate what is in the Government's mind in respect of that matter.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I complain that we should instead have had three debates: one on museums and galleries; one on the export of works of art; and one on the protection of monuments. The latter was so admirably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, in his maiden speech and supported by my noble friend Lord Hartworth. They are three quite separate subjects and I shall do my best to say something about the first at least. If I have any time left I shall continue.
I share the congratulations which have been offered to the Minister for having found, as he told us, £180 million for the repairs and maintenance of museums and galleries during the next three years. That is a jolly good start. Three things must be done of which that is only one. However, that would have been cheaper if action had been taken earlier, as everyone has always known. The trouble is that the Minister was up against the old Treasury slogan: "Never buy something today if you can pay more for it tomorrow". The money will not now go so far even in real terms. Nevertheless, it is important that such action should be taken.
I am afraid that there are many backlogs lurking around. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has outlined a horrifying backlog at the Tate. I was surprised to find that when the National Maritime Museum became independent the backlog was £19 million, and it was pointed out that the museum could not take that on. I believe that £19 million for one of the most glorious buildings in England is an absolute disgrace. However, it is not all down to this Government but 10 years is quite a good slice.
The other two aspects have been talked of a good deal; they are running costs and purchase grants. I shall follow other speakers in saying a word or two about both subjects. Several examples have already been given. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, quoted Sir David Wilson's excellent booklet on the British Museum. It includes one rather frightening sentence. He states:
"It is impossible to get away from the fact that museum salaries have been underfunded for years and that the practice must now cease or museums must change their character completely".
He goes on to explain how labour-intensive they are. He states that in 1981 the vote for general

1351
administrative expenditure amounted to £1 million over the museum's salary bill. In 1989 it was £1 million under the salary bill.
I shall not continue with the subject because various noble Lords have made clear the difficulty. However, it is fundamental. For example, this year the Tate Gallery's grant was raised by 7 per cent. but the costs increased by 12 per cent. That is a decrease of 5 per cent. plus inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, told us the same about the V&A, so the picture is not wonderful.
Several noble Lords have spoken about the purchase grants and I should like to run through them quickly. Since 1979 the grant in real terms is down 30 per cent. for the British Museum; 20 per cent. for the National Gallery; 10 per cent. for the National Portrait Gallery; and 25 per cent. for the Tate Gallery. One would have thought that the grants would have risen at least a little, but there you are!
I now wish to turn to the awkward cases of two of our most prominent museums; the Fitzwilliam and the Ashmolean at Cambridge and Oxford respectively. Indirectly and without any particular wish to do so, Government policy has made their future more insecure than any of the other great institutions. They have no access to the Museums and Galleries Commission for funds and are entirely dependent on their respective universities. In turn, those universities are dependent on what used to be called the UGC which has been severely cut by the Government. I do not speak for all universities, although it is true for most—but these two cannot spare much money for their museums because they wish to concentrate on preserving the job for which they exist—that is, direct education, in its simple sense; and research.
As a result Dr. Jaffe tells me that this year his purchase grant was cut from £8,700 to £2,600. That is absolutely dreadful because it means that he can do more or less nothing. Both museums must close. The Ashmolean is considering the temporary institution of charges but is anxious not to do so. I do not know what the answer is but it is certain that it is not what is now happening.
Two noble Lords have mentioned "whingeing". Those of us who love and wish to support our priceless museums and galleries are sometimes accused of that disagreeable habit. It seems to me that anyone who does not whinge a bit, faced with the problems I have just described, needs his head examined.
I have only a couple of minutes available for the fascinating subject of the export of works of art. My view is perfectly clear. I believe that the present system is about the best you can get—with faults, of course, which can be gradually altered. I believe that every museum and institution should have a purchase grant, and a much larger one that it has at the moment. I regard the National Heritage Memorial Fund as the most important government instrument—though it is not governed by the Government, thank goodness!—of paying large sums which no purchase grant, looking to the future, can itself expect to have. So I am perfectly happy about this situation as it is.
1352
I agree with those noble Lords who have said that they want an indefinite stop, and disagree with those who say that they do not. But an indefinite stop should mean that you have a list, and articles on that list are referred to the export committee to see whether or not they think it should be an indefinite stop. If you did that, my Lords, I think you would get the best of both worlds.
I should like to make one point about 1992. There was a very good debate at a seminar of the National Arts Collection Fund, where M. Perrissich of Brussels originally said the only big change will be that there are no Customs barriers. The director of the National Gallery made rather a good point. He said that there are very few works of art of the very top level. We usually know where they are likely to go, if they do go, and he did not think that the absence of the Customs barriers would be very important. I thought that was an interesting point. I am sure that we should fight to preserve our present arrangements and not feel it necessary to change.
I have one final remark to make if I have time to do so. If the Government are anxious, as they always are, to increase the amount of private support and decrease the amount of public support, it seems to me high time that they looked again at the American taxation system. It would enormously increase the amount given, though it would somewhat decrease the amount of tax. But people hate paying taxes and like to be generous. On that note, I congratulate the noble Earl on initiating this debate.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I too should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for letting us have the opportunity again to discuss the arts in this House. It is probably the one occasion when we are all on the side of the angels. We are all agreed, wherever we happen to sit in the House; and there is not a great deal of bite in the debate except towards the Government, whichever government it may be.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, on his extremely interesting and well-informed speech. It reminded me, as did the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that in 1979, before the election, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Bill was in the midst of coming to fruition and I was the Minister responsible for it. With the help of the Council for British Archaeology and other bodies, I was trying to get into that Bill something to deal with the possibility of introducing legislation to protect portable antiquities.
The reason we did not make it was lack of time. My department was sure that we would not have time for the consultation period, which is another reason—the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, should not always listen to the department—and that legislation would come along very soon. Of course it did not, and as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, we are now in 1989 and there has been nothing done about this area. That is the only point I want to make on that aspect.
I should also like to congratulate the Minister for the Arts—it would be rather churlish not to do

1353
so—on his successful negotiations with the Treasury, since we all know how difficult that is. That was also pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, this evening. But I am afraid that it works the same, whichever government are in power. There is something about the Treasury which puts a grip and a stop, almost an indefinite stop, on many of the things that we should like to do and to see money spent on. The Minister pulled off a very good coup on behalf of the museums and galleries.
But—I am afraid that there is a "but" here—almost all the extra money will go to the museums and galleries in London. While the new settlement is good news in South Kensington it is very bad news in Southampton, Southend, South Shields, Leeds, Hull and Glasgow if one is looking at the regional museums outside London. That is because in the next financial year only £10.5 million will go to the regional museums. The figure of £2,830,000 for seven English area museums is a 3 per cent. increase, which really means a cut in real terms next year. So the regional museums are not doing very well out of this; in fact, they are doing very badly.
I often feel—I say it with great respect because I am probably an offender myself here—that we are inclined to concentrate around South Kensington when we are talking in these debates about museums and galleries. Further, the pressure on funding also means that the help of the Museums and Galleries Commission to non-national museums through the capital grants scheme will be cut from £350,000 to £300,000 next year.
A great deal has been said about the national museums purchase grant, with all of which I agree. I particularly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, that this should not be a central funding and it must be left to museums; but they must have more money. As has been said, and as was reiterated at the art awards sponsorship ceremony at the National Theatre the other day by Sir Simon Hornby, the chairman, unless the Government give adequate support and are seen to be giving basic support to museums and galleries and all the arts it will not be easy to get sponsors to come along. That is because they want to top it up but do not necessarily want to have to give the basic part of the support.
The freezing of purchase grants since 1985 is quite horrendous, because prices have rocketed to stratospheric heights. The last arts sales index shows that in 1988–89 the increase in purchase prices over 1987–88—this is taken from auction figures—is 82 per cent. So how on earth can the museums afford, out of the money they have, to make purchases that mean anything worth while? The Minister's recent announcement of grant to the local museums purchase fund of £1 million over three years will do very little among so many potential recipients now that we have something like 2,000 museums in England alone.
Several noble Lords have touched on the question of charges. I had not intended to mention that subject, but since it has come up and I have strong views on it I should like to align myself with those who are against charges. That is not just for political
1354
or even moral reasons. First, I believe that the public should have free access to museums and galleries as they have throughout history, and that it should be possible for people to visit occasionally for 10 minutes or quarter of an hour and not feel that, as they are paying, it is not worth their financial while, unless they stay for a couple of hours.
Secondly—and I believe that this is mentioned in Sir David Wilson's book which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and my noble friend Lord Donaldson—if charges are made, it will cost £16 for each visitor because of the extra time taken and the extra staff needed. That is what is happening at the Natural History Museum. To process people through the British Museum without charges costs £6 per visitor. Therefore, before the trustees of the museums make a decision to charge, they should take into consideration the way the attendance figures fall. That happened at the V&A. I hope that they will also take into account that at is not cost effective to do something which in any event I believe is basically wrong.
I agree with everything which has been said about the Canova statue. I only add that if that had happened during the time I was the Minister responsible for the heritage, I would certainly have listed the statue. I did not find the reasons for the Government not listing it very convincing. They are honest enough to say that there is no legal reason why it should not be listed; but they then bring in the point that it had been moved once, and been on exhibition. I believe that is a bad reason for not listing an item. The temple was built for it. I do not say that everything within a building should be automatically listed, even if it is of great value. Each case must be looked at individually. However, this seems to me a case that if ever something should be listed, this is it. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, gets together with his working party, he will try to draw a distinction between these different areas.
I was very interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Haig, said about the composition of boards of trustees and some of the recent appointments made by the museums. I very much agree with him. The problem is that museums realise that there have been a great many changes; that there has been the introduction of new technology; and there is also the expansion of people. I feel that many of them have gone overboard on this: they feel that there must be a certain number of businessmen in order to deal with those matters. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, the position at the V&A was that the trustees were mostly businessmen and industrialists, and it was hard to find an art historian among them. There must be a mixture of museum people and businessmen; but there must not be too many on one side.
That brings me briefly to my last point—that is, the importance of training and career structure in museums. Sir John Hale, as chairman of a working party on museum professional training and career structure, brought out a report in 1987. I gather that that is now being taken up. The Government have given a grant of £100,000 (which will not go very far) until the next financial year. I am sorry that I

1355
did not give the Minister notice of this matter, but I should be grateful if he can tell me when that is likely to begin, what will be the financial situation and if he can give any more information about it.
I understand the organisation was set up in June and has been given industrial body status. It is charged with setting up proper museum career structures. That does not mean a dilution of scholarship in the museums. That would be entirely contrary to what I and most of us want from museums. However, it is important that curatorial experts and other staff in descending order from that have managerial and presentation training. That is something which could have a very exciting future and be of tremendous value to our museums and galleries because we have rather acted on the basis that the skill needed was a skill in a particular field, but skills were not needed for running the museum, financing, presentation—and what may be a small point but which is one of the bees in my bonnet—proper labelling.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful, as are other noble Lords, to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for providing your Lordships' House with the opportunity to have such a wide-ranging debate. Before I say another word, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, on his excellent maiden speech and the firm views expressed in it. That carries on a great tradition. I had the privilege at Hampton Court yesterday, of viewing the King's Staircase and seeing various paintings described by Horace Walpole in a different age,
"as ill as if he had spoiled it out of principle".
That was his view of what is now considered a great work of art.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the matters which we have been debating span the responsibilities of my right honourable friends the Minister for the Arts and the Secretary of State for the Environment. While arts and heritage are rightly seen by many people as a seamless robe, I propose, with your Lordships' leave, to divide my response broadly into two categories, starting with matters to do with the national museums and galleries, exports, acceptance in lieu and related arts topics, and then moving on to deal with archaeology and the built heritage. The noble Earl will therefore forgive me if I respond to his various remarks at different points in my speech.
My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts is to be congratulated on his three-year settlement to 1993 announced in November. The increases that he announced demonstrate the Government's commitment to the arts and heritage, and will do a great deal to strengthen the partnership between public and private sectors in this area.
Over the three years 1990–91 to 1992–93 this settlement gives an increase of 24 per cent. to the arts budget as a whole and 27 per cent. to our national museums and galleries. Within these sums provision for the building and maintenance
1356
programme of the national museums and galleries has been given special emphasis. Over the next three years some £180 million of central government funds have been allocated for this purpose.
My right honourable friend, in his speech to the centenary conference of the Museums Association at York in September, declared as one of his key aims to get the buildings into first class shape over the next decade, and committed the Government to playing a leading part in this great national task. This is a commitment of major importance for our great museums and galleries and must be the right priority.
The Minister is looking to the private sector to play its part whenever possible, in particular with the refurbishment of galleries where it is being so helpful. However, even on the basic fabric there has been an immediate and generous response. In November the property company MEPC came forward with a £1 million gift for the structural repair and maintenance of Sir John Soane's Museum. The Government are providing a matching contribution of £1 million. I am confident that further responses of this kind will be forthcoming.
I recognise the concern expressed in this debate that no increase has been made in the purchase grants of the national museums and galleries. My right honourable friend the Minister looked at this very carefully in the light of the priority concerns put to him by institutions. He concluded that for the time being all available increases for the national museums and galleries should be allocated to building and maintenance and to the care and presentation of their collections. He has invited the institutions to look again at their programmes and overall resources to see if there is scope for increasing the sums available for purchases. That is the position for the national galleries.
For the local museums and galleries, the November announcement provided for an increase of £1 million over the three-year period in the local museum purchase grant fund. This may well be able to help the university museums, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, referred, with the Ashmolean particularly in mind.
I also welcome your Lordships' appreciation of the fine work done by the National Heritage Memorial Fund under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield. Noble Lords have asked the Government to commit more resources to the fund. I can give an assurance that we are looking at its future requirements for 1991–92 onwards. The fund has an excellent and consistent record of protecting our heritage. We wish that to continue undiminished in the future. This is in addition to the acceptance of the in lieu scheme and private treaty sales, which are making a contribution to the preservation and public display of works of art in this country. In the meantime, noble Lords have highlighted cases of immediate concern, given the restrictions on funds for the purchase of works of art.
The Canova statue, mentioned by nearly every noble Lord, has been described by many as one of the most important artistic and national treasures. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works

1357
of Art gave it a rare "star" to highlight this and to indicate that every effort to save it for the nation must be made. My right honourable friend announced yesterday that the Government are prepared to extend the deferral of an export licence decision for another three months. He will be looking to many organisations, both public and private, to raise the £7·6 million needed to purchase it. Reference has also been made to the "the Three Graces" statue in connection with listed building controls. I propose to refer to that in a few minutes' time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked whether, if the Canova were to be bought for the nation, it would be possible to attach strings to the purchase money; for instance, requiring it to be spent on the maintenance of the fabric of Woburn Abbey. In fact, he asked whether such a principle could not apply more generally to private treaty sales. I have to say that such an arrangement is not possible under the law as it stands, nor would my right honourable friend and I consider it appropriate to fetter vendors in this way. In any case, it could not apply to the Canova, because that would not be a private treaty sale.
I was as pleased—as I am sure were other noble Lords—when the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, was able to inform the House that there had been a successful conclusion to the acquisition of the Trumbull archive for the nation.
I turn now to the various issues raised in relation to our export controls on works of art and other collectors' items. I begin by praising the work of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. This committee of experts, under the chairmanship of Jonathan Scott, a highly respected author of a standard work on Piranesi, is supplemented for each case by three independent experts in that particular field. Consequently, it goes about its task with a professionalism that is second to none.
But the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has drawn attention to several problems in the export field. He is most concerned about the need to find a replacement for the "indefinite stop", to which both he and many other noble Lords referred. My right honourable friend shares this concern. In a debate in another place on 15th June he announced his commitment to finding a solution to this problem, and I hope that it will be resolved in the near future.
The question of valuations was raised. Doubts were expressed as to whether the Government were being adequately advised. I can give the House an assurance that we are satisfied that in all cases involving the expenditure of public money we have access to advisers who are acutely aware of their responsibilities in this regard. We owe the expert advisers in our national institutions—and here I include Scotland and Wales—a very great debt for their work.
The reviewing committee has always been concerned to see that a fair market price is agreed between the parties. This can be a straightforward matter, but in other cases—I include such pictures as the Turner which was mentioned—it is necessary to have an independent arbiter to settle any dispute. Likewise, the National Heritage Memorial Fund
1358
takes its duties on price very seriously; so too does the Museums and Galleries Commission when advising Ministers with responsibility for the heritage on acceptance in lieu cases. We have considered the suggestion to establish a permanent panel of valuers, but we believe that our present system of drawing on experts as and when required is the most effective.
There was considerable criticism that the price of the Turner seascape "Folkestone" was not published at the time of the announcement of the Minister's recommendation to defer a decision on the export licence application. My right honourable friend shared this concern and consequently announced that in future, if an object is placed under a deferral, following consideration by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, the price will be published. It is hoped that this change will help public collections in their fund raising, especially where they launch a public appeal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised the question of 1992. We are actively working up proposals which may form the basis of an export regime post-1992. This will protect our heritage while at the same time enabling the market to operate freely and protecting the rights of owners. The issue which will face all European Community member states is the disappearance of national Customs controls. We hope to find a formula that is acceptable to all of us in the Community.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of the management restructuring at the Victoria and Albert Museum, a subject which was debated in this House in March of this year. The Government continue to have every confidence in the director and trustees of the museum, and believe that decisions on the museum's management structure are very much a matter for them. I understand, however, that the proposals for restructuring, approved by the trustees in principle last January, have now been worked out in detail in consultation with staff. The main objectives of the new structure are: to strengthen scholarship and research; to improve public services and access; and to strengthen the education service. The new structure will therefore enable the museum to discharge all of its responsibilities more effectively. It was great news to hear the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, in the success of the plan he has led through.
I now turn to matters within the field of responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke about the problems of unreported archaeological finds and the adequacy and scope of the law of treasure trove. This matter was also drawn to your Lordships' attention by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. As many noble Lords will be aware, my department and the Welsh Office issued a joint consultation paper in February 1988 seeking views on how far the present arrangements for reporting and recording of archaeological finds posed a problem, and if so what should be done about it. The review sought to address the arrangements for finds falling outside the definition of treasure trove and was not specifically

1359
concerned with the workings of the law of treasure trove, as the noble Viscount suggested. The noble Earl will, I believe, be aware that my department received more than 100 responses to the paper and that the Welsh Office received about 20. These came from a wide range of respondents—local authority interests, landowning interests, metal detecting groups, museum and archaeological bodies and a number of private individuals.
We have been most impressed by the thought and care which has gone into the preparation of many of these responses, and it has not been easy to reach an answer which balances all of the different views expressed. Part of the problem lies in the increasing professionalism of the 20th century archaeologist. Nineteenth century and earlier antiquarians made sporadic finds without worrying unduly about the precise context of the stratigraphy. And many metal detectorists are following in the tradition of that enthusiastic amateur. Although their activities may fall some way short of the highest scholarly standards, that might be a problem best dealt with by education, and it would be unduly cumbersome to set up a bureaucratic machinery to deal with it.
Noble Lords mentioned the two specific cases of Icklingham and Wanborough, both of which show that the real problem lies with deliberate looting for commercial gain of objects of artistic or archaeological value which could add considerably to the knowledge of our past. These cases also highlight the difficulties involved in protecting sites, even when they are statutorily scheduled, and of policing any system.
The noble Earl suggested that the solution might be to follow the practice north of the border where the law requires that all newly discovered ancient objects, whether hidden or lost, belong to the Crown. This would ensure that all valuable archaeological finds are reported. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made a similar suggestion—that the scope for treasure trove should be extended to objects other than those of gold and silver, and that the test of deliberate concealment should no longer apply.
There are doubtless, as always, very good reasons why the law is different in Scotland, and indeed these proposals were considered very carefully in the context of our review. The conclusion we came to was that they would go too far. There is a valid public interest in some archaeological finds, but not all; and there is a valid public interest in the knowledge represented by those finds, but not to the extent of requiring nationalisation of finds in England and Wales.
We do believe, however, that there is a good case for strengthening the law in England and Wales in ways which stop short of those more drastic proposals. I am happy to tell the House that my right honourable friend is minded to seek, after the usual consultations, a suitable legislative opportunity to amend the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to strengthen controls over finds from scheduled sites; that is, to make it an offence to remove any finds from the site of a scheduled monument, whether or not they were discovered by
1360
means of a metal detector. He also intends to promote improvements in the administration procedures not involving legislation and dealing with non-scheduled sites—one such option being a code of practice.
I referred earlier to Canova's statue, "the Three Graces", and a number of noble Lords have referred to my right honourable friend's decision—of which I informed the House in a Written Answer on 7th December—not to take enforcement action under listed building legislation to seek the return of the statue to Woburn Abbey.
The controversy surrounding this statue illustrates some of the difficulties of the listed building legislation. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would agree that the system of listed buildings of special architectural or historic interest, and of controlling works to such buildings, is a keystone of our system of protecting the heritage. But we need equally to make sure that our controls strike the right balance between providing appropriate protection without imposing unreasonable constraints. The problem becomes particularly acute when the point at issue relates to items which many people would consider to be chattels.
Buildings under the listed building legislation include any object or structure which is "fixed" to the building. Whether any particular item is considered to be fixed and so part of the listed building, will depend on the facts of the case. As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State took the view, based on legal advice, that the statue, "the Three Graces", should be treated as part of the listed building; and since no listed building consent was sought for its removal, it was open to either the local authority or to the Secretary of State to use enforcement action to seek the return of the statue.
However, enforcement action—whether taken by the local authority, or the Secretary of State—is a discretionary power. Each case must be looked at on the facts, and in the case of "the Three Graces", both the local authority and the Secretary of State, after careful consideration, decided, for the reasons given, not to take enforcement action. It is important to recognise that the decision was taken on the particular merits of the case.
The listed building provisions in the planning Acts go back to the 1940s, and were designed to protect buildings, including many non-structural features which contribute to their special interest as buildings. Features which are objects of intrinsic beauty and value in their own right and which physically may be capable of being detached from a building may nevertheless, as in the case of "the Three Graces", be found to be part of the building which is listed and thus subject to listed building controls. It is not unknown, however, for there to be differing advice on whether such objects are, or are not, fixed to a listed building and thus within or without controls.
Of course, we are not talking merely about the past. We are also talking about the present and the future. Fanciful though it may sound, it is in principle perfectly possible for a contemporary

1361
collection of sculpture to be caught if it is fixed to a building which is subsequently listed. At a stroke the owner could find the value of his collection reduced to nothing or, at any rate, a matter of considerable speculation and uncertainty.
Let us consider the position of the owners of a valuable object—like a statue, or some other work of art—on which inheritance tax has been paid. What happens if that object is subsequently listed? Is the tax to be refunded and index-linked.
The position of trustees is even more invidious. Similarly, with insurance. If an object which has previously been insured in its own right is subsequently determined to be part of the fabric of the house, what happens to the policy? Alternatively, could insurers refuse to provide separate cover for objects which are fixtures in law?
These, and many other questions, are questions which we would like to explore; and that is why my right honourable friend considers that the whole issue of controls over moveable fixtures in listed buildings needs examination, and why he has proposed to consult widely with interested persons before giving any guidance and before considering whether there is a case for amending the legislation.
I am aware that there is a wide range of opinion on this issue and we shall naturally be paying very careful attention to all the views that are expressed, from every viewpoint, in response to this consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in announcing his decision that he very much welcomes the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, to call a meeting next month of expert and interested parties to discuss the issues raised by "the Three Graces" and other recent cases. The House will have noted with interest what the noble Lord had to say this afternoon. The results of this initiative will, I am sure, provide a most valuable input to my right honourable friend's review of the matter and will open the way for further consultation.
I should emphasise to your Lordships that this review is not something which has been forced upon us. Quite the reverse. Well before "the Three Graces" became a matter of public controversy, my right honourable friend, other honourable friends and myself became increasingly convinced that there was a problem with many ramifications which needed to be tackled head on. That is why we have taken this initiative. Work is now in hand on a consultative document which my right honourable friend aims to issue within the next two months or so.
I should like in conclusion to respond to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the difficulty of estimating the totality of public moneys that go into the arts and heritage, and the various categories in which they fall.
Your Lordships will not, of course, expect me to reel off detailed figures here—I am advised that there are problems in constructing a consistent run of figures over more than a few years—not least because of the various changes to the range of heritage activities and responsibilities which the Government have funded over the past 10 years
1362
and which make year-on-year funding comparisons misleading. For example, in 1984 English Heritage was established; in 1986 the GLC's historic buildings responsibilities transferred to English Heritage. However, I can give the House a broad indication which I believe points to a very satisfactory achievement by Her Majesty's Government since May 1979.
In 1979–80 central government funding for the arts and heritage in England was about £190 million in cash terms. In the current financial year this total will have risen to some £560 million—a real-terms increase of over 40 per cent. During the 10-year period the heritage share of the total has risen from 18 per cent. to 22 per cent. If the noble and learned Lord is agreeable, I will write to him with a more detailed analysis, which I hope can also bring in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his kind offer.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that noble Lords will agree that a 40 per cent. real-terms increase is no mean achievement. However, I quite accept the point made by noble Lords as regards specific areas, especially the price of art itself which has risen considerably faster than that. We believe that the basic underlying trend demonstrates—that is, if demonstration is required—that the Government care about the arts and about our heritage. Moreover, contrary to the impression which is sometimes given, the Government have not starved them of funds.
I hope that my remarks will have brought to the notice of the House the concern that my right honourable friends share to see that this trend continues and, in particular, my right honourable friend the Minister's desire to be flexible over the question of how national museums and galleries deploy their resources.
I conclude by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this most important matter today.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wonder whether he remembers that I did in fact ask him several questions about the Museum Training Institute. However, if he does not have the information now perhaps he will undertake to write to me on the matter. I merely make this request because he made no mention of the matter in his reply.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have the figures available but I shall of course write to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on that point tomorrow morning.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have two minutes left. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was correct. We should have had three debates. I thank all your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. They managed most skilfully to keep within their time limits and made invaluable contributions with regard to the arts and the Department of the

1363
Environment. I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for his speech. He gave us two things which, while perhaps not being 100 per cent. what I wanted, are most encouraging. One relates to the indefinite stop. Something will happen in the near future. I hope that will be that Canova goes one way or the other. In other words, the Government have three months in which to think about the near future. It will be a disaster if they do not mean to take enforcement action.
We were lucky to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on the subject of treasure trove about which they know so much. It is great to know that legislation is on the way after three years. Let us hope that the Government can find an early slot. We shall look at the legislation carefully and perhaps make it better than is proposed. I again wish to thank everyone, especially the Minister for his excellent winding up speech. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tibet
7.1 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in circumstances where the Dalai Lama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, they will make representations to the Government of China to secure a modification of their behaviour towards the people of Tibet.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of China and Tibet. In doing so, I hope that the Government and I will be on common ground in at least two respects: first, that the Dalai Lama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize; and, secondly, that the Chinese record on human rights in Tibet is probably getting worse and certainly not getting better.
I appreciate that the substantive part of my Question as to whether the Government,
"will make representations to the Government of China to secure a modification of their behaviour towards the people of Tibet",
is difficult for them to answer. For instance, the Chinese foreign ministry regarded the Nobel Prize award last Sunday as a gross interference in Chinese internal affairs. The Chinese Ambassador to Norway boycotted the ceremony. The Chinese are sensitive about Tibet. If the result of my Question is to make the Chinese even tougher with the Tibetans than they have been hitherto, then it were better not asked. The Government in their answer must tread a diplomatic tightrope.
My Question falls naturally into four parts: first, how peaceful are the Tibetans?; secondly, how acquisitive are the Chinese?; thirdly, what right has China to be there?; and, fourthly, irrespective of their right to be there, what is their record on human rights?
I have spent a month in ethnic Tibet; that is, in Ladakh, a province of Kashmir. Thence comes my knowledge of the peaceful nature of the Tibetan people. I should perhaps say the Tantrist Buddist people because the Tibetans were a warrior race before the coming of the Buddha. They could scarcely
1364
be contained by the caliph in the west or the Emperor of China in the east; but that was long ago. Contrast that with the atmosphere on the north Tibetan plain in the first half of the century when all the animals and birds were tame. They had no reason to fear man as man would not harm them. The Tibetans would not take life of any sort.
In Ladakh we found peace, happiness and the most active religion that I have come across anywhere in the world. There were prayer flags, prayer wheels, chortens, stupas, and mani walls by the hundred. Indeed, I am relieved that I have not been to the Chinese part of Tibet as it would be sad to see those religious symbols destroyed and desecrated. Above all, we saw temples at Phuktal, Bardun, Mune, Kasar, Lingshet and Lamayaru. In them were many monks—a fifth of the population, I believe. The monks often showed us their libraries and they would usually point out a set of holy books and tell us that they had been saved and smuggled out of Chinese Tibet. Finally, in Leh we came across the Dalai Lama preaching to the multitude. The Dalai Lama believes that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the Tibetan people and not to him because, as he puts it, he is,
"No one special: just a simple monk".
It is nevertheless worth quoting what that simple monk said about the Tianamen Square massacre. He said:
"I do not believe the demonstrations were in vain, because the spirit of freedom was rekindled among the Chinese people and China cannot escape the impact of this spirit of freedom sweeping many parts of the world. The brave students and their supporters showed the Chinese leadership and the world the human face of that Great Nation of China".
Surely my noble friend will agree that a simple monk who can describe the awful Peking massacre in such charitable terms is a worthy recipient of the Nobel prize for peace.
I turn now to the acquisitive nature of the Chinese. I believe that my noble friend will also agree that the Chinese are exploiting Tibetan resources. They are mining gold, bauxite, copper, zinc and uranium and transporting them eastward. Surely my noble friend will also agree that the most serious resource that the Chinese are tapping is timber: the sub-tropical forest of eastern Tibet. That might have as serious an effect on the Indian sub-continent as does the destruction of the Amazon rain forest on South America, and indeed perhaps on the world with the now threatened greenhouse effect.
The Tibetan rivers flowing eastwards are log-jammed. In addition, 200 trucks an hour have been counted driving out of Tibet along the main road to Chengdu in China. Following deforestation, there is soil erosion and flooding. Sichuan was flooded in 1981. Yunnan was flooded last spring. The deforestation along the Brahmaputra could well have caused the several floods that have devastated Bangladesh in recent years. Altogether China is losing 2·5 million hectares of forest cover each year, and that includes forest from the so-called Tibetan autonomous region.
That leads me to my third question: what right have the Chinese to be in Tibet? A treaty was made in 823 AD between the wise rulers of China and the

1365
wise rulers of Tibet. It is carved on a pillar in front of the Joh Khang, Lhasa Tibet's holiest shrine. It states:
"Tibetans will live happily in the great land of Tibet and the Chinese will live happily in the great land of China".
For hundreds of years after that treaty the Tibetans produced the spiritual head of China in return for which the Chinese provided the Tibetans with the occasional army to repel, for instance, an invasion by the Ghurkas.
For the first half of this century Tibet was truly independent and we recognised it as such. We made treaties with Tibet in 1904, 1908 and 1913. In the Second World War the Americans asked whether they could fly over Tibet to supply China, but the Tibetans refused as they wished to remain neutral. All that spells out loudly and clearly that Tibet is an independent nation by right and in fact. However, the Chinese place a different interpretation on those matters and my noble friend will not therefore find the question easy to field. When the Chinese speak of autonomy, for instance, there are 17 different words for "autonomy" in Mandarin, each with a slightly different meaning. The word "suzerainty" is equally unclear.
A famous Dalai Lama gave presents to a Chinese emperor. Those presents were interpreted by the Chinese as a type of levy or tax. In Chinese eyes they made Tibet subservient to China. It will interest my noble friend to learn that George III also gave presents to China in 1793. That caused the Chinese to regard the British also as a nation subservient to China. For all I know, the Chinese may also regard the United Kingdom as a Chinese autonomous region.
The huge difference between us and the Tibetans is that the Chinese have not invaded us. Our most reverend Primates have not had to flee the country and our right reverend Prelates are not being tortured. Our human rights are respected. It is those facts that make the issue of whether China has any right to be in Tibet of academic interest only. What is far more important is surely that even if China had every right to be in Tibet for the past 4,000 years the Chinese would still not have the right to torture monks. They would not have the right to destroy monasteries. They would not have the right to sentence nuns to hard labour and they would not have the right to arrest, as they did only last Sunday, five school children for counter-revolutionary activities.
The abuse of basic human rights in Tibet is continuing and worsening. I have here the latest issue of the Tibetan News Update. I only need read the headings to make my point. On page 3 we find, "Demonstrations and arrests continue". On page 7 it says, "Tibetan faces death sentence". On page 8 it says, "Over 400 jailed, 80 sentenced". On page 9 it describes new torture techniques; on page 14, "China starts anti-religious campaign".
I wish to read another two excerpts because my noble friend will then see why I am asking this Unstarred Question. The first excerpt comes from the Nobel citation for the Dalai Lama:
"The Nobel Committee wants to emphasise the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently
1366
has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.
The Dalai Lama has developed his philosophy of peace from a great reverence for all things living and upon the concept of universal responsibility embracing all mankind as well as nature".
The second excerpt comes from a report from Lhasa in that same newsletter:
"Officials are using a new technique to extract confessions from prisoners, involving placing an iron rod in the prisoner's mouth and then tying it to his or her arms tied high up behind the back. The weight of the arms pulls on the mouth until the victim collapses on the floor. He or she is then constantly revived by being doused with cold water".
My noble friend must be as appalled by this as we all are.
Perhaps I may now make two practical requests. First, will he ask our right honourable friend the Prime Minister whether she will meet the Dalai Lama as she has met other Nobel prizewinners, Lech Walesa and Desmond Tutu? Such a meeting would be a simple mark of respect for a great and peaceful man. It would not be political—it would be the wrong forum for politics. The right forum for that would surely be the General Assembly of the United Nations. Were it possible to find there a solution that would please the Tibetans, it would incidentally give an enormous boost in confidence to Hong Kong.
Perhaps a simple reaffirmation of the 1959 declaration would do the trick. That calls for, "The Cessation of Practices which deprive the Tibetan Peoples of their fundamental human rights and freedom, including their right to self-determination". So my second request is: can my noble friend prevail upon our right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to bring something of this kind about at the United Nations?
All around us we see new freedoms: in Poland, Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Only in one place are matters getting worse; that place is Tibet. Yet that courageous man, the Dalai Lama, does not seem depressed. In an interview with Jonathan Mirsky of the Observer he said, about China:
"We have a saying: A fire becomes brightest and hottest just before it dies"
Let us hope that Chinese repression in Tibet is indeed in its death throes. Meanwhile, I wish to thank everyone in advance for taking part in this debate. I look forward to their contributions and in particular to my noble friend's reply.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as president of the Tibet:Society and president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tibet. But far beyond that, I think that all of us would wish to thank the noble Viscount for not only a courageous but I thought a brilliant presentation of the Tibetan case. He could not have timed his presentation to your Lordships' House better than now, so soon after his Holiness the Dalai Lama received the Nobel Peace Prize.
He referred to human rights. I can confirm what he said and add to it from the visit that I paid last year to Tibet. I reported on it in Beijing. I think that China's deplorable human rights record in Tibet

1367
ought to be condemned throughout the world and certainly must be condemned by the British Government, as the noble Viscount said, and by members of the European Community.
When I was in Lhasa, I was able to talk to many Tibetan people who told me of the misery of the circumstances under which they lived, not just poverty, living at a much lower standard of living than the Chinese who outnumbered them in terms of population. They told me of the abuse of human rights and the tortures to which they were subjected. I was shown some of the signs on the bodies of people who had been literally tortured. I knew very well that people were taken away almost every night that I was there. They were taken away, often never to appear again until their relatives were invited to identify the bodies at the mortuary. This was a terrible situation in which the people of Tibet—fine, courageous people—had been forced into a situation of fear and oppression.
I was there just a few weeks after a big demonstration on 5th March 1988. I was told by the Tibetans that there had been 10,000 people on the streets of Lhasa, and I was told how many had died. These were ordinary demonstrators and people simply viewing the demonstration, who had been shot by the police. I presented this case to the authorities and the Chinese said, "No, it was just a handful of troublemakers".
Within three days of that having been said to me, it was confirmed that there had been 10,000 people on the streets of Lhasa in peaceful protest against what was happening. It was mainly nuns and monks who suffered and died simply because they believed in human rights. They dared to say that they were as much entitled to independence as people in any other part of the world.
I saw many of the monasteries that had been razed to the ground during the cultural revolution. I saw the masses of Chinese troops armed and driving around in armoured vehicles, creating terror among the people of Lhasa. It was a sad situation. I reported as fully as I could in the report which I presented not only back in London but to the Chinese.
Matters have got worse. People continued to demonstrate. They demonstrated on the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights and within a few minutes of some people raising banners which said, "Human rights", they were shot merely for standing up for principles which all of us here would be proud to support. Since 8th March 1989, following the succession of demonstrations, but before the events that brought China to life, Lhasa has been under martial law. There followed a series of peaceful demonstrations in which more troops were brought in to make quite certain that nothing happened and that everything was peaceful, as they claimed. The Chinese claim that it is peaceful in Tibet, but I am afraid that it is the peace of the grave.
The noble Viscount said this, and I believe that while the winds of change seem to have blown through the countries of eastern Europe into Africa, through Namibia where there has been a great move
1368
towards self-determination, within China and China's possession—the colonial territory of Tibet—things have moved from bad to worse. The noble Viscount spoke movingly of the Dalai Lama. I feel very honoured to know the Dalai Lama well and to consider him as a friend. He is immensely popular in Tibet. Any Tibetan who has an opportunity of speaking quietly in one's ear, or just of demonstrating with postcards how he feels, will show that he sees the Dalai Lama as one who will not only be his spiritual leader but one who will eventually, one way or another, lead the Tibetans to the right of freedom which is denied to them but which is proudly possessed by people in so many other parts of the world.
Not only is the Dalai Lama a statesman, but he is a modern man and realistic in his approach. The proposals that he made in his five-point peace plan were ones that could be the basis of any serious negotiations, if the Chinese were prepared to negotiate. Particularly since the announcement of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Dalai Lama travels throughout the world. Wherever he goes he is treated with the respect that he deserves. He has been received by royalty, prime ministers, foreign ministers and presidents. I have been with him on some of those occasions. However, there is one place where he is not well received and that is in Britain. I feel ashamed that this is so. However, that was the situation before the Dalai Lama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and perhaps things will now change. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that that is the case when he replies.
When the Dalai Lama came to this country in April last year no Minister would see him. Ministers insisted that no official from the Foreign Office should see him, and they said that he could not be allowed in the country if he were going to make any kind of political statement. I believe that was a direct snub to the Dalai Lama. After all, our Foreign Office has received all kinds of people. The Foreign Office has received representatives of the PLO. Those people are not always known for their peaceful approach. The Foreign Office has also received representatives of the African National Congress. As I understand it, those people are not tied to peace. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama is a man of absolute peace, and he condemns in his own country acts of violence. I shall quote another paragraph from the speech made by the Dalai Lama when he received the Nobel Peace Prize. He said that he accepted the prize:
"on behalf of the 6 million Tibetan people, my brave countrymen and women inside Tibet, who have suffered and continue to suffer so much. They confront a calculated and systematic strategy aimed at the destruction of their national and cultural identities. The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated".
I endorse those words. I should be proud to save them and use them myself. I submit that Britain should play a much more active role in seeking a peaceful solution to the grim situation which we all know, and which the Foreign Office knows, exists in Tibet. After all, as we were reminded by the noble Viscount, Britain has a long, historical link with Tibet. It has basically been one of recognising Tibet

1369
as an independent country. As the noble Viscount said, in 1904 we signed a treaty with Tibet, and in 1914 the two countries signed trade and boundary agreements. The Tibetans have always looked to Britain because they think that here we shall understand their situation. I am afraid that has simply not been so.
To be absolutely fair, I should say that the British Government have carried out some actions. The British Government protested to China at the excesses at the time of the demonstrations in Lhasa. They protested at the imposition of martial law. They said that there was oppression by the Chinese and they have acted with the other 11 members of the Community in calling on China to change its policies. Britain has also spoken out in favour of opening talks between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities. It would be a natural continuation of that concern for the British Government to take some positive initiative. As the noble Viscount said, the issue must come to the United Nations again. We recognise that the United Nations has already passed three resolutions in years past calling for a change of circumstances in Tibet. The time has come for that to happen again. The time has come for Britain to take a new initiative, together with the other members of the Community, in order to persuade China that it should be part of the modern world. After all, what exists in Tibet is not just a form of colonialism but a form of apartheid. There is no doubt that the people of Tibet are treated as second class citizens in their own country.
Now the Government have an opportunity to act. The Dalai Lama has been recognised as one of the great men of this world and of this generation. It would be generous for the Government to applaud and congratulate the Dalai Lama on what he has stood for and the way in which he has acted. I hope that the Government will invite him to London. That is perhaps the best thing to do. I hope they will invite him to London so that perhaps Her Majesty the Queen, but certainly the Prime Minister, can say how proud we are to have known and to have been linked with a person of that quality.
The new situation that the Nobel Peace Prize has brought about gives the British Government, as the noble Viscount said, an opportunity to take an initiative which would perhaps enable the people of Tibet, who so much revere the Dalai Lama and who share with him the joy in the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, to have not only hope for their own future, which they already have as they are a determined people, but also hope that Britain might see where its own interests lie. The thought that our policies over Tibet could be dictated from Beijing is one that is deplorable and must be condemned in all parts of the House. I again thank the noble Viscount for raising this issue on the floor of the House. I hope we shall obtain a positive response from the Minister.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, on his forceful and effective presentation. I also wish to thank the noble
1370
Lord, Lord Ennals, for his consistent and permanent advocacy of the cause of the Tibetans which he espouses with so much skill and effectiveness in this House and outside in his role as president of the organisation that he mentioned. We are very grateful to him for keeping the cause of the 'Tibetans alive when it has not been fashionable.
We are also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for giving us this opportunity of discussing the matter on what is an appropriate occasion. Not only is it a few days after the award to the Dalai Lama, as has been mentioned, but also it is very close to the anniversary of the events outside the Joh Khang when, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has just reminded us, unarmed, peaceful demonstrators were shot. Among those people was a monk who walked out into the middle of the square raising a flag. A Chinese policeman coming from the opposite end of the square levelled his pistol and shot the monk between the eyes, just because he raised the flag. Then carnage was unleashed around the square at all the demonstrators and anyone who happened to be standing there. I spoke to a Dutch girl who was shot through the shoulder. The bullet went straight through her chest and came out through her back. She was very nearly killed and doctors told her that she was extraordinarily fortunate to survive. Many others of course did not survive and they lay dead in the square after that horrible event of a year ago.
We have also been reminded by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, of the events in Tianamen Square which opened the eyes of the world to how the Chinese behave, not to subject peoples but to their own citizens. I attended a meeting of the Westminster group of the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland yesterday evening. The meeting was addressed by Kate Adie. She brought to life again those horrible events when the students were massacred in Tianamen Square with the aid of tanks, armoured personnel carriers and heavy machine guns. The troops embarked on an absolute orgy of killing before the horrified gaze of the whole world. We all saw on our television screens those peaceful, unarmed demonstrators being crushed beneath the tracks of military vehicles and mown down by gunfire. The millions of ordinary Chinese people who had dreamt of democracy and freedom and who had seemed to be on the way to attaining it through a peaceful development similar to that which has occurred in other parts of the world woke up to a nightmare of savage communist repression.
Because we have been used to thinking of China as an ally in the Cold War and because the free world so much wanted to believe that economic reforms in the People's Republic would lead to political liberalisation, we were taken by surprise. However, it had been predicted. The former honorary secretary to the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, Roberta Cohen, wrote in her study The People's Republic of China: the human rights exception in some detail as to why China had been exempted from the human rights scrutiny which we apply to all other autocracies. Those were a lack of hard information; the huge number of victims in the People's Republic; reverence for China's ancient civilisation;

1371
the desire for normalisation of relations; the belief that China's sensitivity to criticism—which has been mentioned—meant that any reference to human rights' violations would make matters worse; the absence of any human rights lobby in China itself; and, in particular in the case of the UK, the fear that we could jeopardise the peaceful transition of sovereignty over Hong Kong.
Ms Cohen predicted that many non-governmental organisations would continue to focus on those countries in Asia to which they could send missions and trial observers, engage in debate with the government, work with local dissidents and more easily spur change.
As a corollary to that myopia the outside world has for many years chosen to ignore the plight of the Tibetans, whose sufferings have been even more dreadful than those of the Chinese people themselves. In addition to savagely repressing any signs of peaceful dissent by individuals and groups, the Chinese occupation forces have unleashed a programme of ethnocide, to use Leo Kuper's term. They are deliberately and systematically trying to extinguish Tibetan culture, language and religion and to overwhelm the Tibetan people in their own land by huge avalanches of Han Chinese immigrants.
In March, following peaceful demonstrations by Tibetans, the Chinese police and military killed at least 30 people in Lhasa and wounded several hundred using automatic weapons. Then all foreigners were expelled from the territory, which was sealed off from the outside world. But we know from accounts by refugees and just a few travellers that since then many Tibetans have been summarily executed, that over 1,000 have been detained without trial and severe torture has been inflicted on many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned, including monks and nuns. The Chinese have nevertheless achieved their objective of minimising the criticisms of their Tibet policies in the media of the free world because journalists have been denied free access to the territory.
Since the international community turned its back on Tibet, the people have continued to assert their identity and the Chinese aggressors have continued to commit further crimes against the Tibetan people. On 30th November—as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned—five Tibetans were sentenced to between 17 and 19 years imprisonment for demanding independence for their country. I should like to read to your Lordships how Lhasa Radio, controlled by the occupation forces, reported the sentencing, which was said to have been handed down not in a courtroom but at a mass rally:
"The crimes committed by Ngawang Punchung and other criminals demonstrates that so-called human rights, freedoms and democracy played up by separatists both at home and abroad are nothing but a pack of deceitful lies. Deliberately planning to form counter-revolutionary organisations, putting up posters, spreading rumours and collecting information, they frenziedly conducted criminal activities to split the motherland. It is quite apparent that the aim of their crimes was to attempt to separate Tibet from the motherland by exploiting international anti-China forces. The severe punishment imposed on them is richly deserved".
1372
At least those persons received some form of trial, apparently. That is more than can be said for many other patriots who have been imprisoned. On 4th October six nuns were given three years' hard labour for demonstrating in the Barkhor on 22nd September. On 14th October six nuns were arrested near the Joh Khang temple for chanting slogans in favour of Tibetan independence. Towards the end of October four monks were given three years' hard labour for similar reasons. A fifth man, said to have been identified as the ringleader, was remanded pending a trial which would lead to heavier sentencing.
According to Dr. Blake Kerr, who interviewed 25 Tibetan refugees, the torture of prisoners is routine. The new kinds of torture inflicted on detainees have been referred to. Dr. Kerr heard accounts of people being beaten with a variety of weapons; being hung for hours by their wrists, ankles or thumbs; immersed in very cold water; and attacked by guard dogs. Nuns are subjected to sexual torture, including the use of electric cattle prods inserted into their vaginas. John Gittings wrote an account in the Guardian of 8th November of the torture of women protesters; while Tom Aston, another British journalist, described the use of a new and more sophisticated electric baton with four elements instead of the previous two.
Why is the coverage in Britain of those atrocities so sparse? If any one of them had occurred in South Africa or the Soviet Union one could just imagine the furore, and rightly so. Yet when they happen every week in Tibet there is virtual silence. One cannot help thinking that the principled stand taken by His Holiness the Dalai Lama on using only peaceful means of securing change has tended to reduce the coverage of the problem in the outside world.
Television in particular reports acts of violence while ignoring peaceful arguments, thus encouraging the use of violence as a means of securing political change. We are treated to pictures of bomb craters in Bogota or Lisburn but we do not hear the voice of the Dalai Lama gently appealing to the world community to act so that his people's agony might be brought to an end. I did not see any reference at all in television programmes on Sunday to the speech which the Dalai Lama made on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. I am ashamed that we should cut him out of our screens in that way. I believe that the producers who made those decisions should think again about the way in which they concentrate on violence while ignoring the peaceful advocates of change.
In 1987 when Vanya Kewley was trying to interest the commissioning editors of the BBC and independent TV companies in pursuing the stories of genocide which were brought by refugees from Tibet, she was told that it was not news. "It's not exactly screaming off the world's headlines, darling" was one reaction. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has mentioned, the Palestinians get coverage becaues some of them let off bombs at airports. The Sikh extremists are reported because they blew up an Air India jet, killing all the passengers. The Tibetans are ignored because they follow the Buddha's doctrine of non-violence, compassion and loving kindness.

1373
What is even more deplorable—as has been said by both noble Lords who have spoken so far—is that our Government should turn their backs on the Dalai Lama himself. His Holiness has been received by the United States Congress, the European Parliament and many other heads of government and parliaments, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has reminded us. There is no doubt whatsoever that he commands the loyalty, respect and love of his own people. He has been feted by the authorities in Norway as the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet when he comes here the British Government do their best to silence him and pretend that he does not exist.
Yet they can forget the murder committed by the Chinese authorities very quickly, as we see from the visit of two United States officials to Beijing over the weekend. I believe that that was misguided. I think that it was also misguided of our own Government to send a Foreign Office official to Beijing. That visit has not been officially announced but I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether it is true that a Foreign Office official has clandestinely been to Beijing and if so why it was thought necessary to do so in such a furtive and underhand way.
The Government maintain that more can be done to ameliorate the sufferings of the Tibetan people by quiet diplomacy than by open criticism. They also say that open criticism of China's policy is counter-productive because it elicits a furious reaction on the other side which injures the process of dialogue. The corollary of that is that we must ignore the Dalai Lama and the threats that the Chinese have made against the Norwegians show what may happen if we do not. The Norwegians have been courageous enough to stand up to those threats and ignore them. But could the plight of the Tibetans be any worse than it is already? Can China do any harm to the free world if we stand up collectively to her strident bullying? The Chinese economy is in a desperate plight, thanks to the mismanagement of economic reforms and the regression to communist central planning which is being abandoned as a certain recipe for stagnation throughout the whole of the Soviet bloc. The Chinese need Western technology and management, while there is nothing that we need from them.
The most remarkable characteristic of the Tibetan scene is that, as Chinese attempts to eradicate the language, religion and culture of the Tibetan people have intensified, so has the sense of national identity of the people. Thus, in spite of the brutal reaction of the authorities in Lhasa to any manifestation of Tibetan nationalism, there are still many individuals and groups who are prepared to endure long periods of imprisonment and torture as the price of declaring their beliefs. They raise the Tibetan flag, shout independence slogans and recently have even distributed an independent manifesto. They assert their right to self-determination which they are supposed to have under Article 1 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
The policy of successive British governments has been to regard Tibet as autonomous while
1374
recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. That special position historically reflected the ancient compact, which has already been mentioned, between the Mongol emperors and the Dalai Lama, under which spiritual advice was given in return for military protection. That relationship continued by mutual agreement after those factors no longer existed; but, for all practical purposes, it came to an end when the Manchu dynasty was overthrown in the revolution of 1911. At that point Tibet had achieved de facto independence, as we recognised implicitly by entering into treaties with Tibet without the approval of the Chinese, as has been mentioned.
Can a nation which has already achieved its sovereignty revert to dependence on a foreign state? That is apparently so, according to the Government. I want to quote one sentence from a letter which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I told him that I would mention it, but I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear me do so. It presumably reflects the Government's policy. The noble Lord said:
"while the principle of self-determination is accepted, the UN and the international community have left undefined the criteria by which any particular claim could be justified. Ultimately it has to be resolved on the political level".
In other words, if morality points one way and expediency another, the latter must always prevail. I would propose, as an alternative to that policy, that the United Kingdom should say how claims to self-determination are to be evaluated, and I would suggest some rules for consideration. Incidentally, contrary to the Minister's assertion, the United Nations has not been totally silent on the matter. A number of resolutions in the General Assembly have always upheld the,
"right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination".
Although the decolonisation committee has confined its attention to territories which were formerly dependencies of European powers, nothing in the wording of the resolutions imposed such a constraint. It would be absurd to demand the exercise of a particular right only in the case of persons whose oppressors hailed from one particular corner of the globe. Alien domination is practised in Africa and Asia by powers indigenous to their own continents and it is time that we turned our attention to those cases.
Where peoples are under colonial and alien domination, they try to make their claim for self-determination heard. So the first criterion is that there should be appeals by individuals or organisations to the outside world on behalf of the people in question. For that purpose, clearly there can be no validation of credentials, as there would be in the case of trying to obtain a seat at the United Nations, because that is precisely the question to be determined. But first, and before any democratic test is applied, such as a plebiscite or vote of an assembly elected by universal adult franchise, certain questions would need to be addressed. Two of the most important questions are as follows: are the people distinct from those who govern them,

1375
ethically, linguistically, in religion and culture, and were they at any time in the past self-governing?
There can be no dispute over those questions in relation to the Tibetans. They are obviously different from the Chinese in every respect. They are ethnically separate; their language is quite different from that of the Chinese; their religion is unique and plays a major role in the lives of the people; and their culture is entirely different from that of the Chinese. They were undoubtedly internally self-governing, to a greater or lesser extent, for centuries, and for 40 years Tibet was an independent state. If it is argued, as the Chinese do, that Tibet was a dependency of the Chinese emperors, the Tibetans are entitled to the same rights of self-determination as any other former colony.
After the last war, the world passed through an age of decolonisation, now virtually complete. That brought to an end the empires of the European powers with the sole exception of the Soviet Union. We are now entering a new era in which other empires crumble and fall. The external territories of the Soviet Union have become independent overnight and many of the republics of the Soviet Union are starting to break away. In Western Asia, Armenians and Kurds are asserting their separate identity. In Africa the empire created by the Amhara in the 19th century is disintegrating and the white masters of South Africa are preparing to yield power. China cannot be the only major power on earth to dominate other peoples and to be immune from international criticism for her conduct. As a former imperial power, we should advise the authorities in Beijing that one cannot rule another people indefinitely against their will and that violence and repression merely stiffen their resolve. As a famous son of Ireland told us 74 years ago, and as a Tibetan might say to the Chinese today:
"Life springs from death, and from the graves of patriotic men and women spring living nations".
7.47 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I share the hope of my noble friend Lord Mersey and of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Avebury, that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Dalai Lama will provide an opportunity for review of government policy towards China and Tibet. I ask the Government to study more closely the activities of the governing power in what is in theory the autonomous region of Tibet, whichever of the 17 definitions of my noble friend Lord Mersey we choose to use.
The Tibetans feel that they are in danger of becoming a disregarded minority in their own country. They feel swamped by the huge numbers of Chinese settlers which have, by some estimates, reached some 7.5 million people against the native Tibetan population of 6 million. The infrastructure to support those incomers is seen not as a benefit to Tibet but rather as a threat to its autonomy and culture. Most school exams are in Chinese. Most jobs require a knowledge of Chinese. University places require a knowledge of English, which is not
1376
taught in Tibet. Hence, large numbers of Tibetan children are sent to China for their secondary education, losing their Tibetan identity.
Beyond that, Tibetans bitterly resent the restrictions upon religious worship and teaching. The persecution of those who objected to those restraints led to the disturbances of the last three years, culminating in the declaration of martial law in March this year. As has been amply demonstrated in the debate, there has since been more than enough evidence to show that there are serious and continuing breaches of human rights taking place in Tibet today. I recently had an opportunity to look at some transcripts of interviews with ex-prisoners and they make chilling reading—a catalogue of beatings, torture, starvation and detention without trial, all contrary to guarantees enshrined in the Chinese constitution.
We are privileged to live in a free country and we rightly condemn abuses of power and abuses of human rights wherever they occur, be it in South Africa, the Soviet Union or South America. I trust that we will continue strongly to condemn these same abuses when they occur in Tibet, for, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, correctly pointed out, the Tibetans see us as their particular hope—the Western power with which they have historically had the closest links.
I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government may be willing to meet the Dalai Lama in his capacity as Nobel prizewinner with a view to establishing constructive dialogue between China and Tibet. I hope that they will be encouraged by these words taken from the address of the chairman of the Peace Prize Committee at the award ceremony:
"It would be difficult to cite an historical example of a minority's struggle to secure its rights in which a more conciliatory attitude has been adopted than in the case of the Dalai Lama".
Without some progress the prospect of Tibet is grim. The Dalai Lama has steadfastly preached non-violence, but there is an increasingly militant movement among young Tibetans who have never known a free Tibet. Without a rapprochement of some sort there is nothing more certain than that the cycle of repression, violence and further repression will continue to its sad conclusion.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, we have listened to four most impressive speeches on the need to develop a new policy towards China. I particularly want to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for raising this vital matter, and for the way in which he deployed the case against China and in favour of Tibet. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at first hand of some of the horrors which have been occurring, and also from my noble friend Lord Avebury, who has a long record of defending human rights.
I have no desire to repeat what the noble Lords have said, but I want to take up one thing which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, said. He quite reasonably said that he thought that the Government might argue that they would only make things worse if they took up a stern attitude against China. That

1377
is an argument which, if they use it, will be disastrous. We have been through this; it is appeasement. It is all very well to smile on the Government Front Bench, but we have not been smiling since we appeased Hitler; we have not been smiling since we appeased Stalin; and we will not be smiling if we appease China. It never works. It has never worked in history and it will not work now.
There is in my mind—and I think in the minds of many people—a fear that this Government will bring shame upon this country and shame upon it for the sake of what they believe will be the solution for Hong Kong. At the back of this situation lies their attitude over Hong Kong and their determination that, whatever happens to the poorer people of the area, the capital that they invested in Hong Kong will be saved. It is to my mind a most ignoble attitude, and I trust that we shall be told that it is not so.
The case has clearly been made out that genocide—that overworked word—is being practised against the Tibetans. It has clearly been shown that the Chinese Government have deported large quantities of children to China and that they have settled large quantities of Chinese in Tibet. Martial law has been in force and atrocities—vouched for by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Avebury—have been committed. There is, therefore, no case, as has been said, for appeasing China.
We must ask the Government to be quite clear about certain matters. Have they represented to the Chinese Government that their conduct is not only against human rights but against the law of nations of practically all time? The Tibetans are an exceedingly peaceful people. It cannot be alleged that the Chinese are in any way threatened by Tibet. Have the Government represented at the United Nations that that organisation might take steps in this situation?
That is my first question. My next question is why are they supplying arms to China? My third question is whether they will make it quite clear that their policy is not to appease China at all costs and in all situations, because that is what it appears to be. If we do not get much clearer answers on these matters now than we have done, it will be quite apparent to this country that in our name and the name of this country, the Government are prepared to perpetrate any despicable act to ensure, as they think—though they will fail—that the capital invested in Hong Kong may be preserved.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in expressing my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mersey not only for tabling this Unstarred Question but for the eloquent way in which he presented the case on Tibet, we could not have had a better introduction to this very difficult problem. It also gives those of us here in this House tonight an opportunity to congratulate His Holiness most warmly on his award of the Nobel Peace Prize. It should be noted that both the King of Norway and the Norwegian Prime Minister attended. Indeed, it may be asked who else
1378
must meet the Dalai Lama before our own Prime Minister is prepared to meet him? The Pope met him and received him in the Vatican in 1988. Other great and distinguished presidents around the world have received him. The speeches that he has made have been tabled as formal resolutions both in Congress and the Senate of the United States. One begins to wonder what it is that is stopping our own Government—which is known for its defence of liberty; known for its defence of human rights; known for its despair of violation of human rights wherever they might be. We have a fine record, and I think we should be looking at this to see what more can be done for the Tibetans.
Let us remember that this award was given just 50 years after his country was invaded; 40 years since the Dalai Lama left his country with several thousand fellow Tibetans—years during which he has not ceased to struggle for the freedom of his people and his country; but with a weapon unknown to any other freedom fighter, that of non-violence. That has been rigorously observed even while his people were being oppressed by martial law. His own personal suffering was visible. When anybody met him one knew what was happening to his own people.
What political opportunities are open to the Dalai Lama to pursue? In June 1988 he addressed a large number of Members of the European Parliament and others in the Parliament in Strasbourg. There were over 300 people there. Apparently it was the biggest press conference ever held and for the first time the speaker—the Dalai Lama—had massive applause, which I am told had never happened before. These were people from 12 member states. All political parties were represented at that press conference.
The Dalai Lama chose Strasbourg as a symbol of reconciliation. It is a centre which, after the last war, represented the agreement between the Germans and the French not to fight each other any more. It was a symbolic choice of his. He offered to the Chinese Government the retention of rights over defence and foreign policy, subject to the Tibetans being autonomous in their internal affairs. That was a very generous and brave offer. Although there was an indication that the Chinese Government would meet the Dalai Lama for talks in a place of his choosing—he suggested Geneva—nothing has happened. It should be said that this offer to negotiate was not necessarily approved by the people of Tibet, suffering and dying for the cause of Tibetan independence. It was a courageous proposal; but since there has been no response can that offer still lie on the table? That will be a matter for the Dalai Lama and his people to decide.
It is not only the people who are suffering. My noble friend Lord Mersey touched on that. Graphic reports of the change in the landscape by massive deforestation are being received. If any evidence was needed it is the silting up and breaking of the banks of the Brahmaputra and Irriwaddy rivers which rise in the mountains of Tibet as well as the Yangtse and the Meekong. Indeed, there was a proposal published in yesterday's Financial Times which might be undertaken by the UN and other agencies to deal with the floods which occur in Bangladesh.

1379
However, no shoring up along the lower reaches of these rivers will stem the floods unless a massive replantation programme is started in Tibet and the ceasing of the chopping down of forests. That is an aspect with which I believe not only the United Kingdom should be involved, with its new greeener than green colours for world safety, but one on which the Twelve member states of the European Community should offer a constructive programme to the Chinese Government in order to stop this catastrophe influencing, as it does, vast areas of Bangladesh which the European Community is being asked every year to assist.
That is surely a practical proposal. The European Community should be pressing the United Nations environmental programme to look at the problem with detachment and to ask what we should be doing to stop this flooding. Without dealing with the situation in Tibet—and I am speaking of the environmental rather than political issue—there will be no solution to the problem.
The proposal of the Dalai Lama—that Tibet could become an area of environmental safety, the world's largest nature reserve and a zone of peace which would in no way harm the Chinese—should surely not be neglected or derided. The critical geographical position of Tibet would be guaranteed as a neutral area with the Chinese having military and foreign policy decisions.
Many of us have been to China and have been the recipients of hospitality. Although not many noble Lords have touched on this point, many in this House will have received hospitality from the Chinese, and our admiration of the cultural and scientific achievements of the Chinese people over the centuries has increased. The events in Eastern Europe have shown—and other noble Lords have referred to this point—that it is possible to have a peaceful evolution to new and more successful forms of democracy and economic policy. It is time that China too recognises that in a world which attaches such importance to human rights and their protection it should review its policies and contribute to an area of greater peace and stability.
I believe that it is worthwhile reminding the Government of General Eisenhower's famous saying: history has shown that it is never the weak who preserve freedom but only the strong. That is the message for Her Majesty's Government.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, a very important and poignant subject is before us this evening. We are very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for bringing it before us, and for giving us an opportunity to express our very deep admiration to His Holiness the Dalai Lama on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and for all the work that he did to earn the prize. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I should like to seize the opportunity to offer my congratulations.
The noble Viscount, my noble friend and many other speakers have presented a very comprehensive picture of the situation in Tibet, and of the position vis-à-vis China and of Her Majesty's Government's
1380
policy both towards Tibet and China. I should merely like to highlight some of what has been said and to touch on two other aspects of this very troubling situation.
First, the situation within Tibet gives rise to many worries, as has been shown in the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has described environmental problems. I should like to say a word about the state of deprivation shown by some statistics that I have from UNICEF. These show that in Tibet the figures for child mortality are 100 children per 1,000 births, compared with 36 per 1,000 in China—that is three times greater. The illiteracy level in Tibet is 73 per cent. compared with 31 per cent. in China. Again the figure is three times greater. UNICEF is also worried about the total lack of mother and child health facilities in many parts of Tibet. It gives cause for great anxiety. One asks oneself how this has been allowed to happen.
Apart from the concern about the standard of life of the people in Tibet, universal concern has been expressed in this House this evening and from many different areas about the violation of human rights. As so often, Amnesty International has brought us some very truthful reports of what is happening there—of arrests, torture and executions since the imposition of martial law in Lhasa on 7th March. The situation has been described in very poignant terms by many speakers today. Some terrible examples have been given of the violation of human rights, of torture, of imprisonment and of police brutality.
Can the Minister tell the House what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Chinese Government with respect to these continued human rights violations? Can he also state whether he has received any indication from the Chinese Government about a possible lifting of martial law in Tibet.
The point has been put very strongly today. Surely we must be consistent in our view and in our reaction towards violation of human rights wherever they may occur. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made very clear that we express our outrage at the violation of human rights in many areas of the world, but how is it that we have not expressed it in relation to Tibet? Surely there should always be condemnation of imprisonment of political prisoners and of all the torture and brutality that have been described today.
That leads to my second point—this country's relations with the great nation of China. It has been described in very great detail. We all know that good relations with that country are vital to Great Britain. We have a very common interest which other countries do not have. We share an interest and concern for the future of Hong Kong, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said. However, our rightful preoccupation about the continued wellbeing of the people of that colony should not intrude on our policies relating to other territories in that part of the world. Ultimately Hong Kong's future will depend so much on the Hong Kong people. Our responsibilities to them should not disqualify us from making our views about Tibet known to China.

1381
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, devoted his entire speech to making that point very clear. We know that China is very sensitive to criticism. Without any disrespect, I could compare the country to a very neurotic woman who says, "If you blame me for anything, I shall have a nervous breakdown". However, other countries have taken a more definite line regarding China's action towards the people of Tibet, notably Canada, Costa Rica, Norway and Holland. West Germany has indicated that it believes there should be dialogue between China and Tibet. It is quite clear that they may well move towards persuasion for that to happen.
Another reason for such dialogue is in order that both sides of the story should be told. Both China's intentions in Tibet and the desires of the people would then be disclosed. As we in this country know only too well, and as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has said, every unstable situation is a breeding ground for terrorism. Without dialogue with Tibet the danger of an escalation of terrorism—either from some other source or from a militant movement of young people growing impatient in Tibet—might well arise.
My last point relates to Britain's position vis-á-vis the Dalai Lama. As every speaker has said, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has earned worldwide respect for his long, painstaking, non-violent campaign for the liberation of his country. In this uncertain world, where violence and conflict are so close to the surface in so many situations in so many countries, should we not all unreservedly recognise and applaud the dedicated work for peace that His Holiness has been pursuing for so long? Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government say that they are in favour of the use of peaceful means to resolve the difficulties of the world? Therefore, why do they turn their face away from the one world leader who, at every level of his life and thought, stands for peace? My noble friend Lord Ennals has asked the Minister that question in unequivocal terms.
The Dalai Lama's speech to the European Parliament was one example. His reception was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. His reputation at an international level could not be higher. That was reflected by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore why will we not honour him also? Why will not even our press reflect the enormous and well-deserved honour that has been given to His Holiness the Dalai Lama?
Merely because I find them totally relevant to the kind of person that the Dalai Lama clearly is, I should like to quote lines from a poem written by a 7th century Indian poet. I should like to do so not only because they are beautiful but because they are absolutely true. The Indian poet said:
"Not by a radiant jewel, not by the sun nor by fire, but by conciliation alone is dispelled the darkness born of enmity".
In our heart of hearts we all know that conciliation is the only path towards creating better understanding, tolerance and peace. That is what the Dalai Lama stands for. By supporting his stand for non-violence we shall give way to the whole concept of resolving international disagreements through
1382
peaceful negotiation rather than through armed conflict and violence.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mersey for raising the question of Tibet. It is a matter of importance to a considerable body of opinion in the UK and he introduced it in a most powerful, interesting and restrained speech. Our main concern in recent months has been to respond to the tragic events of 3rd and 4th June in Peking. But we acknowledge the continuing problems in Tibet and it is right that your Lordships should consider Her Majesty's Government's response to the situation.
Perhaps I may refer first to the person of the Dalai Lama, who earlier this week received in Oslo the Nobel Peace Prize. Her Majesty's Government have always recognised the Dalai Lama in his role as a distinguished spiritual leader, dedicated to the cause of peace. He is welcome to visit this country, and has done so on many occasions. His Holiness enjoys the reverence of the Tibetan people, and has won widespread international renown for his consistent advocacy of a non-violent solution to the problems of Tibet. The award to him of this year's Nobel Prize is the ultimate confirmation of the high respect in which he is held internationally.
Even before the award of the peace prize to the Dalai Lama, Her Majesty's Government were taking seriously the very understandable public concern in this country about the human rights situation in Tibet. Both in public and in private, on many occasions the Government have made very clear to the Chinese authorities that they share this. When the Chinese Government imposed martial law in Lhasa in March this year, we joined our European partners in expressing our dismay at the loss of life and violence there and our hope that exceptional measures would not be unnecessarily extended.
We shall continue to make our views known. But we shall do so in a careful and considered fashion, one that we believe will be the most effective in securing an actual improvement in the Chinese authorities' human rights performance in Tibet. We should certainly wish to avoid any action or statement that might exacerbate the situation or lead to any escalation of violence.
We have no clear picture of precisely what is happening in Tibet. The imposition of martial law and of travel restrictions in that remote and isolated part of the world has made the task of monitoring the situation difficult. It is inevitable that information from different, often partisan, sources will tend to exaggerate one or other aspect of the situation. That abuses of human rights have occurred in Tibet is beyond doubt but the extent is unclear. Moreover, when discussing Tibet I think that it would be unwise to take just one view and see the contribution of the Chinese towards Tibet in a purely negative light. Over the past few years the Chinese authorities have substantially increased development aid to Tibet with the aim of making it economically self-sufficient. These policies have remained unchanged despite the demonstrations. In

1383
recent years the Chinese have also shown greater sensitivity to Tibet's special needs and traditions; for example, in permitting a higher level of religious activity and encouraging the use and teaching of the Tibetan language.
It is encouraging that the Chinese chose to invite three Members of another place—the Members for Christchurch, Harrow East and Cornwall, South East—to visit Tibet in October. Their visit also provided the opportunity for a member of the British Embassy to accompany them to Tibet. He reported that, despite the heavy military presence, the economy of Lhasa and the surrounding area appeared to be thriving and that the atmosphere was generally relaxed. Some may consider that Chinese efforts to modernise Tibet have not been very relevant or effective. But it must be acknowledged that the Chinese have invested a great deal of effort in a genuine attempt to improve conditions in the region.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Will he ask the British diplomat who visited Tibet how many Tibetans benefited from the improved economic efforts of China? We know from our sources—I believe that many noble Lords in all parts of the House can confirm it—that very little money goes to help the people of Tibet who are becoming second-rate citizens.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend has made her point. Perhaps I may continue and then take up the points raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about being careful to evaluate partisan evidence, is he aware that the three Members of another place who went to Tibet were led by Mr. Robert Adley, who is a well-known advocate and friend of the Chinese People's Republic? He has never voiced a single word of criticism of them and actually made remarks favourable to the Chinese action in Tianamen Square.
Lord Reay: My Lords, at the moment I do not wish to go further into that question.
We must consider our response to the situation in Tibet in the light of the events that took place in Peking on 3rd and 4th June. Those horrible events, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, called them, created a heightened level of concern about human rights in China generally. Following the brutal repression of peaceful demonstrators in Peking, we and our partners in the European Community took a series of measures intended to bring home to the Chinese authorities the degree of shock and outrage that their actions had precipitated. We have emphasised that respect for human rights is an essential part of the pursuit of the policy of reform and openness which we and other countries in the West have sought to support and encourage.
I turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Mersey and almost every other
1384
noble Lord raised the question of why we could not receive the Dalai Lama. As I said earlier, the Dalai Lama is welcome to visit this country. However, he is regarded by some as being the leader of the Tibetan government in exile, which is not recognised by any government and with which successive British governments have had no dealings. For this reason we continue to be of the view that a meeting with Ministers would be open to misinterpretation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that is disgraceful!
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and perhaps others, referred to the Dalai Lama having been received by other foreign governments. But we know of no European or other Western leaders who have met the Dalai Lama, except for a few in a strictly private capacity.
My noble friend Lady Elles raised the question of what the Dalai Lama said in his speech at Strasbourg. That is something which we consider is a matter for the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Mersey also raised the question of self-determination for the Tibetan people. We believe that all peoples have the right to self-determination, but that this right can be exercised in several different ways. We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal and it would be no service to the Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence.
My noble friend Lord Mersey referred to the first part of this century, when he said we had made treaties with Tibet. But even then the special position of China was recognised, and we did not deal with Tibet as an independent state.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, one of those treaties was a tripartite agreement between China, ourselves and the Tibetans. Tibet was most certainly an independent state in our eyes at the start of this century.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is not the conclusion that I draw. But this is a historical matter and I dare say that further debate on it should be pursued in another forum. My noble friend Lord Mersey and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, told some harrowing and moving stories about the ill-treatment of prisoners and others. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke also referred to that matter. It is unfortunately the case that the detention of prisoners without trial, the physical abuse of them and stories about them are common throughout China. To the extent that allegations of torture are true, of course we condemn them. It would be unrealistic to suppose that Chinese treatment of prisoners in Tibet is better than elsewhere in China.
The noble Lord, Lord Averbury, and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke raised the matter of damage done to the Tibetan culture. The Government regret damage that has been done to the Tibetan culture in the past. The Chinese Government have themselves acknowledged that serious mistakes were made in Tibet, particularly during the cultural revolution. We understand that

1385
China's nationality policies, adopted in 1979, encouraged minority races to maintain traditions. The Chinese Government have commissioned the restoration of more than 500 monasteries and temples in Tibet which were destroyed in the cultural revolution in the last few years.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, six thousand were destroyed.
Lord Reay: My Lords, after the March demonstrations, the Chinese affirmed that they would not change their policies of promoting economic and cultural development in Tibet, while preserving freedom of religion and respecting local customs. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about the selling of arms to China. In fact, one of the measures which was imposed by the United Kingdom in conjunction with our European colleagues in June was an embargo on the trade in arms and that policy remains in force.
Lord Willoughy de Broke: My Lords, I believe that there was a sale, if not of arms certainly of related equipment, to wit radar, sanctioned in September. I wonder whether my noble friend is in a position to confirm that or otherwise in spite of the agreement in June signed by the European Council in Madrid.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to confirm that or otherwise. But I can assure my noble friend that I shall look into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, raised the situation of Hong Kong as being an explanation for the alleged special treatment that China was receiving on human rights. We believe it is clearly important, in highlighting our obligations to the people of Hong Kong and our commitment to the implementation of the 1984 joint declaration, that we maintain an atmosphere in our relations with China in which a working dialogue can continue. But this has not prevented us from making clear our concern about human rights in Tibet and in China generally, nor in conjunction with our European Community colleagues in taking concrete steps to bring home these concerns. My noble friend Lady Elles—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister give some example of a concrete step that has been taken?
Lord Reay: My Lords, these are measures as the embargo on arms sales and other measures which were included when the European Community made its demarche to the Chinese Government.
My noble friend Lady Elles raised the important environmental problems of flooding, deforestation and so on. These are very important issues indeed which are extremely relevant today; and we shall consider the points that she has raised.
It is our intention that the Chinese should realise that if they wish to enjoy our continued wholehearted support for the modernisation of China, they will need to take account of international concern and show a greater understanding of the need for respect for human rights in China as a whole, including Tibet. At the same time, it is not our intention to
1386
isolate China but rather to encourage it back to the forward looking path it has until recently been following.
In this context, despite all that has happened in the past few months both in Peking and in Lhasa, we continue to believe that the best way forward in Tibet is for constructive dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans themselves, including the Dalai Lama. Both the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama have accepted the value in principle of such a dialogue, although they have so far been unable to agree on terms. It is unfortunate that the events of June in Peking may have cast a shadow over the prospects for an early start to the talks. We shall however continue to do what we can to encourage the Chinese Government in this dialogue, which we believe offers the most promising prospect for solving the problems of Tibet.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, did I really hear him aright? Did he say that if the Nobel Peace Prize winner, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, should come to London, as the noble Lord the Minister said he had every right to do, he will not be received by a British Minister? Did the noble Lord really say that?
Lord Reay: Yes, my Lords. I did. I am afraid that is the case.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could answer the question that I put to him. It was whether there was any indication from the Chinese Government that they may lift martial law in Tibet.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no information about that, I am afraid, at the present time.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and reported from the Committees.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
Presented, read a first time, read a. second time pro forma, and committed to a Select Committee.
River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [H.L.]
Presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [H.L.]
Presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eight o'clock.

  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
  POLICE COLLEGE: SENIOR COMMAND COURSE
  POLICE COLLEGE: SENIOR COMMAND COURSE
  DIETARY SUGARS AND HEALTH
  DIETARY SUGARS AND HEALTH
  COMMUNITY CARE: RESPONSE TO BISHOP HUDDLESTON'S OBSERVATION
  COMMUNITY CARE: RESPONSE TO BISHOP HUDDLESTON'S OBSERVATION
  MINISTERS AND SHARE PORTFOLIOS: POLICY
  MINISTERS AND SHARE PORTFOLIOS: POLICY
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF TRANSPORT MINISTERS, 4th-5th DECEMBER
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF TRANSPORT MINISTERS, 4th-5th DECEMBER
  WILDING REPORT: RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES—PLANS
  WILDING REPORT: RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES—PLANS
  RATING: SEASONALLY OPERATED PROPERTY
  RATING: SEASONALLY OPERATED PROPERTY
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: FUTURE
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: FUTURE
  GLOBE THEATRE: SCHEDULING
  GLOBE THEATRE: SCHEDULING