Sitting of 14 December 1989

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Wednesday 10 January at Seven o'clock.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 11 January.

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 19 December at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: I call the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to move the nine motions for unopposed returns.
MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered,
  of

  (1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing those set down for oral, written priority and written answer respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answers were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;

  (2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;

  (3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct) showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to Mr. Speaker's direction; and

  (4) the number of public petitions presented to the House distinguishing separately those brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No. 133 (No debate on presentation of petition).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLOSURE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME
  Return ordered,
  Respecting—
  (a) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1988–89:

  (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Question before House or Committee when claimed

  Whether in House or Committee

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and

  (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Question before Committee when claimed

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and
  (b) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question) during Session 1988–89;

  (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Whether in House or Committee

  Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and

  (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

  Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

  and
  (c) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—

  (i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and

  (ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Return ordered,
  of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1988–89 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of
  1140
  reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute; setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124

  1141
  (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House respectively, in Session 1988–89, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5). —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Return ordered,
  Of the Number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1988–89, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;
  Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1988–89 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1988–89 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills,together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;
  Of the number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a joint committee, and if so whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each joint committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the committee's sitting, the number of days on which each joint committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the committee served, and whether the committee reported that the Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
  Of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the committee;
  And of the membership, work costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC BILLS
  Return ordered,
  Of the number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1986) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1988–89, showing: (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this Hose but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments
  1142
  not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Return ordered,
  of the days on which the House sat in Session 1988–89, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
  Return ordered,
  of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1988–89, the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairman; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairman as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders.
  Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1988–89, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), or Standing Order No. 103 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh, pursuant to a motion made under Standing Order No. 95(3) (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and (3) of the membership, work costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

  SELECT COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  of statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee). —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last held discussions with Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): The joint statement issued following the last Intergovernmental Conference held on 30 November has been placed in the Library. Discussions included the political situation in Northern Ireland, security cooperation and economic co-operation.
    Mr. Winnick: Has there been, or is there likely to be, any discussion at the conferences of the remarks made by the Secretary of State on 3 November? This is the first Northern Ireland Question Time since his controversial remarks on what might happen once terrorist violence comes to an end. We all deeply mourn the latest tragic murders of two soldiers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the setting up of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body will be a step further towards closer co-operation and discussion between the Irish Republic and ourselves?
    Mr. Brooke: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, there was brief and informal discussion of that matter. On his second question, I believe that the parliamentary group could do nothing but good.
    Mr. Corbett: Given that the Secretary of State has committed himself to more Ulster Defence Regiment patrols being accompanied by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, what steps has he taken to achieve that and how often has it happened?
    Mr. Brooke: We have had a longstanding commitment to increasing RUC accompaniment of patrols, whether of the Regular Army or of the UDR. We have set up a working group, working inside the Northern Ireland Office and in collaboration with the security forces, and a similar working group at official level with the Irish, to discuss the modus operandi for adding to the accompaniment. It has been remarked that greater accompaniment has been seen.
    Mr. Hunter: As one who is becoming increasingly disillusioned about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, may I seek reassurance, in the light of continuing opposition in Northern Ireland and no discernible decrease in terrorism, on what is being achieved? Are not the value, effectiveness and even morality of the agreement open to serious question?
    Mr. Brooke: I can only speak with particular vividness of the working of the agreement and the conferences since I became Secretary of State. During that time, we have had
    1144
    four meetings, three of which lasted a considerable time. They have provided a great opportunity for me and for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to establish a good working relationship with our colleagues in the Government of the Republic on which we have been able to draw informally between the workings of the conference.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people in Northern Ireland and outside believe that it would be appropriate to move towards an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Has the Secretary of State a sense of justice and fair play such as to cause him to consider whether it would be wise to hold an event in which one participant, the Social Democratic and Labour party, would have a head start, while the other, the Unionists, could be locked in the pavilion? Will he cause such an event to be called so that negotiations can take place and attempt to ensure that all meet on a fair and equal basis, with the Anglo-Irish Agreement not being operated during that period?
    Mr. Brooke: To use the hon. Gentleman's vivid metaphor, it goes without saying that it would be impossible to have a game or a match unless all sides were on the field. If all sides were on the field, talks would take place.
    The Government have always said that they will operate the agreement sensitively in the interests of bringing about talks. The arrangements that we have reached with the Government of the Republic for meetings of the conference in the first half of 1990 will make it possible for there to be uneven intervals between the conferences.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: During the conference, was there any discussion about the electricity interconnector, the improvement of roads in border areas or Northern Ireland's railway problems and the sabotaging of railway lines?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in reverse order. On the most recent occasion, 30 November, we discussed co-operation in the context of the railway. We set an agenda for conversations at the conference during 1990, including cross-border co-operation, economic development and approaches to the Community. I do not think that we discussed the hon. Gentleman's first point on 30 November.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the Government's policy to maintain and strengthen the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? As it is the Government's policy that there should be no assembly in Scotland, on the ground that a Scottish assembly would injure the union, why does my right hon. Friend persist in advocating an assembly in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend asks a teasing and tempting question. He knows that it has been the Government's policy for a significant time to move towards the transfer of power to local politicians in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: Under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Secretary of State consider setting up a cross-border panel of economists to examine the implications of the Single European Act in 1992? Such a

    1145
    panel could look into the problems of harmonisation of value added tax, fiscal rates and a common currency for the island of Ireland and report to him on possible ministerial action both north and south.
    Mr. Brooke: It has taken us a little time in the working of the conference to set in motion the conversations that we are currently having about the Community. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be somewhat more ambitious than what we have already secured, but it is always sensible to have objectives that go beyond the immediate business. We will have plenty of time in 1990, and I will certainly remember the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I make no comment about the value of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, but I will remember them as we move to the second half of 1990.
    Mr. McNamara: First, may I congratulate the Secretary of State on, over the past two days, successfully uniting all Irish parties—Catholic, Protestant and dissenter—to vote against the Government's policies? That is a significant act of unity on which the Government should be congratulated.
    Secondly, as the Anglo-Irish Agreement is turning its attention from some important security matters, which were highlighted by the tragic event yesterday, to other more co-operative matters, would it not be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic and all parties concerned if the Government's position papers on the various economic and social matters were to be published by the respective Governments so that there could be an informed debate on those important issues throughout the island of Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's mock congratulations, and I return the compliment. I heard that his party would go into the Lobby last night with the SDLP. The fact that 18 people from several political parties managed to assemble suggests that Labour Members were not present in force.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are making early progress on cross-border matters relating to the Community. It would be too early to take the step which the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I will bear it in mind.

    John Francis Green
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will raise at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference the possibility of the publication by the Irish Government of the Garda report on its inquiry into the death of John Francis Green, referred to by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at Official Report, column 817 on 29 November.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that it is over 20 years since I went to Harold Wilson and James Callaghan to ask them why they imagined that they would be more successful than Strafford or Cromwell, and to plead with them not to send Scottish and English troops into Ireland? The answer was that the troops would be out by Christmas—Christmas 1969. Given that the Army is there, would it not be much better to be absolutely frank and to tell all that is known of the truth of John Francis Green?
    Mr. Cope: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I was not aware of the advice that he gave to the Prime Minister of the day 20 years ago, or of the Prime Minister's response.
    In answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are, of course, as frank as we can possibly be in matters of this kind, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that there are operational considerations. On the specific allegations contained in the book referred to in the question, the hon. Gentleman is asking for the publication of a Garda report to the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions. We would not publish such a report in this country and the House would be astonished if we did. It would be even more exceptional for us to ask the Irish to do so. Investigations have been conducted on both sides of the border and in co-operation between the two police forces. I am satisfied that the allegations have been thoroughly investigated and reported to both Directors of Public Prosecutions.

    Health Services
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State ;for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of 1he effect which Irish Republican Army terrorist actions have on the provision of health services for the population in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Any terrorist crime that maims or kills adds to the cost of care and therefore reduces resources in other parts of the National Health Service.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that frank admission by the Minister because we are often told that we are spending undue amounts of money in Northern Ireland. Will he join me in paying tribute to the specialists, doctors, nurses, the professions supplemental to medicine, the ambulance workers and the ancillaries for their tremendous work throughout the long years of terrorism?
    Mr. Needham: Of course, Sir. That goes without saying. In Northern Ireland we have one of the finest Health Services not only anywhere in the country, but anywhere in Europe, and we are deeply indebted to those who work in it.
    Mr. Stott: I support what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the Health Service in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that all the catering services of the Western health board have been privatised to a company called Gardner Merchant. Can he confirm that Anderson house, a former maternity unit that is now closed, is being used as free office space by that company? Is he further aware that Gardner Merchant is using telephones and stationery supplied by the Western health board? Is he aware that an environmental health investigation into the kitchens at three hospitals found dirty dishes left lying around overnight, floors not cleaned, meals arriving up to one hour late, staffing being halved and junior doctors in Altnagelvin hospital complaining about the standards of hygiene? Is not privatisation doing more damage to the Health Service in Northern Ireland than the terrorists ever could?
    Mr. Needham: The original question referred to IRA terrorism and its effect on the Health Service. I can

    1147
    understand the hon. Gentleman wishing to make his political points, but they are hardly in line with the question.
    On the point about competitive tendering, clearly we should encourage anything that reduces costs in one area in Northern Ireland and can lead to more spending on direct health care. Although Northern Ireland has been slower going down that road than elsewhere in the country, as the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, £1·3 million can now be saved by the Western health board and go directly to improved patient services.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that it is always possible to find isolated examples of standards being below par? Can he confirm that expenditure on the NHS in Northern Ireland per head of population is much higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Needham: It is higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom because we have a higher incidence of disease and poverty there. Since 1979, the amount of money that we have spent on the Health Service has increased from £690 million to over £1 billion. That is a real increase of over 20 per cent. We can be justifiably proud of our record.

    Security
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    9. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: Since my predecessor answered a similar question on 22 July, 23 people have been killed in Northern Ireland in incidents directly related to terrorism. They included 12 civilians, six regular soldiers, a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and four members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. From the beginning of this year until 30 October, 360 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and large quantities of lethal weapons, ammunition and explosives have been recovered, in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
    I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the horrific attack in Derryard last night and in extending sympathy to the families of the soldiers killed or injured. We pay tribute to the courage and resolution of all members of the security forces, who have never flinched in their determination to protect the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, prevent terrorist activity and bring terrorist criminals to justice.
    Mr. Ross: Did yesterday's carefully planned murders in Northern Ireland convince the Secretary of State that there must be no ambiguity about the need to bring about the total military defeat of the IRA? He did not mention that in his answer. Does he accept that if that military defeat is to be brought about, the IRA must be convinced that it
    1148
    will not succeed in detaching Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom? Does he further accept that only action will convince the IRA of the Government's firm intention, and that a major step would be to begin treating Northern Ireland, in local government powers and legislative matters, as though it were fully part of the United Kingdom? That is an action which he could put in hand straight away and which would be very telling to the IRA.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government's intention remains to defeat terrorism in all its forms by the concerting of military, social, economic and political policies. Those policies are designed to protect the right of the people of Northern Ireland to decide their future. In that sense, I freely give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks. In the latter part of his question, he went a little wide of the security question.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Out of respect for the dead and consideration for the bereaved, should we not stop claiming great improvements in security co-operation in the frontier region, particularly in the aftermath of yesterday's events and other similar incidents in which it is clear that the mobile strike forces of the IRA can assemble in the Irish Republic, carry out their dastardly deeds and return to a safe haven unhindered and along roads that have been illegally reopened in the frontier region?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman shares my confidence in the commissioner of the Garda and the efforts of the Garda to follow up the dastardly crimes that were committed yesterday. I appreciate the frustration, particularly of people in the border areas, about the ability of terrorists to cross the border and return to the Republic. [HON. MEMBERS: "They go both ways."] I agree that there are crossings in both directions. That is a matter which I have already brought most vividly to the attention of the Irish Government and I shall do so again on the next occasion.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Martin Galvin, the Noraid representative in America, was involved in the illegal reopening of the Lacky bridge crossing over the weekend? Will he further confirm that the IRA terrorists who so callously murdered the two soldiers yesterday used that crossing to escape from Northern Ireland? Does he share my hope that Americans who might be tempted to support Noraid, believing it to be an innocuous organisation, will cease to give it help and support now that Martin Galvin has revealed Noraid for what we all know it to be?
    Mr. Brooke: Mr. Galvin is said to have taken the action that my hon. Friend describes, but to ascribe more importance to Mr. Galvin than he warrants is unhelpful. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct in his analysis of the operational question, but I appreciate his main point.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government will never give in to or be influenced by the terrorists? If those 421 British soldiers who have been killed in the Province since 1969 are not to have died in vain, should not the Government be able to prove that the Province is better governed now than it was previously? Should we not have the proper legislative procedures in this House to deal with Northern Ireland legislation which are so clearly lacking? Should we not put

    1149
    before the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties political initiatives to give them a say, in the Province, in the affairs of their Province?
    Mr. Brooke: I wholly reiterate the commitment that my hon. Friend sought in the first part of his question. He asked about good government within Northern Ireland. I am confident that many who live in the Province would point to improvements that we have been able to effect across the life of the Province in recent years, and I hope that that will long continue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I are always happy to discuss the procedures of the House, but my hon. Friend's question on that goes a little wide of the specific question that I was asked.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his sensible comments several weeks ago which caused such a furore? Will he take it from me—I have had personal experience in three anti-terrorist campaigns—that he is right to say that the Army alone cannot defeat the terrorists? It is up to the Army to hold the reins and to maintain law and order while politicians achieve the solutions that defeat the terrorists. Is it not the case that politicians in Northern Ireland would better serve their nation if they showed more imagination and flexibility in achieving a political solution and less synthetic anger about what seemed an entirely sensible statement on the position in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations. At the time to which he refers I was asked a question and I sought to answer it straightforwardly. He raised the wider consideration of political advance. I concur with him that the defeat of terrorism will involve political, social and economic developments as well as military effort.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland salute the memory and gallantry of Lance-Corporal Michael Paterson, aged 21, and Private James Houston, aged 22, of the 1st Battalion of the King's Own Scottish Borderers who were murdered savagely yesterday, and that our thoughts are with the other soldier who has been seriously injured? Will the Secretary of State comment on the remarks of the local Church of Ireland rector, who said:
    "There seems to be complete apathy from the authorities. There seems to be no determination to see this violence at an end. I have tried talking to the Northern Ireland Office. They just will not listen."
    Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he confirms three statements which were reported largely in Northern Ireland newspapers? First, on 4 November, he said:
    "The IRA could not be militarily defeated"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. We should not have comments on statements of others.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: There were two other statements in which the Secretary of State said that the IRA would not win and that the Government would seek to defeat the IRA.
    Mr. Brooke: I am most appreciative of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman couched his remarks about the two soldiers who were killed yesterday. As I said earlier, they died in defence of ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Hill,
    1150
    the Church of Ireland rector, who said in a statement that some aspects were technical matters which he did not understand. I pay tribute to the flexibility deployed by the Army on the border. The fire to the truck which made the original assault was returned from a patrol, not the vehicle checkpoint. The hon. Gentleman asked about my various observations. At no stage in the initial interview did I say that the IRA could not be defeated. I have consistently made it clear that if the IRA is to be defeated, all aspects of Government policy in reinforcement of the military must be deployed.
    Mr. McNamara: Will there be a thorough review by the Secretary of State's Department and the Ministry of Defence of the security arrangements at border checkpoints as the IRA seems to feel that it has a particular weapon with which to deal with such checkpoints. I shall take the Secretary of State up on the subject of policy relating to Ulster Defence Regiment accompaniments by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the policy is to do that as much as possible, why cannot a record be kept of operational decisions when the policy has been implemented?
    Mr. Brooke: We always seek to learn from any experiences that we have, and border policy is kept under constant review. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. In the context of accompaniment, not just of the UDR but of the Army generally, it is recognised that for both operational and resource reasons there may be times when the patrol cannot be accompanied. The patrol will frequently have to go out because no RUC officer is available. One consequence flowing from our study is that we have significantly improved our statistics.

    Religious Education
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to broaden religious education of children in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Government recognise the importance of religious education and have reaffirmed this in the provision of the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 which was approved by the House last night. The order also provides for the drafting of a core syllabus for religious education, which will provide a valuable opportunity for represenatives of different denominations to co-operate in devising a syllabus containing the basic tenets of the Christian faith shared by the children of both communities.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that many of the world's leading religions—Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and others that my colleagues could mention—all practise highly civilising values if carried out in the true spirit of the religion? Will he condemn the use of Christianity, whether it be Protestantism or Catholicism, as a backstop to the bigotry which leads to so much discontent and death in the Province? Will he ensure that all religions are taught in religious education classes so that the community can learn the best from the culture and religions of other parts of the community?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the positive values which emerge from

    1151
    Christian belief. I am pleased that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland practise their Christian faith, of whatever denomination, in both the letter and the spirit of that faith. The hon. Gentleman is also right that some people use religion as a weapon, and I share his concern that that should not be the case, particularly in our schools. We seek commonality between our young people's views so that they may learn to build on that positive aspect of the Christian faith.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members welcome the opportunity of greater integration in education in Northern Ireland? We also welcome what he said yesterday when we debated the order on education in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that many parents would like to see those opportunities extended or at least would like to see greater co-operation between different denominations and different schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I agree that an increasing number of parents in Northern Ireland wish to have the option of integrated schooling made available, but we shall not impose it. It will be for parents to choose, but the Government believe that parents have a right to that choice. The Government also recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's other point—that for the foreseeable future most young people will not be educated in integrated schools. For that reason, we are introducing new courses in education for mutual understanding, cultural heritage and a common history curriculum to try to achieve the aims that my hon. Friend and I share.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there are sincere Christians in Northern Ireland who accept state provision of education but are concerned that some of the lessons may impinge on their understanding of biblical truth and therefore ask for the right to let their children opt out of such lessons? Will the Minister grant that freedom of conscience?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I am also aware of the importance of ensuring that young people have a broad, balanced and coherent education. That is what we seek to achieve through the new curriculum.

    Confidential Information
    Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and what decisions were made concerning the prevention of confidential security information being made available to terrorist organisations.
    Mr. Cope: I have regular and frequent meetings with the Chief Constable and other members of the security forces. The subject matter of such meetings is properly confidential. I am, however, satisfied that appropriate measures to safeguard material that might be of use to terrorist organisations have been put in place by both the police and the Army.
    Mr. Mallon: The Minister will be aware of the bizarre circumstances that led the police to carry out a search for illegal arms, ammunition and terrorist paraphernalia at one of their own stations, at Kells, County Antrim on 12
    1152
    October 1988. Will he confirm that two police officers serving at Kells resigned from the force, three were transferred to other stations, and one, named McAuley, was charged with the possession of arms and ammunition illegally held on behalf of a Loyalist paramilitary grouping? Can the Minister say whether the investigation carried out by Mr. Stevens involved interviewing the two officers who resigned and the three who were transferred? Was McAuley interviewed and, more importantly, were all the police officers who served at Kells during the two years prior to that date also interviewed?
    Mr. Cope: I can confirm that the RUC demonstrated its evenhandedness and its preparedness to consider anything that might have gone wrong int its operation in connection with the RUC station at Kells. Nothing was found in the RUC station at Kells that gave rise to any doubt. As the hon. Gentleman says, certain officers resigned and so on. The Stevens inquiry is looking into all aspects of collusion which are drawn to its attention, but I do not wish to comment on that until Mr. Stevens has completed his investigations.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The matter being discussed is currently before the Northern Ireland courts.
    Mr. Speaker: If that is so, we should not proceed, but it is not within my knowledge.
    Mr. Cope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are certain charges pending, so in certain respects the matter is sub judice.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: It concerns a constituent of mine.
    Mr. Speaker: In that case, we should move on.
    Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is your practice in these matters? Are you accepting points of order during Question Time or at the end of Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member well knows, and the House knows, that if a matter requires the immediate intervention of the Chair I must take the point of order—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may reflect that that is exactly what happens during debates at any other time.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Brooke: There have been four meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference recently. At the last conference we discussed ways of furthering cross-border co-operation in economic and social fields and set in train a programme of work to develop plans in those areas.
    Mr. MacKay: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has replaced megaphone diplomacy, by and large, with informed, low-key discussions between the two Governments on matters of mutual interest and concern? That must surely be in the interests of all who live in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: During the four months in which I have been involved with the Anglo-Irish Agreement I remember two occasions when megaphones were used—once by me and once by an Irish Minister. On the next occasion, we agreed that it would be more sensible to continue to operate through the conference, as my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mr. Hume: Has the question of funding Conway Mill been discussed in the Anglo-Irish Conference? Does the Minister recall a reply that he made to me on that question, when he said that they were not funded because of allegations of indirect or direct assistance to paramilitary organisations? Does the Minister accept that in the context of Northern Ireland those are serious and dangerous allegations? Does he recall my telling him that when I put the allegation directly to the organisers, they categorically denied it, and with all my experience of Northern Ireland I believe them. They also told me of their willingness to open the organisation's books to the Government, or to anybody nominated by the Government. In all fairness and justice, should not that offer be taken up?
    Mr. Brooke: To the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion of Conway Mill at any of the four conferences at which I have been present, but I congratulate the hon. Member on his ingenuity in reaching the subject of question No. 18. Policy on that issue—on which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I have already given him an answer—was determined by my predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, and that policy still stands.
    Rev. William McCrea: After four years of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Minister tell the people of Northern Ireland and right hon. and hon. Members why the promise made to the people of Northern Ireland has not been kept? The agreement was brought into existence to bring peace, stability and reconciliation to the people of Ulster, yet in the House today the Secretary of State has given us a catalogue of murder, death and destruction.
    Mr. Brooke: No one would be better pleased than I if the working of the conference, and the agreement, had produced total peace and stability, but there is no doubt in my mind that the co-operation that we have across the border with the Irish Government makes such a future more likely.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the increasing disillusionment in the House with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the awareness that there must be a way forward to a better alternative, is the Secretary of State aware of the Ulster Unionists' proposals that, during the heavy programme of the Dublin Government's European presidency, there will be an opportunity for a temporary gap in which talks could take place to bring about that alternative? When a reasonable proposal comes from the Ulster Unionists, the time has surely arrived for Dublin and the Secretary of State to do better than just saying no.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's premise that there is disillusionment, but I can respond, as I responded earlier, to the spirit of the second part of his question. The Government are interested in interpreting and managing the agreement flexibly, with the idea that if there were an uneven gap
    1154
    between meetings of the conference in the first part of 1990, there would be an opening for talks if all parties agreed.
    I am mildly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a reasonable suggestion from the Ulster Unionists as though that were unusual. I regard any suggestions that they make as reasonable.
    Mr. Leigh: Under the workings of the agreement, has my right hon. Friend discussed the new Anglo-Irish parliamentary body? Does he consider it a good omen for Anglo-Irish relations that the Irish parties have sent such a strong team, including the former Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs Minister? Will he express the hope that Unionist Members will send representatives to work on the parliamentary body as there is nothing to be gained from remaining in the bunker and everything to be gained by talking?
    Mr. Brooke: The more the British delegation to the group—the setting up of which I welcome—is fully representative of the House, the more effectively it will discharge its mandate.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I expect the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to discuss a range of subjects, including security co-operation, relations between the community and the security forces, and cross-border social and economic co-operation.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the continuing concern of the Irish Government and, indeed, many people in this country about the case of the Birmingham Six and the fact that the recent change in prison category status seems to be a tacit admission by the British Government that the Birmingham Six are not, and never have been, members of the IRA, will the Secretary of State consult the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister with a view to getting the case reviewed or reopened to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done?
    Mr. Brooke: The case of the Birmingham Six is not a normal or natural part of the agenda, although I have to confess that the ingenuity of both Governments in working the agreement means that there are occasional references to subjects which lie outside the agenda. I have on a previous occasion brought the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, arising out of a conversation at the conference.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q1. Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had

    1155
    meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    This evening, a reception will be held at No. 10 Downing street on behalf of the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many people are dismayed at the threats by ambulance men to refuse to answer emergency calls except on their own arbitrary terms, despite the generous increased offer that has been made to them?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. In some places the emergency service is working well, but in others the position is as my hon. Friend has said. The offer that has been made to the ambulance men is for increases of between 9 and 16·3 per cent. over a period of 18 months. For example, in London leading ambulance men and women have received an offer of a backdated increase of 12·1 per cent., with arrears of £957 already due. Qualified ambulance men and women with the extra medial qualifications—the paramedics—have received an offer of a 16·3 per cent. increase. For them, back pay already accumulated would be about £1,290. Those are good offers and one would hope that they would be accepted.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows very well that if she allowed the dispute to go to arbitration there would be an immediate and complete return to work by all ambulance staff. Why will she not let the matter go to arbitration, especially if, as she has just said, she thinks that the offer is such a good one? Why does she not have the confidence to let the matter go to a third party?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked that question several times before. He knows full well that these matters are negotiated in the Whitley council and that there is no provision there for compulsory arbitration.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister said this morning that she would be "so pleased" if the ambulance dispute was settled by Christmas. When that would give her and the country such pleasure, why will she do absolutely nothing constructive to bring the dispute to a close?
    The Prime Minister: The pay offers are between 9 and 16·3 per cent. With the backdating and lump sums which have already accumulated, they are good offers. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently concerned that the emergency services are not operating well to urge the ambulance men to accept those offers so that normal service can be resumed.
    Mr. Kinnock: Statements like that from the Prime Minister, who has the power to resolve the dispute, are meaningless. If she will get her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to tell the Health Service managers to send the dispute to arbitration, the dispute will end by four o'clock this afternoon. Why does not she do that?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman makes himself very clear. He is not prepared to urge the ambulance men to return to work despite an offer of between 9 per cent. and 16·3 per cent. and the fact that there are lump sums waiting to be picked up which vary
    1156
    between £650 for leading ambulance men and women outside London to nearly £1,300 for paramedics in the ambulance service within London.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend noted the outstanding success of the water privatisation share issue, which has transferred the industry from state control to true public ownership? Will she join me in congratulating the millions of new shareholders who ignored the threats that their dividends would be confiscated and that the industry would be renationalised, as promised by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend. The water privatisation has been extremely successful. People have been very willing to take up the good offers in the knowledge that privatisation will produce a much better service with improvements for drinking water, rivers and the environment generally. I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on the way in which the share issue has gone through. I congratulate all those who will be shareholders for the first time, thus extending the property-owning democracy.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howells: Will the Prime Minister consider devolving power to the people of Wales in the early 1990s, as the majority of Welsh Members in this place are in favour of a Welsh Parliament? Will she ensure that the voice of Wales, as a nation, will be heard in Europe because we, the Welsh, believe that we should play a major role in the Community in the 1990s?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the early-day motion in the names of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. I seem to remember that this issue has come before the House before, and that the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly against having a devolved Assembly, and I see no reason to change that view. It seems that they think that they are well represented in the House and by the Government.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dykes: In view of my right hon. Friend's powerful efforts in this connection, and because of the dramatic meeting which took place yesterday, will she consider this afternoon sending an urgent message to President de Klerk asking for the immediate release of Nelson Mandela before Christmas?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the meeting between President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. I hope that Nelson Mandela will be released as soon as possible. I agree that it would be a great advance. It would help to bring an end to violence and to start negotiations on a South African constitution which will be fair to all people. I shall consider doing what my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: In view of the steel industry privatisation, are the Government prepared to use their golden share in the interests of the work forces at Ravenscraig, Clydesdale, Dalziel and Imperial? In view of the outstanding productivity achievements of the workers at those plants, will the Prime Minister assure them and the Scottish people that their steel industry is safe in her hands?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman says, the steel industry is privatised. It has done very well under privatisation. The taxpayer has not had to stump up enormous subsidies for it. Indeed, it has contributed to the Treasury and thus to the social services. We should not consider using a particular share to frustrate any commercial decisions which need to be made. They must take their due and proper course.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Has my right hon. Friend noted the promise in eastern Europe of one man, one vote—a promise that is now extending from the Volga, from the Oder and even more from the Danube? Is my right hon. Friend disappointed that that promise is not being fulfilled from the Mersey?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. On reflection, I do not think that that is a matter within the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Has the Prime Minister seen The Guardian today—it may not be her favourite read—which shows that one of her advisers is again in trouble for secretly financing an extreme Right-wing secret newsletter, run by a former MI5 agent, which claims that Labour Members are Communist sympathisers? As I am one of those Members—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please put away their newspapers?
    Mr. Barnes: As I am one of the hon. Members mentioned, and I am certainly honourable, will the Prime Minister disown that action and sack David Hart?
    The Prime Minister: No adviser, employed either by me or by No. 10, is doing any such thing, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. People are free to write what they please—just as free as those who edit Tribune.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the tragedy in Sri Lanka and the slaughter both within and between the communities of that wonderful country. Is she also aware of the need for all countries to support the Sri Lankan people in bringing the communities together? Is she aware of the Sri Lankan Government's request that English be restored as the common language? Will she give every aid to the Sri Lankans, especially through the provision of English language teachers?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about matters in Sri Lanka, which I discussed very recently with former President Jayawardene, who did so much to resolve problems in that country. I know that English is a great unifying language in that country, and we put in a great deal of money—about £500,000 per year—through the British Council for the teaching of the English language. We must exercise a certain amount of caution about where we put teachers until the troubles in that country are at an end.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when she first knew about the deception perpetrated on the public, the taxpayers and the work force at Rover by the sweetners offered to British Aerospace by the Government? When did she first know? Is it not time that she, her Government and her ex-Ministers came clean with the public about the damaging way in which they handled that matter and about the damage inflicted on the industry and on my constituents?
    The Prime Minister: I reject the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I believe that his constituents and all those who work for Rover had a very good deal when it was sold to British Aerospace—[Interruption.] It was a good deal for the taxpayer, who had already had to spend —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to reply.
    The Prime Minister: The taxpayer had already spent £3 billion on supporting the company and might well have had to find a further £1·6 billion. It was a very good deal for the dealers' network and also kept the Honda link. It was a good deal for everyone concerned and that is precisely what Opposition Members cannot stand.
    Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind that the peoples of eastern Europe are discarding the discredited nostrums of Marxist Socialism, will my right hon. Friend redouble her efforts to ensure that Marxism never again gains a foothold in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Socialism failed utterly in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe as it had failed in Britain in the years before 1979.
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boateng: What words of seasonal comfort does the Prime Minister have for people who will be using a rail network that is increasingly underfunded and understaffed and on which there is increasing concern about safety? What words of comfort has she for users and workers when she is cutting the revenue by some 25 per cent. and when there is every reason to expect further reductions in passenger safety and security? Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is not only no way to run a rail network, but also no way to run a country?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    The Prime Minister: Of course I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. Under the success of our economy, the amount invested in British Rail and in London Underground will be higher than ever before.
    Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I take points of order after questions and statements.
    Mr. Tebbit: It relates to Prime Minister's questions.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after business questions and the statement.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week and for the week when we return after the Christmas recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to package travel. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock Estimates Day (1st allotted day, 1st part). There will be a debate on class 11, vote 2, so far as it relates to the accommodation and repatriation of Vietnamese boat people.
Motion on the code of practice for trade union ballots for industrial action.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
At ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the civil and defence votes on account and the outstanding winter Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY 21 DECEMBER—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate, in response to the hon. Gentleman's question, that subject to the progress of business, the business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JANUARY—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill followed by Second Reading of the Government Trading Bill.
TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.
Motion on the Co-operative Development Agency (Winding-up and Dissolution) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Opposition Day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—Debate on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Monday 18 December

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 5382/89

Package Travel, Holidays and Tours

(b) 7996,189

Package Holiday Travel

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC (1988–89), para 1

(b) HC 15-xxxiv (1988–89), para 1 and HC 11-iv (1989–90), para 1

Tuesday 19 December
Estimates Day Debate: Relevant Documents
Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Session
1988–89 on Hong Kong (HC 281)
The Government's observations on the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second Report Session 1988–89 (Cm. 927)
The Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday 13 December (HC 58-ii)—which is expected to be published on Monday 18 December.]
Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not only for telling us about next week's business but for announcing the business for the first week after we return from the Christmas recess. I also welcome the fact that he has found time for the House to debate the multi-fibre arrangement, which is of great importance to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Is it true that the Secretary of State for Education and Science intends to announce next week his decision on capital allocations for our children's schools? I emphasise the words "our children's" as it is overwhelmingly the children of Opposition Members who attend state schools. Given the importance of that matter to all our constituents, and the fact that the Government have been able to provide more taxpayers' money for a single city technology college in Nottingham than for the entire state system in the county of Cumbria, will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement on that very important subject?
Is it the case that next week the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on the new financial objectives for 1990–93 for British Rail? Given that those new objectives are likely to eliminate all Government support for the operation of services in Network SouthEast, affecting millions of commuters, and that there will be reductions in Government support for provincial rail services, too, will the Leader of the House ensure that the statement is made in Parliament and that the House is given an early opportunity to debate its consequences for all our people as soon as the House returns from the Christmas recess?
As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has indicated his intention to abandon Government policy on golden shares, and given the wide-ranging implications of that decision for many important and strategic industries, including aerospace, water and telecommunications, and the threat that that poses to many thousands of jobs in the British economy, will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on that subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the decision to discuss the multi-fibre arrangement because such a debate has been requested by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for some time. We can at least make progress with that.
As to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on capital allocations in education, I cannot give him any information—except that he should disabuse himself of the idea that he speaks for "our" children. My right hon. and hon. Friends have as much interest in every sense in the working of the state education system. It is noticeable that a growing number of people of all classes and in all communities take a growing interest in the independent education sector.
On British Rail's objectives, I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that it is his intention to

1163
make a statement to the House at the appropriate time. In doing so, he will doubtless repeat the point made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she emphasised the massive growth in capital expenditure in the rail as well as the road system.
As to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on golden shares, that goes beyond any reasonable ambition for next week's business programme. The hon. Gentleman will know that certain matters in respect of the Jaguar car company are being examined by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging an early debate on the affairs of Merseyside? If the Prime Minister cannot answer questions on Merseyside, it would be very convenient to have a complete afternoon's debate on it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that my right hon. Friend, whose interest in the affairs of Merseyside is well founded, will have an opportunity to draw attention to some of the more remarkable events there if he intervenes in next week's Christmas Adjournment debate, and I hope very much that the matter will be ventilated in that context.
Mr. James Wallace: When the House debates the Broadcasting Bill on Monday, do the Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends intend to support a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition proposing that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee? I think that that would be widely welcomed, not only in the House but in the industry.
Will the Leader of the House also arrange for two statements to be made next week, one on the critical meeting of European Community Fisheries Ministers and the other on the rights of British passport holders in Hong Kong? The Government's failure to date to make an announcement on that subject is having a destabilising effect in the colony, and it would be scandalous if an attempt were made to slip out a statement over the Christmas recess. May we hear one before then?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman to expect a positive response to his first question. I shall, however, take note of his two requests for statements, and draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I can give him no firmer assurance at present.
Mr. Ian Gow: When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to be able to tell the House what the Government have decided about the possibility of introducing a Bill following Tuesday's debate on war crimes? If they decide to introduce such a Bill, will my right hon. and learned Friend and the Patronage Secretary bear it in mind that many of us will feel that, as we were allowed a free vote on Tuesday, we should be allowed one on the Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to my attention. The House certainly expressed its view by a substantial majority on Tuesday, although my hon. Friend will recollect that the debate in the other place took a slightly different course. The
1164
Government are considering what form of action would constitute an appropriate response to both debates, and we shall certainly take account of what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Without asking the Leader of the House to comment on the General Medical Council's inquiry into the sale of kidneys, may I ask whether he is aware that that inquiry highlights the acute shortage of donors and the fact that people are dying for the lack of kidneys? Does he agree that it underlines the urgent need to debate the possibility of an opting-out system for kidney donors to replace the present inadequate opting-in system, and may we have such a debate next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing proper respect—as always—by acknowledging that I cannot comment on the case now before the General Medical Council. As for the underlying problem that he mentioned, I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us a little more information about the Vietnamese debate? Is it intended that we should come to a decision, or merely discuss the matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The debate on the Estimates next week will be allowed to continue for a full three hours, and we shall see how the matter stands at its conclusion.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of widespread reports that the Government intend to change the law to allow about 150,000 people from Hong Kong into this country, will my right hon. and learned Friend allow a debate on the matter as soon as possible? If such proposals are announced, they will represent a complete reversal of everything that the Government said before the passing of the British Nationality Act 1981, and will cause anger in the west midlands.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that there have been many statements on the position of Hong Kong and its relationship to this country in respect of such matters, which have also been the subject of a report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. That underlines the extent to which the House pays attention to these matters and it is clearly right for my right hon. Friends to keep the House fully informed of developments on that front.
Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to the ombudsman's impending report on the Barlow Clowes scandal, will there be an oral ministerial statement next week about the Government's response to the report? Can the Leader of the House say on what date the statement is likely to be made?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I think I have told the House before, the Government are very well aware of the importance of this matter. The Department of Trade and Industry has now commented to the ombudsman on his draft report. We understand that it has been printed and that it is expected to be published before the Christmas recess. The Government undertook to reconsider the whole question once the Parliamentary Commissioner had

1165
reported and we shall make our conclusions known at the same time as the report is published. Given the imminence of that, I cannot even state a specific date for a statement.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In his response to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Leader of the House clearly recognised the timing difficulties of ensuring that a statement on the Council of Fisheries Ministers could be made in the House before the Christmas recess. Although we all hope that there will be such a statement we should not wish to deter negotiations. What alternative facilities could the Leader of the House make available to hon. Members representing fishing constituencies to ensure that we are fully advised of all the decisions reached at the Council, as this is a matter of critical importance to our constituencies?
On the Broadcasting Bill, has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motions 195 and 196, and can we expect a clear statement on Gaelic broadcasting—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows of the rule that only one early-day motion may be printed in Hansard.
Mrs. Ewing: Then I refer to No. 196.
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the contribution of Gaelic language television in fostering and extending knowledge of Gaelic culture throughout Scotland, to acknowledge the progress made in recent years by such bodies as Comunn na Gaidhlig and to provide for the proper funding of Gaelic television programming in the Broadcasting Bill, currently before the House.]
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the choice made by the hon. Lady in that respect. The Government are considering the proposals that have been submitted by the various interested parties for an increase in the amount of Gaelic television programmes and we shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are well aware of the importance of fisheries matters—not only within Scotland—and they will seek to inform the House as nearly as possible to the usual ways, following the conclusion, whenever that may be, of the proceedings in Brussels next week. I shall bear in mind the point that the hon. Lady made. I hope that it will be possible to follow more or less the normal pattern.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to early-day motion 73, which deplores the barbaric slaughter and consumption of about 4 million dogs a year in South Korea?
[That this House expresses its deep abhorrence at the practice in South Korea of the inhumane slaughtering and eating of millions of dogs every year; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest representations to the South Korean President and Government to desist from this barbaric practice forthwith.]
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the motion is supported by many hon. Members of all parties throughout the country? May we have an early debate on the matter to bring some pressure to bear on the South Koreans to behave more humanely?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am by no means sure that I can offer the prospect of an early debate, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Korean Government are well aware of the concern in this country about the way in which dogs are reared and slaughtered for human consumption there.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I believe that live television showed part of Northern Ireland Question Time today. That is an improvement on the way in which Northern Ireland is usually handled, with debates usually stuck on late at night. Would it be possible for European matters, which are dealt with in a similar way, and Northern Ireland matters to be given time in the House when many hon. Members are here to discuss the issues?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot offer an instant comment on the instant broadcasting of Northern Ireland proceedings this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman will know that the management of European questions was one subject of a recent report by the Select Committee on Procedure, and the Government are considering it with care.
Mr. Michael Latham: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, which he announced earlier this week, to sort out the case of constituents waiting to see the Line of Route?
On Barlow Clowes, if the report is not published before the Christmas recess, will my right hon. and learned Friend make absolutely certain that there is an oral statement in the first week after the recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already said that printing should proceed to allow the report to be published before the Christmas recess. I also said that we shall make our conclusions known at the same time as the report is published. That should meet my hon. Friend's latter anxiety. I am glad that I was able to meet his earlier anxiety, and I express my appreciation for his gratitude.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that no Vietnamese people will be forcibly returned to Vietnam until the House of Commons debates the matter next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat precisely the sentence at the end of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier this week.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As Back-Bench Members had 45 minutes at midnight on Monday to discuss the European budget, does the Leader of the House think it fair, again very late next Monday night, to debate the package tours order, which he knows raises important constitutional questions about the powers of the Commission and the rights of the House? Does he honestly think that it is not an insult to democracy for vital issues affecting the powers of the House of Commons and affecting every person in Britain to be discussed by a bunch of sleepyheads in the early hours of the morning when few people are listening?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this matter. He will know that the issue is expected to be discussed at the Internal Market Council on 22 December. He would be the first to express

1167
anxiety if the House had no opportunity to discuss the matter before that consideration takes place. I am sure that it is right for the debate to be held early next week. The time at which it takes place is one matter to which the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation is relevant.
Mr. Terry Lewis: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Director General of Oftel has missed a good opportunity to control pornographic telephone services. Indeed, his statement last Friday opened the door to even more. Is there no possibility of a debate and an amendment to the telecommunications legislation to get rid of such odious services?
Sir. Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the first point. The best prospect that I can offer of a debate in the near future is either the debate on the Christmas Adjournment or the debate on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the political movement in central Europe. Every day it brings up new and further headlines. Is he aware that Hungary has applied to join the 23 nations of the Council of Europe? Should not these matters be brought forward in a debate of political content and apart from debates on the European Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend will find that that important point was discussed in the debate a couple of weeks ago on East-West relations. He will know that arrangements have been made for observers from many countries of central Europe to attend Council of Europe proceedings.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is currently going through the other House, will, by the time it reaches us, have alternative clauses and one part or other amended, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Second Reading in this House will be free of whipping? Will any amendment concerning the vital clause dealing with genetic research be considered by a Committee of the whole House or by a small Standing Committee upstairs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should need to reflect carefully on the hon. Gentleman's precise points. He will understand that it is our intention to bring the Bill before the House as Government legislation, but to allow a free vote on consideration of the alternative clauses as they now appear on the Bill. No decision has yet been reached on how that can best be brought about.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the first anniversary of the appalling tragedy of Lockerbie approaches. Does he agree that next week would be an appropriate time to have a debate not just to establish the latest developments of the investigation into Lockerbie but to congratulate the Government on the appointment of Air Vice Marshal David Brook as the Government's first national emergency adviser, and give Back-Bench Members an opportunity to press for a freephone 0800 landline number for national emergencies so that families of victims can get information from one centralised point?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will find an opportunity of raising those matters when the House debates the Second Reading of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill on 10 January, shortly after we return.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise that the Leader of the House is anxious to improve the way in which the House conducts its planning of business. Can he tell us at this stage when the House will take its Easter recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: After some discussion, I can help the hon. Gentleman to some extent. We hope that the House will be able to rise for the Easter recess in the week ending Friday 6 April, rather than the following week. I hope that hon Members will be able to make their arrangements on that basis. We should then return at some stage in Easter week itself.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have another important statement this afternoon. There will be an opportunity to ask questions on the Christmas Adjournment, so I shall allow business questions to continue for a further five minutes— [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do his utmost to ensure that we have a full debate on Europe as soon as possible, especially so that the attitude and policy of the Opposition can be clarified? If the Opposition are wholeheartedly in favour of Delors 2 and 3, they should state so unequivocally so that people know where they stand. But if they are not wholeheartedly in favour, they should stop sniping at the British Government for not rushing headlong into economic and monetary union.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's desire to secure some clarification of the Opposition's attitude to this and to many other questions. However, I am afraid that I cannot offer him as many opportunities as his question deserves.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House soon be in a position to tell us that the next time the House considers legislation affecting Northern Ireland, it will be in the form of a Bill, not an Order in Council? Will he bear in mind the fact that yesterday evening we were given three hours to consider the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order whereas the similar Act for England had a Second Reading, 200 hours in Committee and four days on Report? Democracy is not really being applied to Northern Ireland.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's tenacity in returning to this question, as he and his colleagues have on a number of occasions, but I cannot offer him any generally acceptable response at present.
Mr. James Cran: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider holding another debate next week on the 1990 European Communities budget to supplement the charade this week, when we had a one-and-a-half-hour debate, of which 45 minutes was taken up by Front-Bench spokesmen and only 45 minutes was left for Back-Bench members to discuss 29 budgetary items and a considerable amount of expenditure? Does he agree that a supplementary debate is required if our constituents are not wholly to misunderstand what this House is about?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that he wants, I understand his point and will reflect upon it with my right hon. Friends in relation to the future management of similar questions.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House assure the House that there will be a statement next week on educational capital expenditure? A planted written question is not good enough, bearing in mind the fact that in a city such as Bradford there are 600 temporary classrooms and the average allocation for each year is equivalent to that for the single city technology college which is entirely irrelevant and superfluous to Bradford's needs? I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that several schools in my constituency and elsewhere are in desperate need of permanent extensions and that the temporary classrooms are so badly in need of repair that they are having to be replaced. Should we not have a statement in the House so that we can raise these issues and press the relevant Minister on them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be a statement on that topic in the week ahead. However, he can reflect on the fact that expenditure on education is running at a higher level per head than at any time in history.
Mr. David Nicholson: Would it be possible on Tuesday to debate, first, the implications of the boat people policy for Britain's relations with Vietnam in terms of diplomacy, trade and economic development and, secondly, to expose the hypocrisy on this subject of people and organisations who, 20 years ago, campaigned in the streets and campuses of this country for a Communist victory in Vietnam?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dare say that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to expand on that important point if he catches your eye in next week's debate, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the Leader of the House accept the importance of the plight of hostages everywhere? Will he consider the need for a debate on that subject, even though the matter could be raised under a number of heads in the House? If we cannot have such a debate next week, perhaps he will provide a later opportunity for hon. Members to air the sensitivity of the matter. As some hostages have been held for so long, it is time that the voice of the House was heard.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's wisdom in underlining the sensitivity of the matter. That needs to be done on every possible occasion. I am sure that the whole House agrees on the importance to the families of hostages and to all hon. Members of securing the early release of people held hostage anywhere and in any circumstances. All that I can do at this stage is to join the hon. Gentleman in underlining how seriously the House views the matter. He can raise the matter during debate next week. I cannot promise anything beyond that.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether next week's debate on Merseyside and the interesting activity in Birkenhead and St. Helens could be extended to include Teesside so that we can discuss interesting events in Hartlepool? Is he aware that
1170
interesting allegations have been made about the replacement of the present Labour Member for Hartlepool by a new candidate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's fascination with that subject. The causes of interest in the matter are so diverse that I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on all of them.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Leader of the House examine the report published last Friday by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the levels of PCBs, dioxins and furans in Britain? Of the 78 sample points, 12 demonstrated serious local contamination. Will he arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible on why the levels are so high? Is he aware that some of those 12 sample points were in Wales?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter of some technicality. I confess that I cannot disentangle all the acronyms that he mentioned. I shall look at the report as soon as possible and reflect on the point that he made.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already moved on beyond the point that I mentioned, but I shall allow business questions to continue for another three minutes. Hon. Members whom I have not called will be given some precedence if they wish to participate in the debate on the motion for the Christmas adjournment.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have clarification of why the junior Health Minister rubbished the findings of the Government's medical officers of health about the health risks associated with sugar? It seems that the Government are not interested in public health and health education, but that the profits of their allies come first. Was the Minister's cover-up a sweetener for the sugar industry?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Every time the hon. Gentleman asks for a debate, his request is so long that he almost achieves one.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply about a debate on democracy on Merseyside? For many years he was a Member for Merseyside and it would be nice to have a debate that included explanations from Tory Members of why there are practically no Conservative Members in Merseyside seats. There are now no Conservative Members in Liverpool and last time the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) won her seat by only 200 votes. Do Tory Members who raised the matter suggest that the people of Merseyside do not understand democracy? The people of Merseyside understand it very well and are using their democratic powers to ensure that the Conservative party is a spent force on Merseyside.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity of making a point in exactly the opposite direction. When I was adopted as candidate for Bebington, west of the Mersey, and the hon. Gentleman was adopted for Liverpool, Walton, the nine seats of the city of Liverpool elected six Conservative and three Labour Members, and there was a Conservative Member for Walton. At that time Merseyside was a great deal more prosperous than it is today.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: After the statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order before the statement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. After the statement.
Mr. Skinner: You allow others to do it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing this place.
Mr. Skinner: No. I am not abusing this place.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I take points of order after statements.
Mr. Skinner: Not for everyone.
Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood): Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Short: Mr. Speaker, please—
Mr. Speaker: No. Not even please. The hon. Members—
Ms. Short: But Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statement in the usual way.
Ms. Short: You said that you would take points of order after questions.

Traffic (London)
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about new initiatives to relieve traffic congestion in London. My proposals are being published today, together with separate consultation papers setting out my provisional conclusions on the four London assessment studies. I am placing copies in the Library.
The economic boom of the 1980s has had a dramatic impact on London. Population, employment and incomes have all grown and demand for transport has exploded. There is every indication that this trend will continue. We must provide for planned commercial and residential development, and proposals for the transport systems will in turn be an essential element in the development plans which the London boroughs are preparing.
Last month, I announced our plans to transform London's public transport systems. Over the next three years, London Regional Transport plans to invest a further £2·2 billion on modernising and upgrading its systems. That includes work on the extension of the Jubilee line to docklands. Subject to further work, I expect that a Bill for a new line to relieve congestion in central London will be deposited next year. Network SouthEast plans to spend a further £1·2 billion over the same period to improve its services for London's commuters.
It is clear that public transport will always play the key role in moving people in and out of central London, but congestion on the roads must be tackled too. We are improving the quality and capacity of trunk roads wherever possible, but we must make the best use of existing roads. Our aim is to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible. The discussion document I am publishing today brings forward new proposals for traffic management and parking control.
First, I propose a 300-mile priority route system—red routes. Stopping, loading/unloading, and parking will be severely restricted. A pilot scheme will start next summer to establish the best way of implementing the proposal. I shall begin the necessary discussions with local authorities and the police immediately.
Secondly, a consistent and businesslike approach to the management of these major routes is essential. I propose legislation to establish a traffic director to ensure the coherent development and operation of the red routes. The traffic director would not replace the existing highway authorities, but would have a co-ordinating role on these routes, with appropriate reserve powers.
Thirdly, I strongly believe that the fixed penalty level for illegal parking on the red routes and possibly elsewhere in London should be increased. The Government will consult representative organisations on possible legislation and the appropriate level of fine.
Fourthly, new traffic management guidance will aim to ensure that yellow lines are strictly confined to places where they are needed. Drivers must be convinced that where there are such restrictions they are needed and will be rigorously enforced.
Fifthly, effective enforcement of traffic and parking regulations will be a key element. The police and traffic wardens will remain responsible for enforcing parking bans. The role of the traffic wardens will be enhanced. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel

1173
clamping. Local authorities would take on the control of parking at meters and residents' bays, allowing traffic wardens to concentrate their efforts on the red routes and the more serious offences.
We also need to go on improving the road system. We already have a substantial programme in London. This is geared mainly to upgrading the north circular and improving access to docklands and east London. One of the most notorious bottlenecks is the Blackwall tunnel, so I am announcing today my decision to add to the programme a scheme for a third tunnel. There will also be a review to see whether another crossing is needed between the Blackwall tunnel and Tower bridge.
The four assessment studies have been detailed and intensive studies. They have looked at a range of public transport, traffic management and road improvement measures on a comparable basis. They show that public transport improvements are needed but cannot by themselves solve the traffic and environmental problems, however much we invest in the rail systems. Road improvements are necessary to increase the efficiency of the system, to reduce accidents, and to take traffic out of residential areas.
The consultants looked at a large number of options. They have narrowed these down to two or three recommended options in each area. Most of the major new roads that they considered have been eliminated. Even so, they have recommended some schemes which I do not consider should be pursued further. These have been ruled out. I am prepared to go forward only with the new road schemes that will bring significant overall benefits, taking full account of the environmental effects. I have selected for consultation a number of ideas for new public transport projects and a limited number of new road schemes, mostly to improve existing roads.
New proposals for the transport systems in London will be vital to securing environmental improvements and creating opportunities for new development. In preparing proposals my Department will therefore work closely with the Department of the Environment, local authorities, transport operators and the police.
Copies of the consultants' reports will be available at public libraries and town halls in the study areas, and will be sent to representative local organisations. Free leaflets setting out the consultants' main findings and recommendations will be circulated widely, together with a statement of the Department's initial views. This will set out clearly the options that have been rejected and those on which comments are invited.
It is now nearly 18 months since the consultants first published their options. There has never before been such wide and open consultation on transport studies. But I am conscious that it has caused great uncertainty. I am now determined to end the uncertainty, to reach early decisions and to remove the threat of blight as quickly as possible. I am therefore asking for comments by 28 February.
Any schemes entered into the national road programme will have to go through the full statutory procedures which provide for public inquiry. The amount and timing of any additional expenditure would be for decision in the public expenditure survey in the usual way.
These proposals, together with those for the Jubilee line, the central London rail study and the massive investment in Network Southeast, show that this Government have a balanced approach to London's transport problems. The measures that I am announcing
1174
today, together with those that I have brought forward in recent weeks, will give our capital city the improved transport system that it deserves and I commend them to the House.
Mr. John Prescott: At the outset, may I say that I appreciate that fact that the Secretary of State gave me these reports at 2 o'clock rather than at 3 o'clock, which is the normal time? That helped a little, but the reports are somewhat complex and he will appreciate that it would not be proper to make judgments on the details of the scheme at this stage.
The statement confirms the sensitivity of the Government and the Secretary of State to the importance of transport. I welcome some of the limited steps towards intervention by the state, which in the past the Secretary of State has labelled as being eastern European in approach. No doubt the new views of the new Secretary of State for the Environment in the Cabinet and his attitude towards the car has concentrated the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Will the Secretary of State confirm that after 10 years of praising the values of the free market, the Department of Transport now seems to be learning to speak the language of planning, co-ordination, integration and even red routes, which have more to do with the blue rosettes of the local elections and the general election which are around the corner?
As the Secretary of State knows, he received a delegation from Wandsworth, which has produced plans rejecting most of the ideas in his paper. Wandsworth is a Tory council which wants more public transport, not a road solution. If anything is clear from the statement, it is that it is fundamentally about what we all know the Department of Transport is always involved in—a basic road solution to a transport problem.
We have had statements from the Secretary of State and various bodies such as the central London rail study and the east London rail study, and we have had plans for the Channel tunnel. Next week we are to get British Rail's new corporate plan. Is it not time that we had a strategic body co-ordinating transport in London, such as those which exist in every other capital city in western Europe? That is the only way to deal with the major problems facing those cities. Does the Secretary of State agree with my calculation, after looking at the reports, that the adoption of all the preferred schemes would cost £7·3 billion and involve the demolition of 2,470 homes?
Sir William Clark: Who worked that out?
Mr. Prescott: This is a statement about the Secretary of State's preferred routes. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read it, he will find that what I have said is true.
Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Treasury whether the resources would be made available to meet such commitments? Does he remember the Prime Minister giving similar assurances about who would pay for environmental improvements to the high-speed rail link just before the elections in Kent last year? Kent may have retained a Tory council, but the Channel tunnel link is in one hell of a mess.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much of the £2·2 billion invested in LRT and the £1·2 billion investment in British Rail, as set out in his statement, is provided by the Government? Is it not the case that public transport in London receives less financial support from

1175
the Treasury than ever before, and that the amount is lower than for any other European city? Will he confirm that next week when he sets British Rail's new financial targets he intends to cut the last £150 million of financial support for Network SouthEast? Is it true that the targets will make London the only city in Europe whose rail network receives no financial support at all from Government?
The Secretary of State claims that public transport, traffic management and new roads must all be judged on a comparable basis. Can he explain why the Department has assumed in the studies that rail, tube and bus fares will be increased by 46 per cent. in real terms over the next 10 years for commuters in the south-eastern and London regions?
We all know that the Department of Transport is obsessed with new roads. Can the Secretary of State explain the extraordinary claim in his statement that major new roads improve the environment? The first effect of the roads will be to knock down thousands of houses and they will increase the number of cars in our cities. The will also increase environmental damage and the levels of gases in our city and those gases are already at twice the international limits. The building of such roads flies in the face of the Prime Minister's statement in the House that she intends to reduce exhaust gases which are contributing to the problems of the ozone layer. It is more to do with rhetoric than fact and that is evident when we examine the statements made by the Secretary of State. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how much growth in road traffic he expects in the next 10 years, and what effect it will have on pollution levels and the other consequences to which I referred?
Finally, on red routes, although we welcome the new initiatives to reduce congestion, can the Minister answer two relevant questions? First, given that only 2 per cent. of people who park illegally ever pay the fine, what measures will he take to increase and improve enforcement levels? Secondly, what assurances about access can he offer to people who live and work along red routes?
The Secretary of State's statement is one of the first examples of what we can expect from the Department of Transport. His language may change, but the Department's priorities do not, and the statement will do little to relieve Britain's and London's great transport problems.
Mr. Parkinson: If the House were to judge my statement and the hon. Gentleman's reaction to it, it would draw the conclusion that the rhetoric was in his remarks and the practical proposals were in mine. The Government have a totally balanced approach to transport problems, as we have shown through our proposals to the House.
The hon. Gentleman talked about public transport. We shall be spending more money than ever before on the national roads programme, in the three years starting next April, but in the same period we shall also spend more money on public transport, and the biggest ever road programme will be exceeded by the biggest ever rail and tube investment. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot do the arithmetic and see that for himself.
1176
The hon. Gentleman talked about demolition, and that is a serious issue. Under the studies as originally set out, more than 10,000 homes in London were threatened, and that has caused enormous uncertainty. As a result of combining our reaction with the publication of the proposals, the threats have been removed from more than 85 per cent. of those houses, and I suspect that that figure will be reduced substantially by the end of the consultation period, which for that reason we want to keep as short as possible. We are removing uncertainty with this statement.
The hon. Gentleman has often talked about investment and resources. I have told him time and again that under the previous owners—the Labour GLC—subsidies were increased and investment was reduced. Under the present Government, subsidies have been reduced and resources have been made available for huge increases in investment. We think that producing a better system is the right priority.
At a time when the use of the tube system at peak hours has increased by 35 per cent. and off peak by 85 per cent., it seems extraordinary that Opposition Members persistently argue the case for subsidy rather than investment. Why subsidise a service which is already hugely in demand, and for which people demonstrate that they are prepared to pay a reasonable price? The increase in fares is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. No proposals of any kind exist to increase fares by 46 per cent. during the next 10 years. I simply do not know where that figure was dreamed up. It does not feature in any documents that I have seen, and there are no such proposals.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned red routes. I accept that he has not had time to absorb all the proposals, but the discussion document makes it clear that transferring some of the responsibilities to the boroughs will relieve police and traffic wardens of a substantial part of their existing duties and leave them to focus on the enforcement of restrictions on red routes and on parking offences which break the law and are criminal.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Member that these proposals have substantial implications for people who live or have shops on red routes. That is why we propose substantial consultation.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on the massive increase in investment in public transport that he has announced, which reflects economic success and is in marked contrast with what the Labour Government did? Is he aware that the existing traffic management schemes in, for example, the Aldwych, to the south of Westminster bridge and last week in St. George's road have on the whole been disastrous in that they have been completely counterproductive? Will he seriously consider whether his Department should take over control of transport in London so that we can have a more unified system?
Mr. Parkinson: We do not think that London's experience under a strategic authority is a great recommendation for strategic authorities. We had one—the GLC—and the House, with one or two notable exceptions, was glad to see the back of it and has no wish to recreate it. We believe that traffic management schemes have an important role to play. We have been impressed by improvements as a result of new traffic control systems in places such as Hanger lane—the so-called SCOOT system.

1177
Some 120 independent junctions are controlled by it at present, and we plan to increase that number to 700 over the next five years.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my conditional welcome for his announcement? He has obviously backed off from the original proposal, which was to have a network of new roads. That is welcome. I also have a conditional welcome for red routes and an increase in fixed penalty fines, which I believe will be vital. A worrying consequence of that is that there may be fewer yellow lines. I ask the Secretary of State not to go too far in that direction because other roads need protection from unthinking parking.
Having done half a U-turn, the Secretary of State should do the other half. All the opinion surveys show that the vast majority of people in London do not believe that there should be more roads. Rather they believe that there should be less traffic. We need to decrease the supply of traffic, not to increase the supply of roads. In that context, will the Secretary of State consider, seriously and urgently, the possibility of further restraining trafic coming into London, including the possibility, which he said that he would consider, of a central London licensing system which would discourage people from driving into London? He knows that traffic has increased during the past decade.
Mr. Parkinson: We do not propose to reduce the number of yellow lines substantially. We are saying that they should be there only if they will be enforced. Not enforcing them discredits the system. We are saying that boroughs should examine their systems and that if they do not or cannot enforce yellow line restrictions, they should not discredit the system, and that where they exist they should be rigorously enforced. We think that that is a more sensible approach.
We have to recognise that the public are quite capable of making a choice if given a choice. That is why road traffic commuting has fallen by 11 per cent. and rail traffic commuting has increased by 25 per cent. We are putting very large sums of money into ensuring that people have a choice. If the hon. Gentleman examines the assessment studies with his usual care, as I am sure that he will, he will see that most of the proposals feature extensions of public transport. There are fewer road proposals and more public transport proposals, but we have to recognise that there is still a demand for road movements, and that is what we are catering for.
Mr. John Moore: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, especially on the assessment conclusions that he has produced for those who have a constituency interest in this matter. I congratulate him on the balanced way in which he has put together a package of proposals combining substantial investment in public transport with excellent conclusions on red routes.
Perhaps I may include you, Mr. Speaker, the most distinguished Member of this place, as you are not able to speak on behalf of your constituents in Croydon, North-East, in welcoming wholeheartedly, for yourself and myself and our constituents, the clear decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken—this is made clear by his conclusions on rejected schemes—which will remove the blight and the difficulties that many of our constituents have suffered for 18 months or more? I thank my right hon. Friend for listening so carefully to
1178
the representations that have been made throughout Croydon—Croydon, North-East, Croydon, North-West and Croydon, Central—
Sir William Clark: And Croydon, South.
Mr. Moore: And Croydon, South, of course. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for acting so decisively on behalf of all the Croydon constituencies.
Can I—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is trying to get him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Skinner: So what?
Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend specifically on keeping the remaining consultation period very brief. There was an extensive period of consultation throughout the London area.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend and you, Mr. Speaker, for your welcome, through my right hon. Friend, for the decisions. I accept that in Croydon, in particular, there has been tremendous uncertainty and blight. I hope that today's announcements will remove most of that and that we can, as my right hon. Friend said, keep the consultation period brief. We have substantially narrowed the range of options to be considered because we recognise that there are still nearly 2,000 families who feel threatened. We do not think that we should prolong their uncertainty.
Mr. Ron Leighton: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will recognise that we have a transport crisis in London. The capital is dirty and congested and traffic is moving slower than it was in the days of the horse and cart. This is due basically to lack of investment. Plans have been available for four or five decades to solve the problem, but nothing has been done.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the basic need is public transport? It is the only way to get the capital going. Yet the Government are reducing the public contribution to public transport. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is more investment, but it is not Government money—it is permission to borrow, which increases fares. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is not enough public transport and too many people want to get on it, so he will solve the problem by pricing people off public transport by increasing fares. That is the only way in which he is getting investment, and it is the wrong approach. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put proper investment into public transport, which is the only way to get London moving again?
Mr. Parkinson: I will give the hon. Gentleman three figures which show that he is talking nonsense. In the past five years, the number of commuters coming into London on Network SouthEast has increased by 25 per cent. The number of people using London Underground at peak times has increased by 35 per cent. The number of people using London Underground off peak has increased by 85 per cent. During that time subsidy has been falling and

1179
investment has been increasing. If the hon. Gentleman studies the figures he will realise that he is drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from the facts.
Sir Barney Hayhoe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to spend more money on investing in public transport than on roads will be greatly appreciated by all those who are concerned with transport problems, as will his determination to make better use of existing roads by having better traffic management? He is to be commended heartily for those decisions.
I wish to be more specific and to raise a constituency issue in Chiswick. The removal of the threat of a major road being constructed along the line of the railway from Kew bridge to Barnes will be seen as a most welcome Christmas present. It is extremely good news for thousands of my constituents who have campaigned against that old proposal, which I hope is dead and will be buried for ever more.
I remain unconvinced about the need for massive new investment in urban roads in London, but careful consideration will be given to the proposed road tunnel from Chiswick to Wandsworth. We shall examine carefully its effect upon the local environment where it goes into the ground in my constituency—that is, if the tunnel is ever built—and its effect on local housing. By and large, however, my right hon. Friend deserves many congratulations on his statement.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reception of the proposals. He has been a great defender of his constituents' interests. I am glad that he realises that the very radical proposal for the tunnel is worthy of further consideration, and I look forward to receiving his comments and those of his constituents.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on at least recognising, at long last, that there is a transport crisis in London? Londoners know that fact to their cost, on a daily basis. They have had to live with it for years. They also know the reasons for the crisis—first, the Government's failure over the past decade adequately to invest in public transport infrastructure and, secondly, the abolition of what was the only strategic transport planning authority, the Greater London council. That authority found itself in great difficulties because of the Government's hostile reactions when it wanted to invest in London Regional Transport.
Despite what the Secretary of State said about the level of investment, is he aware that while British Rail will receive £605 million per year from the Government for investment purposes, the rail system in West Germany receives £4·8 billion per year? That is the only way to deal with our crisis. The Government have created the crisis, yet they come to the House and expect us to be grateful to them for a few packages of measures designed to deal with the crisis that they created. It is too little and it is almost too late—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is dealing with questions on a statement. There will be opportunities on the Christmas Adjournment motions to deal with the more detailed debating points.
Mr. Parkinson: Until four years ago, London Transport was under the control of the Greater London council. If there has been a failure in investment during the past decade, for the first six years the hon. Gentleman was party to that failure. During the period since we took over the control of London Transport, investment has increased substantially and we now have the biggest investment proposal that London Transport has ever had, amounting to more than £2·2 billion in the next three years.
As I said earlier, there has been a substantial increase in the number of passengers. That has clearly produced a substantial increase in resources. That is how, with a reduction in the subsidies, London Transport still finds itself in a better position to invest.
Sir. John Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most reasonable people will warmly applaud his statement, which I am sure will bring both relief and reassurance to most people in London? Does he realise the amount of unnecessary anguish created for many of my constituents, and for others in Croydon and elsewhere, by the premature publication of a large range of various options, most of which have since been abandoned? Will he ensure that in future the faceless planners and consultants will not be let loose on London's traffic problems in the way that has happened on this occasion?
Mr. Parkinson: That practice was a feature of transport planning a few years ago. I remember a time in my constituency when seven possible routes for the M25 were declared, which meant that seven areas were blighted. The idea that there should be open discussions, with every conceivable option put on the table, although well intentioned, actually causes enormous alarm and concern. It is for that reason that we have accompanied the publication of the final assessment studies with our decisions on which of them will be pursued. That has relieved more than 85 per cent. of the people who felt threatened of the threat that caused them such concern. We want to reduce the number still further. That is why I hope that all colleagues will urge the boroughs to co-operate in keeping the period of consultation sensibly short.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State accept that three particular proposals will be welcomed in my constituency—first, the third bore of the Blackwall tunnel, which will relieve severe congestion; secondly, the commitment to the extension of the docklands light railway, which will help to link homes and people in Greenwich with jobs in docklands; and, thirdly, the abandonment of complicated schemes through Blackheath village which would have devastated it, about which there will be great relief? At the same time, however, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the balance or emphasis between private and public transport with a view to the future of London's roads and the increasing number of people turning to cars? Whatever modifications are made, congestion will probably continue for the next decade. The inclusion of south-east London on the tube network would be greatly appreciated and I should be grateful if the routing of the Jubilee line to include Greenwich could be further considered.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think that all hon. Members will agree that south London is badly served by the Underground. As she knows, the ground there makes tunnelling difficult and that is why most of the tube network is concentrated in north London. I have no decision about the Jubilee line, but I too like the prospect of it going south of the river to the Greenwich peninsula. That, plus an extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham, which is another possibility, would link that part of south London into the Underground system. That is badly needed and would contribute a great deal to the relief of congestion.
Mr. Steve Norris: Does the Secretary of State accept that what he has announced today is extremely welcome, but that there is still concern in my constituency about the ludicrous journeys that many of my constituents undertake to get into London from the east —journeys which frequently average just above walking pace? I understand why the Department has chosen to reject, for example, the major widening of the A10 and the new road across Hackney marshes down the Lea valley, but at the very least one of the pilot projects for the new red routes should be either Commercial road or East India Dock road where congestion is at its worst.
Mr. Parkinson: We have not yet settled which will be the trial stretch. We have been considering the A1, the A21 and the south circular, but I will add my hon. Friend's suggestion to the list. As I am sure that he and other hon. Members know, the Department controls about 220 of the 300 miles, but the other 80 miles are under control of the boroughs. We hope for co-operation from the boroughs so that we can speedily implement the announcement that I have made today.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The proposals contained in the remaining two options of the east London assessment study for a tube line from Chelsea to Hackney and the extension of the east London line to Dalston will be welcomed by Hackney's residents, and they would be even more welcome if they were combined with proposals for more public transport? Am I right in thinking on road traffic proposals that words designed to smooth and massage will be more environmentally damaging than the document admits? I shall reserve my constructive criticisms until I have consulted my local residents, beginning on Sunday.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We want a proper consultation exercise and we look forward to receiving considered views from him and his constituents.
Mr. James Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that commuters to London from my constituency in Kent face some of the worst journeys in the morning rush hour and in the evening? Will he accept that to halve the width of many of the inadequate routes from the south-east by the use of bus lanes makes no sense whatever, that to clamp wheels on those strategic routes is nonsense, and that the ripping out of parking meters in central London, which will merely add to the churning effect of traffic desperately looking for somewhere to park legally, is not at all helpful?
Mr. Parkinson: It was because we were aware of the difficulties for north Kent commuters that in September I
1182
announced and approved the orders for £257 million worth of new rolling stock, the improvement and lengthening of 63 stations and a new signalling system on the north Kent line. We shall be looking carefully at the use of clamps on red routes, but I think that towing away would be a much more appropriate sanction.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that thousands of people in Hackney will be pleased and grateful that at least some of the major road schemes which threatened to plough through my borough have been turned down and I am sure that he will want to join me in congratulating the thousands of assiduous campaigners without whose energetic and imaginative lobbying of hon. Members on both sides of the House the roads would not have been turned down. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the problems identified by the surveys is that there is still no tube station in Hackney, the only London borough without a tube station? When the right hon. Gentleman considers proposals for a Chelsea to Hackney line, will he bear in mind that any Secretary of State who succeeded in bringing a tube station to Hackney would live for ever in the hearts and minds of the people of Hackney?
Mr. Parkinson: Who could resist such an invitation? I agree that the public have made their views known in an effective way and I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the Government have responded to the arguments put forward. I look forward to the in-depth studies on a Chelsea to Hackney line, which has many things going for it. It could be linked with Chingford and relieve some of the pressures to which other hon. Members have referred this afternoon. I note what the hon. Lady said and I thank her for the way she said it.
Sir William Clark: The very fact that my right hon. Friend has now ended the 18 months uncertainty and removed 85 per cent. of the blight on property, is welcome. I have received more than 3,000 letters against the south London assessment. It seems that somebody in the Department simply took a map of Croydon and started drawing lines on it with a felt pen, blighting a great deal of property. I welcome the fact that some of that uncertainty has disappeared, but if the options that have been cancelled had been considered carefully before the original document was produced it would have been clear that they were impractical. Option 9, through Sanderstead, affected my constituency and that is why I had so many letters from my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that option 9 is not now to be pursued and that, consequently, all those property owners in Sanderstead, the sellers and the rest, will now be free to sell the rest of their properties, something that they have not been able to do for the past 18 months?
Mr. Parkinson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Option 9 is a dead duck.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Was the reference in the Minister's statement to the environment and green sites a token afterthought? Has he not already given prior private assurances to some Conservative Back Benchers that some of the roads will be in tunnels? How does that compare with the rejection and sabotaging of tunnelling in Labour areas such as Leyton, despite the fact that it was to be

1183
financed privately? Is there not a phrase for that approach —political corruption? Will the Minister now scrap the environmentally scarring M11 link road?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is working himself up to a fine but totally spurious state of anger. If he will examine the proposals as they affect the area that he assiduously represents, he will find that there are substantial public transport options designed to help. There is no question of the consultants, in considering the alternatives that they—not the Department—put forward, being told to look after one area at the expense of another. The consultants were asked to examine solutions for London, and their recommendations are the result.
Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Londoners will consider the proposals a realistic and balanced response to the growing pressure on London's transport network due to the capital's booming economy? Far from being a road-dominated solution, as suggested by Opposition Members, the exciting feature of the documents published today is the fresh ideas that they contain for new investment, after many decades, in British Rail and London Regional Transport.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous pressure on the Central, District and Piccadilly lines in west London, and on the wave of support for the proposals in the documents for a new tube line from Queen's Park to Ealing Broadway and from Shepherd's Bush, through Turnham Green, to Richmond?
Mr. Parkinson: One of the myths that Opposition Members do their best to promote is that the Government are hostile to public transport. They are not.
Last year saw the highest level of investment in British rail for 25 years, and this year's expenditure also represents a substantial increase. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that the documents contain several interesting and novel ideas for extending the Underground and for light transit systems in different parts of London.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Islington people will be extremely angry at the road-building plans envisaged in the consultative documents in respect of the east London assessment study? They will be angry that the threat of destruction still hangs over the Parkland walk and over part of the Holloway road. They will be angry also at the so-called major junction improvements envisaged for Highbury corner and for the junction of Hornsea road with Holloway road. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the last thing that the people of Islington want is more roads and traffic? Instead, they want more money invested in better public transport to reduce the level of commuter motoring and the number of heavy goods vehicles flowing through the borough.
Mr. Parkinson: On a point of detail, the Parkland walk proposals have been abandoned, so there is no threat to Parkland walk.
We welcome comments and consultation. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the documents, he will discover that the part of London that he represents is the subject of public transport as well as road proposals. Many people
1184
believe that it is time for the Government to grasp the nettle and deal with the problems around Archway and Holloway road. Many people also resent the fact that the planning process has been deliberately disrupted on a number of occasions to prevent important decisions from being taken.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome is his strong commitment to investment in London Underground—and in particular in my constituency, in respect of the proposal to undertake a proper study of the Chelsea—Hackney line, which would greatly improve the Underground service to south-west London.
I regret that the western environmental improvement route is still included in the assessment studies, but that proposal is made more acceptable by the inclusion of a proposed new river crossing. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is also vital that if the new road goes ahead there should be a strong and purposeful commitment on the part of the Department to encourage environmental improvements along its route, to minimise the effects of traffic noise, fumes and vibrations on the local residents?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, there are opposing points of view to his own in respect of the new river crossing. People on the Wandsworth side of the river are not so enthusiastic about the prospect—in fact, they are very unenthusiastic about it and think that the road should link up with Wandsworth bridge. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that the studies represent a combination of road and public transport, and that the two together can make a real contribution to solving the present problem.
Mr. Chris Smith: While welcoming the abandonment of some of the initial major road-building proposals in the original east London assessment study, I wonder whether the Secretary of State accepts that there remain proposals in his own consultation exercise that will possibly involve road widening, bigger roads and the creation of new roads in my constituency, with associated destruction of constituents' homes? Is not the fundamental flaw in the Secretary of State's statement his imposition of an absolute limit on the ability of public transport of itself to solve London's traffic problems? Does he accept that my constituents want a real investment of resources in public transport, not new or bigger roads destroying their homes?
Mr. Parkinson: We have retained road-building schemes only where we believe that the benefits exceed the costs—the costs being human as well as financial. We expect those proposals to be hotly contested, and we want to hear the public's view of them before arriving at a decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to let us have their views ahead of 28 February so that we can arrive at a sensible decision based on the views expressed.
There is no possibility of public transport solving the whole of London's traffic problems. Many of the journeys made in London are not from the periphery to the centre but across London, and it is not possible for London Transport to carry that traffic. The Government accept, and my statement recognises, that the majority of

1185
London's travellers will use public transport, but we must acknowledge that that job cannot be done without a better road system.
Mr. John Bowis: As three of the assessment studies converge on Battersea, may I, on behalf of its residents, give a triple welcome to my right hon. Friend's very sensible dismissal of the vast majority of the schemes that would have affected my constituents' houses? I note that his preference is for public transport backed up by sensible improvements to existing roads. Will he at least consider sympathetically the idea of disposing of the remaining road schemes, including the weir scheme, and putting them not into a filing cabinet from which they can be produced again, but into a dustbin from which they cannot? If the scheme is to go ahead at all, it should be put in a tunnel and left there.
My constituents greatly welcome the red routing scheme but look forward also to schemes for traffic calming, so that people can not only travel but co-exist with others who do.
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend has been an ardent advocate of red routes, along with two or three of my other colleagues. I hope that he is pleased that his advocacy has paid off.
As to the remaining road schemes, I realise that the proposal for cut and cover under Clapham common will provoke a substantial amount of comment. We look forward to seeing how the public react to those proposals —which would at the same time restore vast areas of the side of Clapham common to pedestrian ways. Therefore, those proposals could bring benefits as well as problems. We look forward to hearing the considered views of my hon. Friend and of others.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on grasping the problem so soon after coming to his present office. I hope that his announcement will dispel much of the misleading speculation about the routing of new roads, which was a cause for concern to many old people across the whole of London. I believe that the Department should produce a stategy for London, rather than a mark 2 GLC or something of the kind. I hope that while undertaking his consultations, my right hon. Friend will not forget that the Government must act to prevent the unco-ordinated digging of holes in the roads, which so often causes traffic jams.
Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, we have proposals for legislation which we hope to bring forward next year. That legislation will not only bring about better co-ordination between the utilities, but produce income from them for use of the lanes. We believe that the financial incentive for the job to be done promptly and quickly represents one of the best ways of removing the problem to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the M11 link road will considerably reduce traffic congestion in my constituency, although I share the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that more of it is not in tunnels?. Does my right hon. Friend realise that the building of this road has been delayed for 25 years—since I was in short trousers?
Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the level of compensation involved? Does he agree that if the level is
1186
too low it may represent a false economy, whereas a higher level will prompt my constituents to clamour for the development to be speeded up?
Mr. Parkinson: I am not sure that the Treasury would ever allow any Secretary of State to have so much money that people clamoured to be allowed to sell their houses to him. I recognise, however, that the building of the link road has been delayed for a long time, and I want the consultation process to be completed as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the appropriate plans.
Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his statement? Will he also accept that the arrival—after so many years—of an underground line to Streatham, and the reinforcement of the underground line to Balham, will come as the best Christmas present that my constituents could possibly have? They will be very grateful.
I shall wait to hear my constituents' views on the proposed relief road around St. Leonard's, and the proposals for Clapham at the junction of Cavendish road. I fear, however, that the Clapham scheme will not be acceptable, because the problem could be easily dealt with by means of a roundabout—as I have said time and again in the past two years.
I believe that the pedestrianisation of Streatham high road is a plus, but that the loss of houses is a minus. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to what is said by my constituents when I have their answer.
Mr. Parkinson: Of course I will. My hon. Friend has been very active in promoting his and his constituents' views on our proposals, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so during the consultation period. We look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I should make one thing clear. I am not giving anyone any Christmas presents. These are proposals, and they have some way to go before they become schemes—although I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that they constitute a major step in the right direction.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his eminently sensible approach to London's traffic problems. How soon does he expect the bulk of the red route schemes to be operative, and will the London boroughs now be able to keep the fines that will be levied?
Mr. Parkinson: As the House knows, my hon. Friend was the arch mover of the red route scheme, on which I congratulate him. It was the Adjournment debate that he initiated which first interested me in the subject.
We expect the trial stretch to be in action by next summer, for a period of about six months. The pace at which we can move after that will depend on the extent to which the boroughs co-operate, as they own about 80 of the 300 miles involved. We believe that they will be co-operative, and we shall start working with them tomorrow to make the scheme a reality. I cannot give my hon. Friend a more definite date, however.
Mr. Roger Sims: As one who has been particularly critical over the past 12 months of the way in which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues prolonged the uncertainty about the proposals, may I take this opportunity to thank him for the trouble to which he and his office have gone to ensure that all of us who will be

1187
affected have been supplied with the reports, as quickly as possible? Clearly they will require a good deal of digestion, and, more to the point, our constituents will want to digest them too. To remove any possible doubt, however, will my right hon. Friend confirm that option 5—the additional motorway south of the south circular road—is also a dead duck?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Getting the studies published, and doing the work necessary to eliminate proposals that were unacceptable, has been an enormous task for the Department and our officials have worked tremendous hours to get the information out as quickly as possible to enable us to proceed with consultation.
I would not wish to be specific, but I am pretty certain that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): It is.
Mr. Parkinson: I am told that the answer is yes.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's judicious approach to these difficult issues. May I ask him to bear in mind that, in residential areas of Greater London, it is better to concentrate on improving existing roads and enforcing existing traffic regulations? Is he aware that at any one time only 400 traffic wardens are available for the whole of Greater London? If we are to enforce the regulations, is it not time we rectified that omission?
Mr. Parkinson: One of the objectives of our proposals is to relieve traffic wardens of some of their present duties, and to allow the boroughs to perform them. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for not answering his earlier question. The boroughs will be able to keep the fees from parking meters that they install and monitor.
Our aim is to extend the duties of traffic wardens to give them more authority; they will be allowed to authorise removals and clamping. We believe that those added responsibilities will lead to more job satisfaction and hence —we hope—to better recruitment.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes): I thank my right hon. Friend for his careful and considered approach. May I also mention the refreshingly candid and helpful attitude of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)? It makes a nice change.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the road options are options, not proposals? I hope that he did not intend to say the opposite earlier. This bears out the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) that options are treated as proposals by the general public until a denial is issued. The term "option" causes a good many difficulties, and we must stress that these are not proposals as yet.
I welcome the extensions to the tube lines and light railway. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to put as many as possible of the lines underground, especially in environmentally sensitive areas? May I also point out that any widening of the south circular road on the scale that
1188
may have been envisaged would be entirely unacceptable to my constituents, as it would take place right in the middle of my constituency?
My constituents would countenance a tunnel from Wandsworth to Chiswick only if it were fully underground, and did not come up in one of the green open spaces in the centre of my constituency. They would, however, welcome some of the proposals, so long as all of the tunnel is underground and the south circular road is de-trunked, as well as major environmental benefits being observed.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend. If I used the word "proposal" I apologise—I meant "option". These are options which are being placed before the public, and we look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's comments.
I note what my hon. Friend said about public transport. I know his views about the possibility of the tunnel's emerging at Rocks lane and linking up with it, and I have taken that point into account. I am sure that it will be made to us again in the course of the consultations.
Mr. John Maples: We in Lewisham welcome the end of the uncertainty that has surrounded the proposal for so long. The recommended option, however, involves the destruction of some 300 houses in the borough, and a considerable increase in the volume of traffic. We shall, of course, want to study the proposals in detail, but such a move is unlikely to prove acceptable to people living along or near the route. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the process of public consultation will be genuine, and that he will take local views into account when making his final decisions?
Mr. Parkinson: I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance on that point. I recognise that his constituency has the substantial problem that many houses are threatened there, although the number has been limited substantially by our proposals. The consultation will be genuine and we shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend and his constituents say.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the anxiety expressed by my constituents in Dulwich, especially those who live along the south circular road by Dulwich common and of their fear that the volume of traffic and danger that exist at present would be increased if there were any road widening scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend to take note of the "do minimum" option, which would receive widespread support from my constituents and from myself.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The option that involves a tunnel under Dulwich common would have as a by-product the turning of part of what is now the south circular into a local road, thus relieving many residents of traffic, which is an enormous problem for them now. We shall listen to what my hon. Friend and his constituents say.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend consider the employment of community traffic wardens where the police and the existing traffic warden service cannot cope in keeping residential areas clear of cars in no-parking areas, which is the suggestion of one of my constituents? Will my right hon. Friend accept that although new measures to enforce proper parking will be welcomed, there is a tremendous shortage of parking

1189
places in my constituency, especially during the day when many people who come to work in the area park their cars in residential areas, thus making it impossible for residents to park anywhere near their own homes? Can we have some proposals for an increase in parking places?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The document proposes that the boroughs would take over the management of parking areas and would employ the wardens or contract out the service. They would do the job in the way that they chose. Part of the proposed duties of the new traffic director will be to promote a code of conduct for parking and we shall issue notes of guidance on parking provision. The new traffic director will, as part of his job, encourage the boroughs to adopt more uniform standards.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on rejecting the idea of driving a road down the Lea valley which would destroy Walthamstow marshes, an area of age-old marshland which is much loved by the people of Walthamstow. If the Chelsea-Hackney line is built with a branch for Chingford, I ask that Walthamstow marshes should not be used as an engineering depot or as a dumping ground for those works.
Mr. Parkinson: I note what my hon. Friend says and we shall take that into account when we consider the Chelsea-Hackney line.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Further to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), will the Secretary of State confirm that the options in the studies were tested against a fixed base and that in that base there was an assumption that the fares on public transport would increase by 46 per cent. in real terms by the year 2001, whereas motoring costs were assumed to increase by only 10 per cent. in real terms over the same period? Will he, therefore, retract his statement that road and rail were compared on an equal basis?
Is the Secretary of State aware that a recent Gallup survey of Londoners in five boroughs showed that 82 per cent. of respondents were in favour of a reduction in the use of cars in London because of their adverse effects on the environment? Will he, therefore, acknowledge that Londoners are likely to reject the road-building options in favour of public transport options and traffic restraint? Will he be prepared both to accept such a public judgment and to provide public money to support the public transport proposals?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the road-based options that are still recommended by his consultants have already been rejected by the London boroughs that would be affected, including the Tory-controlled borough of Wandsworth which recommends a 15 per cent. reduction of road traffic, a greater commitment to traffic-calming measures and a major investment in public transport?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and I shall write to her. I have been assured that the studies were conducted on what my officials told me this morning was a "comparable basis". I asked that specific question because it has been alleged that the assessment is always tilted in favour of roads and I wanted to be sure that the studies had been carried out on a comparable basis.
The Gallup survey detected a wish for a reduction in the number of cars by the electors in five boroughs. It was interesting that when a question was put about road pricing at the same time and when Londoners were asked whether they would be prepared to pay to see a reduction in the use of cars, the answer was a pretty firm no. People do not want cars, but they have no plans to get rid of their own. They want other people to stop using the roads.
I have already made it clear that all the proposals will have to earn their place in the public expenditure programme. We had a good outcome this year which is why we shall be spending £6 billion on public transport projects and £5·7 billion on the national road programme. We do not overestimate the attitude to roads and the part that roads may play in solving London's problems, but we do not underestimate the need to improve our road provision. We see an improvement in rail, underground, local transit systems, buses, which have not been mentioned today, and cars, with all of them playing their part in relieving London's congestion.

Consolidated Fund Bill
5.17 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 20 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Monday 18 December. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
Moreover, I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 21 December, up to 10 hon. Members may raise, with Ministers, subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a point of order first from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back to column 1005 in yesterday's Hansard? The House and the country are used to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) making wild statements and having them corrected by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not want to be accused this afternoon of being a stooge for him. However, I must draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the wild and unsubstantiated statements of the hon. Member for Dagenham. He stated that he took "the first opportunity" to notify me that he intended to raise a point of order yesterday.
That was a piece of paper placed on the Members' Board at 2.49 pm. I had left the House of Commons at 8.30 in the morning with my colleagues on the Select Committee on the Environment to visit a sewage works in Brighton and we were not able to return to the House until after 6 o'clock. The hon. Member for Dagenham took little, if any, opportunity to contact me. He did not ring my office and he showed no courtesy whatever. The hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We know what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said. Will the hon. Member for Langbaurgh please raise his point of order with me? What is it?
Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman said that I had withdrawn my question. You know, Mr. Speaker, because you have now checked, that I did not withdraw my question. I have the answer here, so I could not have withdrawn my question.
Further, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) also misled the House. I do not believe that he did it on purpose. He suggested that local authorities do not
"collect information on the basis of the colour or the ethnic origin of citizens."—[Official Report, 13 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 1006.]
If they did not do so, they would not be able to tell central Government how to allocate money for the rate support grant. They load it in favour of authorities with a large number of ethnic people. As my constituency does not do so, we lose millions of pounds as a consequence. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will now rule that my question was in order.
Mr. Speaker: I certainly will deal with the hon. Member's point of order. I promised yesterday that I would reflect further upon this matter. I remain of the view that the Table Office was correct in accepting the question tabled by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). As he has said, in the calculation of the present rate support grant and the forthcoming revenue support grant, among other things, account is taken of the social index based on people or households the heads of which are first-generation immigrants from the new Commonwealth or from Pakistan. I can confirm therefore that there was a correct basis for his question.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the information that we have received from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr.
1192
Holt), one thing is certain, and that is that yesterday he was down in the political gutter, but we did not know that he came out covered in sludge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] His question was cheap. It was offensive to many people.
Mr. Speaker: It was in order.
Mr. Skinner: I did not say it was not. Obviously some people like it. I cannot say that I do. [Interruption.] My point of order is about something entirely different. That was just in passing—en passant.
Earlier, during business questions, several Labour Members were not called. I am not talking about myself —I can carry it—but some of my hon. Friends were not able to be here. I can be here, and I can represent them as a shop steward or whatever. Those hon. Members were not called at business questions. I want to get one or two things straight. We—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Getting one or two things straight is taking time from an important debate. The trouble with acting as shop steward on behalf of hon. Members is that it takes time from other hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in two important debates. The hon. Member must put his question briefly to me, and if it is a matter of order for me I will endeavour to deal with it.
Mr. Skinner: Well, the point is that, invariably at business questions, if you decide to cut questions short because of a statement or for any other reason, the chances are that it will almost certainly be Labour people who are kept out. However, today there was a statement to follow, which took an hour. About 20 or 30 Tories and a few Labour people stood up. You adopted a different practice. You allowed every Tory Member to be called. When you get more Tory MPs standing up, there is a tendency for them to be called. When you get more Labour people standing up at business questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: Now that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had enough of this. The hon. Gentleman has been the chairman of a different body. He knows the obligation to be even-handed in the chair. The whole House knows that I am very reluctant to curtail business questions because I am well aware that it is the one opportunity in a week for hon. Members who may not previously have been called to put a question to the Leader of the House. However, I must have regard, as the hon. Gentleman in his other capacity must equally have regard, for other business before the House. Since on Wednesday there will be an opportunity on the Christmas Adjournment motion to raise these matters, I thought it fair today to have regard for other hon. Members who have indicated their wish to take part in the important fisheries debate and the debate on the other items on the Order Paper.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, I asked a question which, upon reflection, you decided was not in order. I fully accept that you have difficult decisions to take on questions that fall into that grey area. You and your predecessors have had to say to an hon. Member that his question might not be in order. Although the last word or two of my question might be construed by one or two hon.

1193
Members to be party political, the bulk of my question was directed to the Prime Minister to elicit her view on democracy gaining ground in eastern Europe. I should have thought that the country and the House would have wanted to hear her views on that development. I recognise that you have a duty to protect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had left it at that, he would have been perfectly in order, but he went on to ask for the Prime Minister's views about what was going on in the constituency of Birkenhead.
Mr. Brown: I never mentioned that word.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had an opportunity of looking at the Hansard report. The hon. Gentleman can do that tomorrow. I think that he will find that what I am saying is correct.
Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks: I refer to the point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is well known that you are fair and impartial in the way that you apply the rules of the House, but, just in case you make an error, you have someone who reminds you who has asked a question and when. Will you advise the House on whether you think that it is courteous for hon. Members on both sides who come in here, perhaps not as often as they should, ask a question, particularly during business questions, and disappear immediately afterwards? Do you agree that that is discourteous to the House and to you?
Mr. Speaker: I have absolutely no hesitation in agreeing with what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can inform the House that if, for example, any hon. Member raised the victimisation of and attack on the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) following his courageous stand against the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister would not be able to answer that question because it is not within her responsibility, but she would be able to take part in a debate about such victimisation?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter.

Brogdale Fruit Station
Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today of the closure of the Brogdale fruit station and the future of the national fruit collection."
This is the first possible moment to bring this matter to the House, as the Government's decision was announced by written answer at only 3.30 pm today. The future of the national fruit collection is a specific matter and it is of the utmost importance to the House and to the nation. Indeed, it is of international importance. The reason it is so important is that the fruit growing at Brogdale forms the largest collection of temperate fruits in the world and it is of international renown. There are more than 2,000 varieties of applies there, including varieties dating back to mediaeval and Roman times. His Royal Highness Prince Charles's recent recognition of the importance of this collection has reinforced everybody's determination that it should be retained and encouraged.
Today's decision by the Government to close Brogdale and to try to re-propagate at another site is bad and precipitate, and it contradicts assurances given in the House of Commons. On 6 April this year, the Leader of the House, answering at Prime Minister's Question Time —she was absent at the time—gave an assurance on the Floor of the House that, as the local Member, I would be included in the consultation process. My contacts with the Government on this matter have been a travesty of consultation. It adds to the urgent case that I am making for a debate but it gives me no pleasure to say that, after nearly 20 years in this House, I have never been treated as badly as I have on this issue, whether by Labour Ministers or Conservative Ministers.
Further evidence of why a debate is now urgent and appropriate is a letter dated 11 December, in reply to my letter dated 22 October, in which the Minister states that the Ministry was still in discussion with other interested parties, including my local authority, Swale borough council. Like many people, including experts, that council has expended a great amount of time and effort on producing proposals for a new national fruit centre, which would be locally funded.
However, all that has been swept aside because, instead of still being in discussion, at 3.30 this afternoon the Government announced their decision to embark on this foolish and costly exercise of moving the collection. That will take between five and eight years, involve some risk and unknown costs and appears to us to be a totally unnecessary and bad exercise—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used up his time.
Mr. Moate: My point is simply this, Mr. Speaker. It is not too late to stop this foolish decision if the House of Commons is given an opportunity for debate—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today of the closure of the Brogdale fruit station and the future of the national fruit collection".

1195
As the House knows, under Standing Order. No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that his application does not fall within the requirements of the order and I cannot submit his application to the House. However, he may have other opportunities for raising the matter next week.

BILL PRESENTED
  AVIATION AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL
  Mr. Secretary Parkinson, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Waddington, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, presented a Bill to give effect to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation which supplements the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation; to make further provision with respect to aviation security and civil aviation; to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf which supplements that Convention; to make other provision for the protection of ships and harbour areas against acts of violence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

European Community (Fisheries)
[Relevant document: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered explanatory memorandum of 13 December 1989 on the Fisheries Agreement between the European Community and Greenland.]
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his hon. Friends.
5.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 12th December 1989 and Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1990, its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1990, European Community Document No. 9888/89 on fishery guide prices, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1990 consistent with the requirement for conservation of the fishing stock.
I must first record the fact that the late arrival of these proposals has been most inconvenient for the House and Ministers. The House as a whole must record its dissatisfaction at the fact that once again, for the purposes of their negotiations, the Norwegians have pressed the arguments nearer and nearer to Christmas so that it is difficult for this House properly to consider these important matters. I am grateful to the authorities of the House, to the Select Committee on European Legislation and to spokesmen of all parties for their understanding, but I still believe that it is more difficult for us to have a proper debate because of the way in which the negotiations are carried on.
Indeed, it is made worse when we are faced with the conclusions of those negotiations with Norway. The Commission will find it extremely difficult to explain to Ministers how, at a time when we have reduced the total allowable catches offered to the fishermen of the Community below—as far as we can find out—the recommendations of the scientists, it has found it possible to do a deal with Norway which increases the proportion of the fish available to Norwegian fishermen.
Although it is difficult to second-guess people who have been carrying out negotiations, it is also difficult to see how the Commission can substantiate the claim that this is a proper outcome to the negotiations with Norway, although in these negotiations the Norwegians have considerable cards in their hands and start from a strong position. I do not under-estimate the negotiators' difficulties, but in trying to explain to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish fishermen that they will have to accept considerable reductions in their fishing opportunities, it will not be possible to explain why, at the same time, the Norwegians will have proportionately greater opportunities; although we know that the Norwegians have severe problems in the fisheries that they control in their northern waters.
We are discussing documents that are not complete, but which are based upon the best evidence that we have. I thank the House for its forbearance.
It is right that we should start by pointing to the fact that important communities in the United Kingdom

1197
depend upon fishing. For them, fishing is not only a matter of livelihood and support for the whole economy of their community: it is also of great emotional importance because that is why their community is there. One thing that makes this an issue on which many hon. Members of different parties can coalesce is our recognition that those communities, which are represented by hon. Members of all parties, have a particular call upon us. The real problem is that they are communities of people who hunt for a natural product and whose future depends upon its availability and their opportunity to catch. If such an industry finds that, from year to year, that availability falls, it is bound to be caused considerable worry about the future. None of us should under-estimate what that means.
It is perfectly possible to point to the fact that in most cases the income from those opportunities has increased over the past 10 years. There is no doubt that it has increased in both money and real terms. I should not wish anybody to think that I do not recognise that, apart from in the present year, in those terms the fishing industry has done better year on year. However, the psychology and the fear of a reducing opportunity are not cancelled out by the experience of receiving a higher price for the smaller amount of fish that can be caught.
None of us must under-estimate the position in those fishing communities, which has been made worse by the fact that, in 1989, for the first time for some years, the volume of catches, which has reduced by 11 per cent., has not been offset by an increase in prices, which have risen by only 9 per cent. in total. Therefore, to some extent we have a reversal of the continuing trends and an increase in the fear and concern in those communities.
Last year the fishing communities saw significant cuts in their North sea cod and haddock quotas. Now they face another year of cuts and are beginning to feel that the benefits promised are always for tomorrow, never for today. Therefore, we must consider what we can do in the context of the scientific advice with which we are presented.
We have a real problem here. This industry is not like any other, because its catching opportunities depend upon the fish that are available. What we do today will have enormous effects upon what we do tomorrow. One cannot distinguish between the demand for conservation at sea and the demand for terrestrial conservation. I should find it extremely difficult to demand that the Brazilians are restrained in their treatment of their rain forests, while insisting that our fishermen should have the right to fish as many fish as they like, irrespective of the effect on the stock —[Interruption.] The problems that we face—I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) agrees with me on this—are, first, that the statements by the scientists are extremely worrying this year. Secondly, in most stocks we do not seem to have benefited from the conservation measures that we have now had for the past eight years. Thirdly, the Commission is asking us to take even lower figures than those that are strictly necessary according to scientific judgments.
We must face three matters clearly. First, the position with regard to stocks is serious, particularly in the North sea. There is no doubt about that. Even those who would like to be as flexible as possible in interpreting the scientific advice must accept that fact. Therefore, I could not countenance proposing figures at the negotiations which are outwith the scientific advice. There is no other firm base on which to stand. If I offer anecdotal evidence from
1198
the experience of Scottish, Welsh, Irish or English fishermen, I shall only be countered by similar disadvantageous anecdotal evidence from the Dutch, Germans and Danes with whom we negotiate. We must have a serious agreed base for discussion. The best scientific advice is the only base upon which anyone concerned with conservation can stand.
Secondly, why is it that, despite all the conservation measures, there has been no upturn in stocks in many areas? As Minister responsible for fishing, I have expounded the reason for that for some years in fishing negotiations. While the Community accepted a total allowable catch in line with what the scientists suggest, Community fishermen illegally overfished as much again. Only recently have we begun to bring such overfishing under control. That was done by the international police force pioneered by Britain and supported by both Conservative and Opposition Members, who felt that it was a proper area of Community competence.
Overfishing does not prove that TACs and quotas have failed. Policing is only just beginning to overcome a willingness to cheat throughout the Community. We need to make sure not only that TACs and quotas work but that they are complemented by other conservation measures to make them more effective. It is self-evident that a TAC and quota system which ensures that large numbers of immature fish are cast out in order to meet the demands of the quota is not proper conservation. That is why I honour and recognise the suggestions put forward by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that we can encourage them to go further and to accept considerable changes.
We must face the fact that conservation measures that work mean significant changes in fishing techniques. They cannot be entirely comfortable, and hurt no one. If that was possible, we should have agreed such measures a long time ago. Hon. Members who travel around their constituencies telling fishermen that, if they accept a certain package of conservation measures, they need not worry, do considerable damage to the future of the fishing industry. Conservation is a tough thing to achieve, particularly in circumstances where stocks have fallen so low.
It is wrong to suggest that conservation measures remove the need for TACs and quotas. We need both. People who suggest otherwise are selling the next generation, indeed the fishermen of the next few years, down the drain for current political advantage. I hope that those concerned with the future of fishing will care for its future not just in this year and the next but in the next 10, 15 or 20 years.
Mr. Alex Salmond: If the emphasis on fisheries and conservation is to move towards technical measures—which some of us have supported for many years—is the Minister maintaining that TACs, which he says have failed during the past eight years, must be kept at the same low level, and not abolished? Is he saying that quotas must be held at an insupportably low level if new conservation policies are implemented?
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased with that intervention. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been keen on conservation measures for some years. If that is so, I am surprised that those conservation measures were not mentioned in the Scottish National party manifesto for the last election. I am pleased that he has corrected the

1199
impression that it gave. I have not only believed in them but fought for them year in, year out, without the support of many of the fishermen who are now prepared to ask for them.
When I ask for absolute straightness with fishermen, I mean that we must tell them that TACs cannot be increased merely because we hope that conservation measures will have effect. TACs can be increased only when the conservation measures will have had effect. Otherwise, we shall be in exactly the same position as when we had to stop all herring fishing, and nearly destroyed that industry. I shall not be the Minister who does that. I am determined to fight for fishermen and the future of fishing, which means being prepared now to say that conservation measures must march hand in hand with TACs and quotas. The moment that we see that the measures are working, we can increase TACs and improve quotas.
Mr. John Townend rose—
Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
Mr. Gummer: This is a short debate. I shall give way only twice more.
Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation on the east cost is disastrous? The quota system has failed and the time for prevarication is over. For several years, my fishermen have asked for considerably larger mesh sizes, a ban on industrial fishing, larger landing sizes and the closure of breeding and spawning grounds in a large part of the area. If that action is not taken in the next 12 months, the industry will die.
Mr. Gummer: I am sympathetic with much of what my hon. Friend says and has said in the past. I was about to announce not only that we have already put to the Commission a series of proposals to improve conservation, but that I have asked for a major package of proposals to be prepared for the next stage in pressing them for conservation. One of our problems is that we constantly lead in our demands for conservation measures. So far, we have not attracted sufficient support from some sections of the industry or, more importantly in terms of voting, from our colleagues in the European Community.
There is one piece of relatively good news to announce to the House today. The case that we have pursued in the European Court of Justice on Spanish quota hoppers appears to have been decided. I say that it appears to have been decided because I have received merely the report of a judgment rather than a full judgment. It gives grounds for cautious optimism. Although we failed in our contention that fishermen who claim part of the British quota should be resident in this country, we gained almost every other point. That will enable us to do a good deal more than some had feared about non-British fishermen who have their own quota in some other country taking fish on the British quota. That was unacceptable. At a time when TACs are as tight as they are, it is an affront to British fishermen if their small quota is partly taken by people who already have a quota which has been negotiated over many years and is meant to reflect their historic fishing rights. It does not mean that they can add to their quota by pinching the quota of others. That is why
1200
we have taken such a strong line. I am sorry that we have not won everything, but we have won a sufficient amount at least to make a significant effect on that.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: I must tell my hon. Friend that I should not give way. I said that I would give way once more, but I should reserve that for a Member of the official Opposition because then I shall have shared out interventions fairly well. That is a quota operation which I think is right.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I shall attend the Council on Sunday night and Monday morning and the argument will probably proceed through Monday, Tuesday and perhaps Wednesday. Clearly, major issues are involved.
I am pleased to announce that the Commission has recognised the need to retain the security which comes from the common fisheries policy. That was of crucial concern to British fishermen north and south of the border. Relative stability is a crucial issue for Britain. We fought hard and won a reasonable deal from the common fisheries policy, and we have accepted the way in which it shares out fish. But we cannot have some new mechanism for sharing out any other fish stocks which are found. That would always be to our disadvantage. Therefore, we welcome the Commission's intention to deal with the Greenland fish as we believe the common fisheries policy dictates—according to relative stability—thus ensuring that we have our fair and proper share of that fish.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister assure the House that, over the weekend and on Monday, he will resist Spanish demands for a share of the west coast of Scotland cod allocation, given that Spanish fishing firms have no history whatever of fishing in those waters?
Mr. Gummer: I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that I have no intention of allowing the present sharing system of the common fisheries policy to be changed. I shall oppose resolutely any suggestion, either now or at an interim date when a review is possible, to change the way in which we treat various parts of the waters of the Community. I can give the hon. Gentleman the further assurance that we have sought allies in that and believe ourselves to be well supported by our neighbours, who also feel that this hard-fought share should not be upset by those who have no historic claim on our waters and who have sought to take from us quota which is rightly ours and certainly not theirs.
I am determined to fight for the highest possible TACs consonant with scientific advice. I hope that the whole House will support me when I say that it would be wrong for a country—I say a country, not a Government—committed to conservation to ignore the scientific advice and demand more fish than is safe for next year and the year after. I am adamant that we shall not move from that scientific advice. We should seek to give ourselves as much fish as possible, consonant with that advice.
Therefore, I shall oppose strongly the Commission's proposals which give less fish than scientists have suggested it is possible for us to take. When we are squeezed as hard as we are, it is unacceptable to suggest that we should squeeze still further. Because we have a

1201
high proportion of many of these stocks for historic reasons and because of our negotiating successes, it means that, if our allocation is pushed below what the scientists demand, our suffering is proportionately greater.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: I promised not to give way again because it was necessary to use up as little time as possible. I have given way once to the Government side, once to the official Opposition and once to the non-official Opposition. I shall not be driven to divide blue whiting from whiting. There is a grey problem in that. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is absurd."] It is extremely difficult to give way in the circumstances, but if no hon. Member takes it as a precedent, within the scientific advice I give way.
Mr. Wallace: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. May I assure him that we on these Benches support what he has just said about not going beyond what scientific advice allows? Can he say whether he will seek compensatory increases in precautionary TACs not dependent on scientific advice to make up for the limited TACs for haddock and cod?
Mr. Gummer: That was a helpful and useful extension of the debate, and I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The answer is that that depends on the precautionary TACs. Where there is a relatively widespread view that a precautionary TAC is not unreasonable, it would be wrong to change it. Others seem to be shots in the dark without much basis, so they might be varied in either direction without any real knowledge.
Where it would be safe to do so, I shall seek the best possible deal. I am not sure whether I would want to do that in recompense for a tough TAC somewhere else. I would do so because I believed that we must provide the maximum possible fishing opportunity which is proper for a Government and an Opposition who are committed to conservation.
I have already said that the first main issue that we shall face is relative stability. It seems that the Commission is committed to that, but we shall have to fight hard to keep it. The second is the fight for TACs at the highest possible level consonant with our conservation aims. The third relates to the Hague preference. I shall seek to invoke the Hague preference because TACs have fallen so low and the quotas that depend on them will cause real hardship in several fishing communities. Hon. Members can rest assured that I shall fight for that as hard as possible, but they must know the arithmetic and that we have a limited number of friends on that. Nevertheless, I believe that we must fight and that it is right to do everything possible to gain that.
The next priority concerns western mackerel. We have a problem which it would be wrong to ignore. Our rightful insistence on relative stability means that we cannot easily explain why it is necessary to take into account the fact that shoals of fish move. Although the relative stability is based on lines drawn on a map of the sea, it may be that the lines related to movements of fish, which have since changed.
Therefore, it has always been our view that, by relative stability, we mean stability in the stocks as they were at the time. If they have moved to some extent, it is not unreasonable marginally to change the way in which those
1202
lines are drawn. That is why we put the western mackerel issue before the Council and why we successfully obtained some help last year. Whether we can obtain the same amount, or any, this time will depend on some tough negotiations.
We want to see major changes in the proposals put to us by the Commission. TACs and quotas are not enough, but we do not accept that we can do without them. Further conservation measures will be essential if we are to begin to see the day dawn in which the stocks begin to grow not just occasionally, but much more widely. There must also be major changes if the Commission's commitment to conservation is to be believed and it is not to be suspected of seeking to achieve other aims by the negotiations carried out.
Therefore, the House will wish me to be able to say to the Commission and my colleagues in the European Community during the discussions and debates of the next few days that the House recognises the difficulties placed on us by the shortage of fish, but demands that the maximum opportunities must be provided for fishermen of the Community, and therefore for the fishermen of these islands. We shall fight to do that and shall need the wholehearted support of the House if we are to have some chance of obtaining an answer which can be accepted by today's fishermen and protects the future livelihoods of tomorrow's fishermen.
6.1 pm
Dr. David Clark: I agree with much of what the Minister said. He seems to realise that Britain's fishing communities face a crisis. If the proposals are carried out they will cause immense hardship, mass unemployment and destroy many fishing communities. The purpose of this take note debate is for the Minister to listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. I am sure that he will get the message that he must go and fight for the fishing communities, fishermen and fishing generally. He has our support on that.
I also share the Minister's view—I think that I speak for the House—that it is most unsatisfactory, although not of his making, that the EC has not been able even to consult the individual legislatures about quota proposals until this late date. It will not be until the middle of next week—12 days before they become operative—that the Community's fishermen know the quota for the coming year. That is unsatisfactory and I hope the Government will take the opportunity to press for it to be changed. There are difficulties with the Norwegians, but we must fight to change that unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I suspect that most of this debate will centre on the North sea because the species most at threat live in that vicinity. But other seas around us are equally affected. The quota reductions of sole and whiting in the Irish sea will have a major effect on the western part of Britain. It is essential that we retain as high a proportion as possible of the Channel cod available, and I hope that the Minister will press for that.
We must turn our eyes from our near coasts to the far seas and to the lack of access to distant waters. The north Norway quota is down this year by 47 per cent.—75 per cent. less than it was two years ago. I am advised that this

1203
means that it is only viable for two of our 15 vessels available to work that sector. That is ridiculous and unacceptable.
I heard what the Minister said about Greenland. As he knows, under the 1983 agreement, the allocation for Greenland waters was based on historic fishing. It is important for the Minister to reinforce that point, on which we have allies in the EC. I hope that he will not give way one inch on those waters.
The main and most contentious issue is the North sea. The House knows that the proposals agreed between the Norwegians and the EC led to a massive reduction in quotas of about three of the principal stocks. Haddock is down by 39 per cent.—taking into account the swaps—cod is down by 24 per cent. and saithe by 30 per cent. Those figures need examination. I agree with the Minister that we should press for the highest sustainable scientific figures. The figures that I gave were reached in negotiations with the Norwegians. The European Commissioners were not effective in those negotiations and the results have been absolutely disastrous. For whatever reason—it is beyond me—the Commissioners do not appear to have played any of their bargaining cards. I hope that the Minister will press the Commission on that.
Why have we not raised the herring issue? We have a guarantee—a zonal attachment—of 25 per cent. Why have we not received that? Why has not the Commisson played the mackerel card? What about the north Norway access linked to the Greenland shrimp? If the Minister goes to Europe and argues these points, he will have the support of the House.
We are talking about uncharted waters, but we should seriously consider asking the Commission to go back to Norway and, even at this 11th hour, start renegotiating with it, even if that means that we operate temporarily on limited quotas on a monthly basis in the early new year. I hope that the Minister will take that on board because we have wasted all our bargaining chips in the negotiations.
There is also agreement that there is a problem with declining fish stock in the North sea. We may disagree about the figures, but we all agree that the scientists have discovered this problem. I took the trouble to familiarise myself with the way in which the scientists work and I was staggered by the quality and intensity of their research. I understand that they measured that 160,000 haddock were landed at Aberdeen alone last year. They have such figures going back to 1960. They cannot explain why there is such a variation of spawning stock, but it exists and this year it is particularly critical.
The scientists say that there is a problem with the declining fish stocks. I represent a fishing constituency and my fishermen have been telling me anecdotally for a couple of years that they cannot find fish. I noticed reports in the Sunday papers about Bridlington fishermen spending a full day at sea and returning with two cases of fish. We all agree that there is a problem and a need for radical reassessment.
I agree with much of what the Minister said about conservation and I am pleased that he said it because it widens our approach. In the past, many people in Europe have adopted what is commonly known as the one-club approach—we are familiar with it from the Government's handling of the economy. However, I shall try to be less
1204
contentious. We have relied too much on TACs and quotas. Of course, they are necessary but we need other measures, too.
I talk to fishermen in my constituency and I know from my experience that there is horrific pollution in the North sea. We have been dumping far too much industrial waste there and it is having an effect on the fish. I get complaints from my fishermen about fish that are obviously suffering from the effects of pollution, and we have many reports of fishermen on the east and south coasts suffering from dermatitis.
In a recent parliamentary answer to me the Minister gave what I thought was some reassurance. He will know that at the ministerial meeting held in London on 24 and 25 November the signatories to the Oslo convention agreed that they would phase out by 31 December 1989 the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea. However, they said that an exception would be
"inert materials of natural origin or other materials which can be shown in the competent international organisations to cause no harm in the marine environment".
In his answer the Minister said that he hoped that within two years he could phase out industrial waste licences and that we could stop dumping toxic industrial waste in the North sea. I hope that the Minister is quite specific about that and will stick to what he said. I see that he nods his assent. We must do all that we can to stop the dumping of any industrial waste except the most inert material in the North sea.
The other issue affecting the depletion of stocks is research. It is incumbent on us to maximise the use of a declining catch and we should aim to add value to our fishing industry when we can. We tend to speak about fishermen but we all know that they provide a livelihood for fish processors and many other people employed in associated industries. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister persists in his obsession about making massive cuts at Torry fishing research station in Aberdeen, which is probably the premier fishing research station in Europe. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will have second thoughts about that because it is crazy to cut the budget by one third and to axe 18 vital schemes. I visited that station, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), and I have heard about schemes which seek to maximise the use of fish and add to their value. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that such work is in the public interest.
Fishermen increasingly talk to me about conservation. The vice-president of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, Derek Heselton, lives in my constituency and is a good friend of mine. He told me at the weekend that his ambition is to see his son follow him into the industry. He recognises that if there are no fish there will be no future for his son and the next generation of fishermen. Many people are in that position and they recognise the problem. I compliment the fishermen in the north-east of England on their voluntary ban on twin rigs for prawn trawlers. That is a step in the right direction.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the voluntary conservation efforts of fishermen in the north-east of England. He will be aware that in managing and working to their quota specifically and carefully, they were in the end penalised because fishermen in other areas had gone

1205
beyond their allocation. That meant that fishermen in the north-east of England were denied the right to fish the quota that had been allocated to them.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that that matter has been brought to my attention. I do not wish to trespass into area disputes at this time because I know that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate.
I urge the Minister to look more closely at prawn fishing. Does he agree that there should be TACs for prawns? Such a step would be supported by fishermen in the west of Scotland and the north-east of England. Prawn fishermen face the danger of a knock-on effect; as fishermen are driven out of other grounds, they may enter prawn grounds.
Not only fishermen in the north-east of England are affected. We have had a report from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation containing a whole package of conservation measures to which the Department recently published its response. I hope that the Minister will press our case very hard when he addresses the Fisheries Council. I think that he hinted at that, and I hope that he will take encouragement from our support.
We have to take many radical measures on conservation and must face the prospect of bigger mesh sizes and extension pieces. We may even have to face the issue of discards. We talk about difficult negotiations with the Norwegians, but they do not have our problems with discards. Discards count against quotas. It may be unpalatable, but the Norwegians and the Canadians do it and we do it north of 62 deg. latitude. There is no reason why we should not consider that as part and parcel of conservation. We should think seriously about landing round cod and round haddock because landing them is not the best way to maximise the value of our fishing industry.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published a report about 10 years ago on the British fishery industry, it drew attention to the disruption of quotas by discards and said that we were not getting a true record. Ten years have gone by and that warning has not been heeded.
Dr. Clark: Once again the hon. Gentleman seems to have been ahead of his time. I am glad that he agrees with me on that matter. Another issue that we might have to face is industrial fishing.
My final point relates to a fundamental disagreement between the Opposition and the Government. I talked about a one-club approach, but perhaps that was not the best analogy. We might say that we are trying to solve the problem while firing on three cylinders when we should be firing on all four. For some reason the Minister refuses to countenance one of the best weapons in his armoury and I suspect that that is because it costs money. It is the weapon of decommissioning. The Minister and the House know that by 1992 we have to reduce our capacity by 22 per cent. Yet the industry grew by 16 per cent. last year. That is the enormity of our task in the next two years. The sooner the Minister comes to the House with proposals for a proper decommissioning scheme, the better. I understand the Minister's reluctance, because he was responsible for the last scheme, and had his knuckles rapped by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office for it. But a new scheme need not have the same weaknesses.
1206
I hope that the Minister will come to the House with such proposals, because the only way that we can reduce the number of vessels—it may have to be by up to 400 vessels—is by having a proper decommissioning scheme. I hope that when the scheme is introduced, because it will have to be introduced, payments will go to the employees working in the industry as well as to skippers and owners.
The facts are there, and we all understand the seriousness of the problem. The Minister is listening to the voice of the House, and I hope that he will hear the message that he has to fight for the British fishing industry, which is in a state of crisis. The industry knows it, and we know it. The time has come for us to take some bold steps. I suspect that the key is decommissioning. That is the one thing that the Minister has not argued for.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Now that we are well into the season of good will to all men and women, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to demonstrate that good will by making short speeches. Many hon. Members wish to be called in the debate.
6.21 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: As a preface to my remarks, I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the comments of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. D. Clark), about the timing of the publication of the draft proposals in relation to the Fisheries Council meeting and the commencement of the new fishing year. We face the same problem every year and, inevitably, it is raised in the House. Unfortunately, very little has been done about it in the past, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be more successful on this occasion. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I know that we have only just received the European Commission's draft proposals. That makes it difficult for us to undertake our function and responsibilities to the House.
I appreciate the fundamental problems facing United Kingdom Ministers. As my right hon. Friend said, fish stocks are declining, we have a surplus catch capacity and we have to deal with over-fishing in some areas. As a consequence, we have to have restraints if we are to maintain effective conservation measures and safeguard the viability of our fishing industry.
I wish to make three points about the effects of the draft proposals, if they are implemented, on the south-west of England because fishing is an important component of our regional economy. First, there is a proposal that the total allowable Channel cod catch should be reduced, and that will be reflected in the United Kingdom quota. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the background to the situation carefully, as many hon. Members believe that it is essential that we retain at least the figures that we had in 1989.
I am not trying to contradict the scientific advice that we have received, but the Commission has suggested that the cod TAC should be reduced to 21,500 tonnes. I hope that the Minister will defend our position robustly and ensure that the United Kingdom quota is upheld. Closer examination of the scientific evidence shows that it is variable and I hope that the Minister will argue in favour

1207
of the higher of the parameters rather than accept the Commission's proposals. The least that my right hon. Friend can do when he responds this evening is to give the House a commitment, at this preliminary stage, that when there is a variation in the scientific evidence we will argue for the higher parameter, although the Commission has suggested a lower figure.
We expect that there will be a reduction in the TACs in the Channel for plaice and sole. On paper they may not seem to be of major proportions, but over the years the figures have been constantly reduced, so the overall situation is becoming worse. I hope that there will not be a need for any alteration in the figures for the south-west's mackerel catch. We have enjoyed stability in that area in recent years, and I hope that that will continue.
My second point is that we need greater flexibility in the application of quotas, and I do not think that any other hon. Member has touched upon that this evening. In the south-west there was considerable evidence that the circumstances had changed compared with this time last year when the TACs and quotas were negotiated. It seems that a major renegotiation of TACs and quotas was required so that we could achieve a modest increase halfway through the last fishing year in the cod quota that the south-west is allowed, and there is ample scientific evidence and local knowledge to support that.
Due to the shortage of time, I shall not spell out the reasons why we should reconsider conservation measures as a total package, but it is no good singling out one or two specific aspects each year. We must consider increasing mesh sizes. The present situation is ludicrous, as many small fish are caught and subsequently killed. Small fish not only represent future fish stocks, and the viability of the industry, but the future livelihood of fishermen. I hope that the Minister will include that in the package of conservation measures that eventually emerges.
Time prevents me from mentioning in any detail any other equally significant subjects—for example, licensing smaller vessels and the need for fleet reductions. That requires a financially attractive and effective decommissioning scheme, as the hon. Member for South Shields suggested.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the fishing industry is of great importance to the regional economy of Devon and Cornwall. Looe is the principal fishing port in my constituency, and it now supports more than 50 fishing vessels, a significant increase since 1979. In the past two years alone, £1 million has been invested in landing facilities, introducing a fish market and a packaging scheme. Larger sums have been invested in our fishing vessels. I want that momentum to be maintained. We look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to safeguard our interests in Brussels during the forthcoming negotiations.
6.30 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I frequently pursue a slightly different tack from other hon. Members, and I do not apologise for doing so again today. The reason is that I have the pleasure to represent a constituency with special and distinctive problems.
There is not just one crisis in the fishing industry in the United Kingdom because there is not just one fishing
1208
industry. Fishing differs radically between England and Scotland, and within Scotland from east to west coast. There are many dimensions to the industry.
I wish to emphasise the special nature of the difficulties that confront fishermen in my constituency and on the west coast of Scotland as a whole. It is a fragile area. In social and economic terms, its communities live a fragile existence. Time does not permit me to dwell on that, but I hope that it is obvious to the House.
We are not over capacity in the Western Isles, at least as regards our main fishing effort, which is directed towards prawns. We do not have the same problems and constraints as other sectors of the Scottish industry have had for the past decade. Indeed, our fleet has diminished during the past decade. The reduction has been among larger boats.
Another example of the special nature of fishing in the Western Isles is our attitude to total allowable catches. There are many criticisms of TACs. They can be only one of the tools used for conservation and to achieve sustainable stocks. Many criticise the Government for underestimating the amount of fish in the sea, but we tend to fear that they have overestimated the amount in our area, particularly the amount of prawns in the Minch. Although we believe that there is a possibility that TACs are too high in the Minch area, I shall make no final judgment about that, but merely observe that it shows our different attitude. One fear is that so much scientific research has gone into the North sea, and latterly the sand-eel controversy, that not enough has gone into the west coast fisheries to discover the true stocks of prawns so that we might establish a sustainable yield.
I emphasise that we are dealing with a distinctive style of fishing but, despite our specialness, we are constantly caught up in the general crisis that affects the national fleet. For example, some years ago, the European Commission, recognising the fragility of the west coast area, decided to award it a higher percentage grant than was available in other parts of the United Kingdom for the construction of new fishing vessels. Hardly a penny of that theoretically high grant arrived because of overcapacity in other parts of the United Kingdom.
A fisherman in my constituency is going after crabs and lobsters and wants to build a new boat with Vivier tanks to be able better to service the markets. He presents no problem in terms of catching capacity but has been denied the funds that the EEC wants to give him because of overcapacity elsewhere.
There must be urgent and tough measures to reduce national capacity. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke of the need for a decommissioning scheme, he emphasised the need for a proper scheme. It must not miss the target. It must not vacuum up the small boats and small fleets and leave the large ones untouched.
There is a second way in which we are being caught up in the national crisis. We are suffering from increasing fishing pressure. Boats from the east coast, confronted with reduced quotas, come to the west coast to try to earn a living. We get caught up because of the pressure on prawns and white fish. We fear the drastic quota cuts that appear to have been agreed for cod and haddock on the east coast because we believe that one result will be a less favourable solution of the haddock quota on the west coast. We fear that boats from other areas will fish off the west coast, as they may fish against two quotas whereas we

1209
may fish against only one. Boats from the east coast could come over to the west, reduce the quota there, leaving nothing for local fishermen in the latter part of the year, and then return to the east, where we may not go, and finish their quota during the remainder of the year. That problem must be tackled. Such issues may seem rather detailed, but we must remember some of the special facets.
I realise that time is short, but I must say something about the amendment that I tabled. I understand why it was not selected, but in it I tried to convey what I have attempted to say in my speech—that we must recognise the very different nature of fishing fleets in different areas. Fish are obviously a finite resource. That is the crux of the problem. Whatever arrangement we arrive at, it obviously cannot he a laissez-faire free-for-all. There has to be controlled management. Because of my appreciation of the different types of fishing done in different areas, I believe that that management would be best organised at local level.
Some organisation of local management and local control is needed as we move into the 1990s and a new common fisheries regime. The fishermen whom I represent look to what has been achieved in the Shetland box, for example. They believe that something along those lines is needed round the Western Isles. That sort of approach will achieve the most benefit for the national interest, and that is the maximum sustainable yield of fish from the west coast area at the lowest cost to the Exchequer. Management regimes do not necessarily cost any money but they achieve the maximum benefit to the community in terms of jobs and downstream processing. That is why the fishermen in my constituency look to the Government to ensure the early introduction of some form of local managment scheme.
6.40 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I shall not take up the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) save to say that I agree that we must remember that the fishing industry comprises many local industries, many of which have special features. I represent two fishing fleets that have individual characteristics. Whitby and Scarborough both have long traditions. They have their own communities and they have a living to earn. By tradition they have handed down their boats and knowhow from father to son, from generation to generation. The situation this year is so serious that their livelihoods are endangered unless something can be done rapidly to restore security.
I recall the debates of 1983 which led to the House agreeing to the common fisheries policy. I remember the hopes that we all had for stability and prosperity in fishing as a result of that agreement. It was a good agreement. There were advantages to the United Kingdom and its fishermen, as there were to the fishermen of other member states. Alas and alack, things have not worked out as we hoped. What went wrong? I have argued ever since I became a Member of this place, often on the basis of arguments advanced by the fishermen in my constituency, that the scientists are wrong and that the fishermen know better. Scientists may be wrong occasionally, but not always. They could not have got it wrong every year since the agreement was made.
Quotas have been agreed upon and then ignored. Inspection systems have been inadequate to achieve their
1210
purpose. Looking back, I believe that the scientists were right on the whole and that the system has not been used properly. There has been a considerable breaking of quotas by many member states. None of us is perfect, but we have tried to adhere to the rules. Now that the quota system is being more efficiently policed and inspection has improved, we face the consequences of the earlier years of the agreement when it was so often and so heavily broken. Now there is a a lack of fish.
That brings me to the negotiations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must enter next week. We have been fortunate ever since the agreement was reached in 1983 to have been represented by Ministers—my right hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—who have respected the fishing industry and fought hard on its behalf. They have not always been as successful as we wished because others had to be considered in the negotiations, but we must have an agreement for the North sea. If not, the future will be disastrous for anyone who wishes to make a living from it.
I know that my right hon. Friend will do his level best at the meeting next week and that he will seek some important answers from the Commission. The Commission has produced quota figures lower than those presented to us by our scientific advisers. We are faced also with a late agreement with Norway. It is unfortunate that no reasons have been given. As others have asked, do we need to ratify the Norwegian agreement straight away? That is a good question. Should we not insist that the Commission, which has made such a rotten job of it so far, returns to Norway to engage in some more arguing to some purpose? If it chooses not to do so, let us hear from it why it came to such a poor agreement with Norway.
What should my right hon. Friend be seeking? I agree that he should be looking for the maximum that can be justified by scientific advice. Without using that advice we have no foundation on which to base our arguments. There will have to be strong reasons—these have certainly not been advanced so far by the Commission—why we should not accept scientific advice. We should seek every possible way of tightening quality observance and the policing of catches.
We must continue to improve our methods of conservation. The effect of the conservation measures of today does not become apparent until several years have passed. The measures are designed to benefit those who fish in the future. Therefore, we must press again for the various measures that have been urged by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including those that determine mesh sizes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, various matters have been urged strongly by representatives of fishing.
If national quotas are set for any species, they should not be allocated merely to the various regions of the United Kingdom. I hope that the individual regions will fish with fixed quotas and enforceable penalties. The fishermen who are represented by the hon. Member for Berwick-up-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have suffered because of the failure to operate such a policy. That must not be allowed to happen again.
The fishermen in my constituency are greatly concerned about the future as a result of the proposals being made by the Commission. But I have confidence that my right hon.

1211
Friend will do his level best to try to wrest more sense out of the Commission. I wish him good luck in his endeavours in the week ahead.
6.49 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move, to leave out from "prices" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"and calls upon the Government whilst paying proper regard to the need to conserve fishing stocks, to make every effort to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the British fishing industry in 1990, and to bring forward proposals both to supplement existing conservation measures and to facilitate the restructuring of the fishing fleet, and in particular, to help manage a reduction in capacity through the introduction of a decommissioning scheme."
The wide geographical contributions to the debate from south-east Cornwall, the Western Isles and Scarborough make it clear that a crisis is facing the British fishing industry. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right to remind us that that crisis affects different communities in different ways. There is clear unanimity that the Council of Ministers, which the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland will attend next week, is of crucial importance to the industry. Our amendment gives them every encouragement to try to achieve the best possible deal in terms of fishing opportunities for British fishermen, consistent with the necessary considerations of conservation.
Many of us thought the position bad enough last year, when the haddock total allowable catch was drastically reduced from 128,000 tonnes to 54,000 tonnes. Many of us warned of the dire consequences that could face the industry and the communities around our coast, which are so dependent on the fishing industry. We now face proposals to implement an even greater cut. Unless proper measures are introduced, many of our communities will be devastated.
The haddock total allowable catch is only one quarter of the 1988 TAC, with the cod TAC being just above half its 1988 level. Many of us believe that that is the result of the Commission's actions in recent weeks, not least in the negotiations with Norway. I share the view expressed by the Minister, the Opposition spokesman and other hon. Members that the proposals have been left until the last minute and that there has not been adequate time fully to consider them.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt. The Norwegians have certain advantages in negotiations, but, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, certain bargaining counters were also in the Commission's hands. None of us yet knows what in the world possessed Senor Marin to enter the negotiations with Norway at a very late stage and propose such ridiculously low TACs. It is difficult enough to try to persuade fishermen to accept TACs based on scientific advice; it is almost impossible —and no one would wish to try—to get them to accept TACs that have been put forward for some obscure negotiation purpose.
The other matter which is causing great irritation, even fury, is the increase in TACs for the industrial fisheries by-catch. Most fishermen fish for fish which end up on a consumer's plate, not in an industrial fishery. That aspect has compounded an already bad situation. We were pleased to hear the Minister say that when he goes to
1212
Brussels he will seek to activate the Hague preference. We welcome that assurance and encourage him in his negotiations to achieve that.
My hon. Friends and I who represent fishing constituencies obviously want the Government to secure the best possible deal for the industry. As all hon. Members have said, the figures on the table are not acceptable. However, we accept the important requirements of conservation. I well remember that when my hon. Friends and I met the Parliamentary Secretary last month he said graphically that he did not wish to be the Minister with responsibility for fisheries when the last haddock was taken out of the North sea. We have no desire to be the Opposition party that encouraged him to be so. That would not be a responsible position to take.
The scientists who recommend TACs are an easy target for criticism and there is some justification in the allegation that in recent years they must have got something wrong. Only two years ago, when they were setting the TAC for haddock for 1988, they recommended an increase. In today's circumstances, that recommendation appears incredible. It is worth noting that at the time the Scottish Fishermen's Federation simply did not believe it. Nevertheless, on the table are TACs for haddock and for cod which still fall short of what the scientists recommended. There is scope for an increase and I am sure that the Minister will try to obtain that. I understand that the Germans, the Danes and the Irish are not at all happy with the proposals. I hope that the Minister can put together that majority and obtain a far better deal.
I must make something clear to the Minister, but I do not do so in any hostile or partisan way. It is more a kindly word of warning. If he returns to the House next week and announces that he has successfully achieved a higher level of TAC, even that will not be a reason for rolling out the red carpet.
Mr. Gummer: No.
Mr. Wallace: I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that. The secretary of the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation said that the proposal was a compromise between a disaster and a catastrophe. What we seek, as reflected in our amendment, is a package of measures, not simply a better set of TACs.
One matter to which the Minister did not refer but which forms part of the Commission's proposals relates to the management of the haddock TAC. There is a specific proposal about fishing vessels having to cease fishing for 10 consecutive days per month if their catch had gone above a certain level in the past 18 months. There is another proposal for ceasing to fish other stocks when the total haddock TAC has been reached. That has met with considerable opposition within the fishing industry. Having been given a TAC, we should be left to manage it.
Mr. Gummer: I very much share the industry's concern about that proposal, which clearly seeks to interfere with the management of the TACs—or at least the quotas—within individual nations. We have enough trouble trying to manage our own quotas without other people telling us how to do it. I shall have to find better ways to manage the quotas for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). There is a real problem of over-fishing by one part of the country causing losses in another part. That must be carefully

1213
considered, but the position is not helped by other people trying to tell us how to do it. It is not an area in which I intend to follow the Commission.
Mr. Wallace: We welcome the Minister's reassurance on that matter.
I shall not dwell on another part of the package because the Minister responded satisfactorily to my earlier intervention on precautionary TACs. He gave an encouraging response on the need for a better package of conservation measures to supplement rather than substitute for TACs and quotas. Reference has been made to the proposals put forward by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which have been largely adopted by the Scottish Office. A number of specific measures have been mentioned, including the square mesh nets. An important measure is to try to make enforcement of conservation measures easier, with liability arising if a vessel is carrying rather than using illegal equipment. It is also important to recognise the willingness to accept the one-net rule. The Minister rightly stressed that the measures were tough. I am sure that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Northumbrian fishermen did not suggest them lightly or without a great deal of debate among their members. It is to the credit of the industry that it has proposed such measures.
The Minister said that he had pressed the Commission on a number of conservation proposals and that they would be the subject of further negotiation. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, will say what will be the likely timescale for any possible developments. It is widely recognised that we are dealing with an urgent situation. For it to continue into the distant future is unacceptable and a number of conservation measures should now come into play.
Hon. Members have expressed their concern about the number of discards. That is almost invariably mentioned at meetings with fishermen or those involved in the fishing industry. Despite the fact that the haddock TAC for this year has been fished out, many fishermen are still finding substantial volumes of haddock in their nets when fishing for other species.
We need measures other than the conservation measures already mentioned. The Minister singularly omitted to mention the need for decommissioning. If we have a problem, it is made even greater by having a large fleet, all the members of which are trying to get as much as they can within the legitimate bounds of the TACs.
If these measures go through, in 1990 we shall catch one quarter of the haddock allowed in 1988. Yet there has been no commensurate reduction in the capacity of the fleet. Time and again hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have called for a decommissioning scheme as an essential requirement.
The Minister should be grateful that the industry joins in such calls. Many Ministers would be only too pleased if they could stand at the Dispatch Box knowing that an industry for which capacity cuts had been announced was going along with those cuts and proposing ways in which they could he managed.
There will undoubtedly be some damaging effects, but we are trying to keep those to a minimum. I shall be interested to hear the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland on decommissioning when he replies. There has
1214
been some suggestion that he and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do not always see eye to eye.
As the hon. Member for South Shields said, I understand why the Minister, given his previous dangling with a decommissioning scheme, has so many reservations about it. But he cannot hide behind the Public Accounts Committee's report in trying to put off any further decommissioning scheme. The Public Accounts Committee, in its twenty-fourth report of April 1988, made it clear that it was criticising the way in which that scheme operated. In the summary of its recommendations and conclusions it says:
"For the future, we expect MAFF to determine more specific objectives for any grant schemes of this kind; and to consider fully the need for flexibility so as to ensure that they provide better value for money than was obtained from decommissioning grants."
It is clear from that that the Public Accounts Committee foresaw that at some future stage there might well be other decommissioning schemes but recommended ways in which they could be better administered than the previous one. That report cannot be used as an excuse for shying away from introducing a decommissioning scheme.
The Department has proposed such things as aggregate licensing. That has a role to play but it will only scratch the surface of what is needed. We would like to see the temporary lay-up scheme followed up. I accept that the benefits to be derived from that are small, but at a time like this anything is welcome.
What we cannot accept is that things are left hanging in the air and left to the free market. We are not dealing with a free market. When the Government and the EC can so dramatically and drastically determine the catching opportunity, the Government are clearly in the marketplace and there must be other ways in which they can help the industry to restructure its effort and keep a modern and efficient fleet which matches capacity more closely to fishing opportunities.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland can go to Brussels with every exhortation to get a good deal, but they must come back with a satisfactory outcome, not just on TACs, but on conservation and, in particular, a commitment to introduce measures to restructure the industry, particularly to manage a decline in the industry's capacity through decommissioning. It is on that that they will be judged.
7.4 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) does not appear to seek to divide the House, but rather to clarify matters and to bring extra views to the House, which all hon. Members will value. What is remarkable about fishing is that it is the one industry in Britain that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The eastern part of the Channel, with its substantial fishing ports of Hastings and Rye which I represent, may not be as hard hit as our friends in the northern and eastern fleets, but it should be clearly understood in Brussels that not only does the Minister go with our good will but he is speaking on behalf of all the fishermen round the coast who are unified in their condemnation of the haphazard way in which Brussels conducts its negotiations year after year.

1215
It is clear that Norway and Sweden have outmanoeuvred Brussels. It is as simple as that. They know that Brussels has a propensity for photo-finishes at the end of the year. Why, over the years, has not Brussels co-ordinated negotiations in such a way as to find out what trade-offs countries outside the EEC want rather than trying to do a deal on fishing?
I hope that the Minister will convey strongly our views on the Commission's ineptitude in the negotiating meeting next week. It is strange that the Commission cannot negotiate but it can produce hundreds of pages without coming to any conclusions that the House could be expected to back.
I hope that during negotiations my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the effect not only on fishermen but on the food processing and fish industries which depend on the landings round our coasts. I am anxious that the Government should be seen to be more forthcoming in supporting the British industry at a time of crisis.
Decommissioning has been mentioned, but I am particularly worried about the Government's strange reluctance to invest in research at a time when the industry is facing recognised difficulties. Why have they not put more effort into developing the possibilities of inshore sea fish farming solutions which already work well for some species?
My right hon. Friend will not mind if I draw his attention to the way in which the honourable fishermen of Hastings and Rye march in line with all the conservation measures that are proposed, only to hear the Government say that the offshore gravel beds, which are known to be the source of the young fish on which we rely for supplying you, Mr. Speaker, with your Dover sole and plaice, can be dug up.
Fishermen are respected by all in their communities, and there is no question but that, certainly along the Sussex coast, they back conservation. However, they expect more understanding and less nonsense from Brussels.
7.7 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not deal with the Norwegian agreement. I agree with everything that the Minister said on that. His criticisms of it were so strong that I do not know why he does not insist that it be renegotiated. It is a bad agreement and it needs renegotiation. If his criticism is as telling as that, why does he not ask for that to take place?
However, I cannot accept the Minister's call for a bipartisan approach to the issue. In the past 10 or 11 years we have had two staples of Government policy towards the fishing industry. There has effectively been a policy, first, to let market forces restructure the fishing industry and, secondly, to get a common fisheries policy and trust to that. It is those two staples of policy over the past 10 years that have produced the crisis that the industry is now facing in a state of shock, dismay and anger.
We are paying the price for years of inadequate policing of the common fisheries policy. Onshore authorities in competitor countries have turned a blind eye to malpractice, overfishing and failure to observe quotas in a way that has not happened in Britain, and now we are paying the price for the inadequacy of resources devoted to
1216
policing by this Government as much as any. We have seen also the consequences of years of high discards—of fish being caught and then chucked back dead. That in itself is a major threat to conservation. The result of all that is also seen in today's crisis. That situation cannot be made good by panic cuts in total allowable catches and in quotas of the type proposed.
What is required is a drastic new, conservation-based approach. I was dismayed to hear that officials in the Department do not think it appropriate to put conservation back into next week's negotiations, because conservation is the central issue. We must produce new measures for dealing with conservation, which would take the weight off quotas and TACs. The fishing industry shall not live by quotas and TACs alone, although unless there is some kind of supplement it may die by TACs and quotas alone.
The key supplement seems to me—and to many in the industry, judging by some of the speeches today—to be an increase in mesh sizes. I can speak on this subject with a perfectly clear conscience because Grimsby fishermen use a mesh size of 110 mm, compared with 90 mm in the Scottish fishing industry. The use of a larger mesh size is the proper way to help conservation, because it ensures that the young, immature fish escape.
Research indicates that a larger mesh size is the best way of aiding conservation. It accounts for the fact that discards in Grimsby are much lower, at about 4 per cent., than in the Scottish industry. I shall not venture to guess the percentage of its discards. It could be as much as 50 per cent. Certainly the figure is much higher than for Grimsby.
Why do the Government not demand universal adherence to a mesh size of 110mm? Unless that happens, Scottish fishing vessels deprived of opportunities will move to the grounds used by Grimsby fishermen, for example. In that situation, Grimsby's fishing industry, having adopted a mesh size of 110mm, will be decimated. It would also prove disastrous for conservation, and would give rise to a descending spiral of competitive catching. At this juncture, it is vital to move to bigger mesh sizes.
It is vital also to insist on shortening extension pieces. Again, Scotland uses 15m extension pieces whereas Grimsby fishermen use extension pieces of only 2m as we do south of the border. The shorter the extension piece, the better for conservation, and the more the number of small and immature fish that escape. It is also essential to deal with the problem of discards. Discards should be brought back and landed with the rest of the catch, and then recorded as part of the quota. That would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. The Minister should insist on that practice in the EEC, rather than give us a mealy-mouthed talk deploring discards but suggesting nothing to deal with them effectively. He should insist on discards being landed and properly policed. The discards are dead and are a threat to conservation, and unless they are properly dealt with there cannot be proper policing.
It is also essential that the Government spend more money on policing. The North sea is inadequately policed due to Government spending cuts and the Department's failure to live up to its responsibilities. As almost every hon. Member who spoke has said, there must also be a proper decommissioning scheme. I know that the Government got their fingers burnt with the last scheme, but it is wrong to blame the industry for the fact that the

1217
Department made such a mess of it. The industry should not be asked to pay the price for the incompetent administration of the last decommissioning scheme.
I would like to see such a scheme geared to taking out the largest and most efficient vessels, because they are responsible for creating conservation problems. Grimsby vessels, of which I am very proud, are good vessels from a conservation point of view, but in the main they are old. I would prefer to see Government support to help keep those vessels fishing for reduced catches rather than see them taken out of service. On that I disagree with the National Federaton of Fishermen's Organisations, which is based in Grimsby. Nevertheless, a decommissioning scheme must be established if catching capacity is to be kept in balance with conservation.
As to quotas and TACs, it is all very well the Minister saying that he will resist any reduction of the size that Commissioner Marin seems to have picked out of the hat in respect of the Norwegian negotiations, but the Minister must draw a balance between the industry's catching capacity, the desire for an orderly run-down, and scientific advice. It is not enough to use the scientific advice as a shield in defence of all criticisms. A balance must be achieved between the industry's viability, its managed run-down, and scientific advice. If that is not done, we shall witness a descending spiral of intense competition.
For Grimsby, cod quotas are the central issue. I may say in passing that I am unhappy at the behaviour of the Scottish fishing industry, which forced the haddock ban on us. The Scottish industry's irresponsible behaviour was justified and even defended by DAFS, which seems to do a better job of making deals for the Scottish fishing industry than MAFF does for the English industry. In support of that contention, I quote from the Eurofish report of 23 November:
"The UK's largest body, the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, and the North East Scottish FBO are considered to he chiefly to blame for forcing that closure"—of the haddock fisheries.
Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I may reassure the hon. Gentleman that north of the border Scottish fishermen take exactly the opposite view and feel that the deal done for English fishermen by myself and MAFF is better than that done by DAFS. That is part of those fishermen's view of other fishermen. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments about cuts in policing, I checked up on that aspect particularly because I should not want to mislead the House. There has been no cut in policing. In fact, we have forced an increase at a European level, and we have kept our own policing up. The hon. Gentleman must not talk about cuts when they have not taken place and will not take place.
Mr. Mitchell: The Minister exaggerates the case. Policing is inadequate. The demonstrable consequence of that is the situation in which we now find ourselves. The European effort, which the Minister praises himself for having secured, is totally inadequate. There must be a much more effective common policing system, rather than relying on shore authorities, which are often in collusion with their own country's fishing industry.
As to whether MAFF does a better job for the English industry than DAFS does for Scotland, my experience is that the Scots get a much better deal from DAFS. The industry's growth over the past few years certainly indicates that that is the case. If I were a fisherman, I
1218
would rather be defended by DAFS than by MAFF, which pays a great deal of attention to the demands of farmers but little to those of fishermen.
I return to the central issue of the cod quota. The Minister said that he would invoke the Hague preference. I hope that he will promise to resist any fall in the quota below the level at which the Hague preference must be invoked. I understand from a parliamentary answer of 13 November that the limit is 43,179 tonnes of cod. Why does not the Minister pledge himself to resist any reduction in the cod quota below that level so that the Hague preference will not have to be invoked, which would not benefit Grimsby, dependent though it is on fishing?
The scientific advice in respect of the saithe and coley quotas is somewhat doubtful. A cut is being recommended because there has been a certain use of paper fish in that particular fishery. All the evidence suggests that recruitment is increasing, and that we do not need a cut. A cut would affect the British industry disproportionately because, unlike the Community, it catches its saithe quota.
I hope that the Minister will resist the proposal by his colleague in the Department of Transport to end the Decca navigation system, which has involved huge investment in charts and personal information banks arid the scrapping of which would impose a considerable cost on an industry not at present equipped to bear such costs.
The real problem is the Government's attitude. The Minister keeps returning to his fishing responsibilities. He is, in a sense, a reconstituted fishing Minister—a kind of departmental crabstick. He tells us that market forces will decide the shape of the industry and that the common fisheries policy is working well, but both claims are manifestly wrong. We need firm action to resist the proposals, but we also need a Ministry willing to help the industry financially, as the hill farmers were helped in the disastrous rain-sodden summer of four or five years ago.
The fishing industry has been asked to take a huge cut in its catching capacity and its earning power, and it needs financial help, not just a decommissioning scheme that will work. The Government must live up to their responsibilities, as well as preaching the forces of dire necessity.
7.20 pm
Mr. David Harris: I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), especially his unfair attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that the overwhelming feeling of hon. Members on both sides of the House is delight at his return, as he has brought back to the Ministry his tremendous knowledge of the fishing industry and his determination to fight for it.
Sadly, only a few weeks ago a Cornish fishing boat—the Flamingo—was lost off my constituency, with the death of two Cornish fishermen. That is a tragic reminder of the risk that our fishermen take every time they go to sea, for conditions were pretty good that day: there were no storms or rough seas. Today's debate is largely preoccupied with the economic state of the industry, but we should also remember the human aspect.
A natural feature of the economic approach, however, is our habit of concentrating on the respects in which things are going badly. Although I do not wish to minimise the problems, I feel that we should remind ourselves from time to time of some of the success stories. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall,

1219
South-East (Mr. Hicks) mention how Looe, a port in his constituency, has been developed: we all rejoice in its success, and in the news that a market has been built there. Newlyn, a port in my constituency, now has a £20 million-a-year trade in fish, and in Devon, the neighbouring county, Brixham's trade amounts to £15 million a year. That is big business, and we should also consider the employment that such developments create.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East mentioned the increase in boats in Looe. That increase, which applies to many coastal areas, has added to the pressure on stocks; but the problem relates not only to the boats themselves but to their catching capacity. I may anticipate the remarks of the spokesman of a certain party north of the border when I express the hope that we all recognise that the tremendous increase in capacity is a major contributor to the present difficulties.
Coming as I do from the other end of the country, I appreciate the difficulties of Scottish and North sea fishermen—which they will continue to face, I suspect, in the years ahead. Perhaps the cuts with which we in the south-west are threatened are not so deep, but we must not be smug. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East about the need to maintain the Channel quota for cod, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind when he goes to Brussels next week.
An issue that has exercised the mind of every hon. Member—although no one except my right hon. Friend mentioned it this evening—is quota-hopping, the disgraceful practice whereby Spanish boats in particular have moved into our waters and literally stolen our quotas. I am sorry to note the absence of one or two of my colleagues who were present at 3 am a few weeks ago when we debated an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1984. I have a nasty suspicion—which I shall banish immediately from my mind—that they were more interested in bashing a European institution, in this case the European Court of Justice, than in showing an interest in the fishing industry.
My right hon. Friend was perhaps wise not to give way to me when he touched on the decision by the European Court. I warmly welcome that decision and know that it will also be welcomed in the south-west, which as the part of England nearest to Spain has borne the brunt of the pernicious practice of quota-hopping. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend—although presumably my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give the answer—what the ruling of the European Court will mean in practical terms. How many Spanish boats will be left on the register? At the time of the setback a few weeks ago it was said that, of a total of between 100 and 150 boats, perhaps a dozen might have to stay on the new register of fishing vessels. Whatever the figure, however, we welcome the court's decision: we seem to have won most of the case that we were making not only in the courts of this land, but in the European Court. If an end has been put to quota-hopping, it may be the best news that has come from today's debate.
Many other topics could be discussed, but I shal revert to the issue that has dominated the debate: the serious cuts in quotas for the North sea and Scotland. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right.
1220
When we consider the fishing industry, we naturally tend to do so from the constituency point of view and from the point of view of our own fishermen and ports. The whole industry is, in fact, related and what affects the Scottish and North sea fishermen can have a repercussive effect on fishermen in the west of Cornwall. If fishermen elsewhere are in difficulties and suffer a cut in fishing opportunities, as happened in the mackerel fishery, they will come down to the south-west of England and catch what we sometimes think of as "our" fish. The crisis in the North sea and Scotland is casting a long shadow which stretches right down to the south-west of England.
Uncertainty hangs over the whole industry. I do not for a moment blame Opposition Members for returning to the problem of how on earth we are going to restructure the fishing fleet. We all agree that there is overcapacity in the fleet. The problem that my right hon. and hon. Friends must address is how to resolve that overcapacity. I do not know whether my right hon. Friends will go down the route of a decommissioning scheme, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will throw some light on Government thinking tonight. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nodding his head in agreement and I await the winding-up speech with some eagerness.
If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can hold out some hope on that front, this debate will have been worth while. It will also have been worth while if we reinforce Ministers' determination, when they go to Brussels next week, to pursue the line that was set out at the beginning of the debate by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that that line is correct and that he will have the backing of the House in pursuing it next week in Brussels.
7.31 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: The House will understand my anxiety and that of my hon. Friends to speak in this debate in defence of the fishing industry. It is a cause that we inherit because of the constituencies that we represent. The Minister asked today for a consensus. I can tell him that unless the winding-up speech is substantially stronger than the opening speech, he will not receive support from my party. In no circumstances could my party—or, I suspect, many other hon. Members—subscribe to a policy which could bring about the ruination of our fishing industry.
Furthermore, we must consider the complacency, confusion and disarray of the Government's fishing policy in the past two years. First, there has been complacency. The Minister apologised for the circumstances of the debate and for the deluge of late information available to hon. Members. Perhaps he could do nothing about that —the circumstances may have been beyond his control —but it is most certainly in the Minister's control that, disgracefully, this is the only major parliamentary opportunity in the whole year for a wide-scale debate on the fortunes of this vital industry. It is remarkable that Members of the minority parties, including myself, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), have managed to force three debates on the fishing industry in the past few months but there has been no general debate on the fishing industry in Government time in the past year. One annual

1221
debate on the fishing industry is an insult to the importance of that industry and to the Scottish and United Kingdom economies.
Only last year, the Minister's predecessor made what was billed as a major speech in Europe on the common fisheries policy, which he said was bringing "stability and prosperity" to fishing communities. We see not stability and prosperity in our fishing communities but volatility and penury as the immediate prospect.
Secondly, there has been confusion in the Government's fisheries policy. That is best represented by the impasse on the decommissioning scheme. In the past six months, it has been well reported and understood in Scotland that there is a conflict between the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Scottish Office favoured a decommissioning scheme while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was ensuring that such a scheme would not be implemented. When I raised that suggestion in the press, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the noble Lord Sanderson, loyally wrote to me on 11 October and said that I had no basis for making such an allegation.
Unfortunately for the noble Lord, on that very day, under the heading, "Gummer sinks fishers' hopes", the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quoted in a Scottish newspaper as speaking at the Conservative conference in hostile terms about the decommissioning scheme. So unpopular was the Minister's opposition to the decommissioning scheme and so unpopular was his tendency to blame the industry for the problems that it faces, rather than to accept any policy responsibility, that even a journal such as the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times, which is not noted for its trenchant criticisms of Government policy, was moved to say on 22 October in a column by Allan Massie:
"The attempt made by John Selwyn Gummer, minister of agriculture, fisheries and food, to throw responsibility for the crisis back on the Scottish fishermen was a characteristically silly and shabby effort to evade Whitehall's responsibility."
I hope that in the winding-up speech tonight the Scottish Office view and not the view of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will prevail on decommissioning.
Thirdly, there has been disarray in the Government's fisheries policy over the past two years. For the past two years, there has been no licensing scheme, there has been a stalemate on decommissioning and at the heart of today's debate has been the fact that the Government's conservation policy is contradictory. Once again, the Minister seeks to hide behind scientific advice from the Commission. That is dangerous because scientific advice is not all on one side. Senor Marin himself, arguing for his version of the cod and haddock quotas, will also be able to claim that he is acting on scientific advice on the bottom range of scientific advice as opposed to the top range.
We know that over the past seven years the procedure of following scientific advice with TACs and then quotas which have not been overfished still has failed to bring about any recovery in the main fisheries stocks and especially the haddock stock. There is a simple reason for that when the quotas are forced down to low levels. As that happens, the number and weight of discards automatically rises. It is a major problem and was even recognised in the voluminous documentation that we received today on the negotiations between the Commission and Norway.
1222
The way forward for the fisheries lies in technical changes such as restrictions on fisheries gear and movement to the one-net rule.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I intervene only to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify this point. I have sympathy with many of his points, but I am not clear about his party's policy on the TACs for the coming year. Does he argue that we should disregard the scientific advice and try to force a higher level of TACs than is advocated by our own scientists, or is he prepared to live with that and to pin his hopes on the structural changes to which he now refers? That is important.
Mr. Salmond: It is indeed important, and I am coming to that point now. Our argument is that in fisheries policy the emphasis should move towards allowing the immature fish to escape alive and not discarding them dead in the North sea. The Minister made two points that puzzled me. First, he seemed to suggest that it was a policy which might work, and there is substantial scientific advice, especially from the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, that the policy would indeed work. The Minister of State, Scottish Office was confident in the Adjournment debate on 21 November that there would be
"real benefits in a relatively short time"—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 110.]
Secondly, the Minister seemed to doubt my credentials in arguing for such a policy. I do not know whether the Minister reads the report of Scottish Estimates debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. On 13 July 1989, I went into a new conservation policy in some detail.
If we are moving to a policy which stands a substantial chance of being successful, we must acknowledge the difficulties that it will create for the fishing industry and the sacrifices that it is accepting. It will be extremely difficult to attempt to impose such a policy—and it must be imposed—if we do so against the background of insupportably low quotas. That is why my party believes that the bottom line for quotas should be the Hague preference total of 60,000 tonnes for haddock and 43,000 tonnes for cod, which may be met within the negotiations. That should be the bottom line for quotas. Policy emphasis should move to new conservation measures.
Mr. Gummer: I ask the hon. Gentleman a direct question. Is he saying that before any of his conservation measures could take effect this year the British Government should seek quotas higher than those which scientists say are safe and thereby endanger the future of the fishing industry?
Mr. Salmond: I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that observance of TACs has not protected the status of the fishing industry. [Interruption.] I am coming to the Minister's question. Conservation measures should be discussed at the Fisheries Council meeting, and they should be implemented in the coming year. That matter should be debated in Brussels now, not the arid, sterile subject of TACs. As has been said, we do not even have the assurance that those will be the major issues to be discussed next week. We should discuss conservation measures next week and implement this year.
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman does not answer the direct question, he will face the accusation of dishonesty. He must answer the question. Does he recommend that, when I go to Brussels with my right hon.

1223
and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the first time in British history I should argue that we should ignore scientific advice and opt for a figure which scientists tell us would endanger the future of the fishing industry? Does he say that or does he not?
Mr. Salmond: I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the bottom line should be the quotas of 60,000 tonnes and 43,000 tonnes in the Hague preference. Of course that is above the top range of scientific advice, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, there is substantial evidence that scientific advice in the past seven years has been deeply flawed. The scientific advice in 1976 suggested a sharp increase in the haddock quota and has caused many problems. Was that also correct? I want a pledge from the Government that the focus of debate will move to conservation policies which might work and move away from TACs, which have failed in the past few years.
I make four points to the Government. First, we want the Marin proposals, as amended by the Commission, wiped off the table. Nor do we want a patch-up between the Commission proposals and scientific advice. It will not be acceptable to massage the figures up by a few thousand tonnes and claim victory after the Council's meetings next week.
I want an answer from the Minister and from the Secretary of State for Scotland: will the Luxembourg veto be used to block the settlement if it is not considered acceptable? Are the Government going to the EEC negotiations armed with the Luxembourg veto? The Prime Minister argues that the Luxembourg veto still exists within the Community for matters of vital national interest. From a Scottish perspective, there is no doubt that this is a matter of vital national interest. Will the Government go to the negotiations able and prepared to use that veto if the deal on the table is unsatisfactory? I do not want to unscramble the common fisheries policy, but if it comes to the crunch, I would rather unscramble the common fisheries policy than see it scramble the Scottish fishing industry.
Secondly, I should like an assurance that the new conservation agenda, which seems to have a good deal of all-party support, will feature in the Council's deliberations next week. Will it be debated? Will the Government make sure that other EEC countries acknowledge its force? Will there be rapid implementation of the conservation proposals? I should also like an assurance about industrial fishing. We are talking tonight about a total allowable catch for haddock in the North sea of about 32,000 tonnes for human consumption. In contrast, 1 million tonnes of pout and sand-eels have been taken by industrial fishing in the North sea over the past year. Will the Government acknowledge and explain the discrepancy between the huge tonnage for industrial fishing and the limited tonnage for human consumption? Can the Government explain why there is a 50,000 tonnes increase in the whiting by-catch for industrial fishing? Is that acceptable? When will we consider industrial fishing as a major cause of the industry's problems?
Thirdly, I am happy to say that the bottom line for the United Kingdom fisheries negotiation should be the Hague preference figures as agreed by the Council in 1976. I should like to see a wider application of the Hague
1224
preference. The Hague preference acknowledged that some areas of the Community—Ireland, northern Britain and, at that time, Greenland—had a special right to preference in the application of the common fisheries policy. That can be acknowledged in respect of quotas, so why can it not be acknowledged for decommissioning schemes and lay-up schemes, and why can it not help the processing sector through the FEOGA grant system? Is the Secretary of State for Scotland prepared to argue for the Hague preference across the range of fisheries policy?
Fourthly and finally, hon. Members hope and expect to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland say how capacity is to be reduced both temporarily and permanently. Will the Government apply access to the lay-up schemes that currently exist in Community regulation 4028/86? Will that be part of the Government's policy next year?
Mr. Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has given notice that this is his last point. He is perfectly properly pushing a constituency interest rather than the Scottish fishing industry as a whole. Does he have any sympathy with the points made on behalf of the west coast fishing industry, the interests of which have not historically been compatible with those of some of his own constituents? I should like clear guidance as to whether he supports my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) in saying that there should not be a knock-on effect from the troubles of fishermen in the North sea to those whose home waters are on the west coast, particularly in the Minch.
Mr. Salmond: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have never sought to divide and rule the Scottish fishing industry. I have never launched attacks on west coast fishermen, as he has consistently done on fishermen from the north-east of Scotland. In contrast to hon. Members who represent English fishing constituencies, I have made no attack on fishermen in Hull, Grimsby or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that, unless a satisfactory deal can be made for the North sea, there is bound to be a scramble for stocks not only on the west coast but around the United Kingdom generally. That is why, just for a change, my party would like the hon. Gentleman's support in defending the whole Scottish fishing industry and not just the interests that he wants to represent.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Salmond: I will not take any more information from the hon. Gentleman. I have already allowed him to intervene. My party represents the whole Scottish fishing industry. We are not launching an attack on any part of it.
We need an assurance that the fishing industry will be given the priority that it deserves. The most tangible assurance would be for the Minister to make it clear that, if no satisfactory deal is on offer next week, the United Kingdom veto will be available to block any deal that will cause the ruination of our fishing industry and fishing communities.
7.49 pm
Mr. Barry Field: The sense of unreality about our debate this evening is highlighted by the fact that one of the documents that we are considering deals with the price of tuna. When I was in the Bay of Biscay three years ago, the tuna ships there were laid up because

1225
tuna had been fished to such an extent that no stocks were left. It is a sign of the responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Minister if I say that over 60 per cent. of the total EEC fish stock in the EEC pond is found within the 200-mile limit around the United Kingdom.
I believe that I am correct in saying—perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm this—that no other member of the EEC has such a sophisticated inspectorate. I first tabled a question on this subject in November 1987 and did so again in March 1988. My right hon. Friend met fishermen in Portsmouth in May 1988 to discuss conservation. I welcome him back, not only to the Front Bench, but to fielding on fish.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the North sea would predominate in this debate. He illustrated my point for me because I do not wish to talk about distant water quotas or about the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Association. Although most people's perception is that all fishing takes place north of Watford or west of Portland Bill, literally hundreds of inshore fishermen earn their living from the North Foreland to Land's End.
My right hon. Friend said that he takes note of the scientific advice that he receives. I draw his attention to the report by Messrs Pawson and Pickett on bass fishing stocks in the Channel. They state in paragraph 38 that the bass regularly move out of the six-mile zone. In paragraph 39 they draw attention to the fact that in unseasonably warm weather the bass move north earlier and there is an increase in the influx of international bass. Paragraph 51 states:
"We now know that bass spend more time offshore as they grow older and become progressively less accessible to the British fishery".
In fact, the French regularly fish the adult spawning stock, which starts off Land's End and moves mid-Channel between January and May. The French pair fish, taking up to 40 tonnes at a time. We are not living in the real world if we believe that mummy bass says to daddy bass, "I suppose we'll swim up the English side of the Channel today to avoid all those naughty French fishermen who tend to overfish the stocks on that side of the Channel." My real fear is that when—I emphasise "when"—quotas are eventually introduced for bass fishing, which I believe will happen, they will be based on historic catches. My right hon. Friend has introduced nursery stocks that will restrict the amount of bass that we can take from the Channel.
When my right hon. Friend goes back to the EEC about such matters, I hope that he will negotiate a complete EEC ban on the taking of bass from January to May. We want a minimum fine of £1,000 per fish for each undersized fish taken. For second offences, we want the automatic confiscation of the boat and all its gear. Magistrates must be encouraged to fine the maximum penalty. This evening the Southern Seas Fisheries Committee visited the House and informed us that it had recently found a Solent oyster boat illegally fishing a catch of oysters worth £800, yet the maximum fine for that is £400.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) about the problems of aggregate dredging. If we are serious about conservation—I believe that we are—we must consider the effects of aggregate dredging on the fishing stock and the fish breeding grounds. I have written
1226
to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointing out that the total fees earned by the Crown Estates from aggregate dredging in the Solent waters last year was £100,000. I have been to see the Crown Estates Commissioners, who informed me that they wish to continue to license aggregate dredging in the Solent waters because they provide a sheltered water environment that allows aggregate dredging to continue in rough weather. In the words of local fishermen, that argument is all cockles and rock because one often sees aggregate dredgers in a flat calm in the Solent during August. For £100,000 in licences, we should ask our right hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to join us in requiring a ban on aggregate dredging in the Solent.
I join the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in asking my right hon. Friends to make representations about the phasing out of Decca—that is a most important point.
The Liberal Democrat amendment endeavours to show that this problem has been caused by the Government. Therein lies the dichotomy within that party—it can see no wrong with the European Community, whereas all h on. Members who represent Channel constituencies and who know of the difficulties that our inshore fishermen face know that the true problem is the French, who are not playing the game and who catch bass of a different size.
We wish my right hon. Friend well as he goes to negotiate on our behalf. I hope that we shall have either a proper system of enforcement, especially in relation to the bass fisheries, or a complete ban and controlled areas.
7.56 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: I represent a constituency with a tremendous investment in the fishing industry. That investment includes not only catching, but processing and scientific work. Indeed, a great deal of the scientific evidence that has been discussed tonight: is gathered in my constituency at the marine laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. On behalf of the scientists involved, I took exception to some of the comments that have been made, especially those from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who said that the Government seemed to be hiding behind the scientific advice and suggested that the advice was not altogether accurate or could certainly be devalued.
I have taken the trouble today to try to find out exactly what is involved in gathering that scientific advice and making it available to the European Commission. I discovered that 165,000 fish were measured at commercial landing points, but that the 20,000 fish that were to be discarded were measured on board ship. On top of that, there were over 450 trawls from the marine laboratory's own vessels and from other international vessels with an interest in the North sea.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. The problem with the scientific advice is that various factors affecting the industry mean that even if the stock assessment is correct, low quotas—because of discards—cannot solve the problems of the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, although TACs have followed scientific advice over the past seven years and there has been no overfishing, the stocks have

1227
continued to decline? He will have noted my glowing reference to the marine laboratory in connection with its research into the new conservation measures.
Mr. Doran: What I acknowledge is that the hon. Gentleman made a glowing reference to the marine laboratory, but then sought to devalue the evidence and refused properly to answer the question put to him. He tried to hide behind a smokescreen when pressed on whether his party would follow that scientific advice and ask the Government to follow it.
It is important to recognise that that work has been going on since 1960 and that it has produced detailed and precise figures—as precise as resources will allow.
My constituency also contains the Torry research laboratory. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) reported, there has been a considerable cut in that laboratory's facilities which has taken away its opportunity to give assistance and advice to the fish-catching industries.
Mr. David Porter rose—
Mr. Doran: I shall not give way because we are short of time. It is regrettable that that cut has been made at a time when the industry is clearly in crisis.
In the north-east of Scotland 4,000 people are employed in the fish processing industry, many in my constituency. Again, I checked on the consequences of the reported catches. I was told that in Aberdeen there are 500 expert haddock filleters. Filleting is an art form in my constituency. That is the number of people employed to meet this year's quotas. Next year's quota will reduce the number of jobs to 120, and there will be a knock-on effect on every other aspect of processing. A quarter of the jobs will be left when the quota comes into effect.
There are serious anxieties in the processing industry. I join the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) in pleading with Ministers—if, as they should, they consider a decommissioning scheme for the catching side —to consider assistance for the processing side of the industry. Processing is in a state of flux, not only because of the reduction in catches that it has to process but because it is making itself ready for the implementation of EEC regulations on food handling, which will have a profound impact. The industry is vulnerable but crucial and it should not be ignored.
The position of the processing industry is not simply a local interest. Almost all the fish that ends up in British supermarkets, or at least a substantial proportion of it, is processed in my constituency. My plea is not simply a constituency matter but one in which everyone who eats fish has an interest.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised the veto of the Hague preference. It is difficult to understand the Hague preference because it is hard to find written evidence. I understand that it was agreed under the Hague preference that, for example, the United Kingdom quota would be 60,000 tonnes of haddock from the North sea. Last year, the former Secretary of State invoked the preference as part of the negotiations and achieved a compromise between what the EEC Commissioners wanted and what the Hague preference said. I do not know
1228
whether the same attitude will be taken this time, but the figure of 60,000 tonnes exceeds the scientific recommendations.
I should be interested to know what the Hague preference said. I want to know what it involves. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider publishing the annexes to it, which none of us has seen. It is not good enough for information to filter out in bits and pieces during debates. We need to know precisely the basis on which the Government negotiate.
The Scottish press has responded to Scottish National party press releases about the veto or, more accurately, the Luxembourg compromise. Again, there is some uncertainty about the status of that compromise. I paid close attention to what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said. To quote him as closely as possible, he said that the SNP would not subscribe to a policy that would lead to the destruction of the fishing industry. He went on to call for the veto. I do not wish to put the Minister on the spot. The Government need to go into the negotiations with the strongest possible hand, so I do not expect them to declare their hand publicly in the House. I should like the Minister to confirm that there is a veto. If the veto is implemented or invoked, there will be several consequences. Will there be a free-for-all in the North sea?
An essential part of the negotiations will be an agreement with Norway. If the Council of Ministers cannot reach an agreement with Norway, will our fishermen be denied access to the Norwegian sector? Will they be allowed to catch as much as they like in our own sector, to which they have access? Will there be a complete freeze on catching in our sector? That seems a logical outcome. If the entire common fisheries policy operates on the basis of agreed annual quotas and an agreement is not reached, no catching will be allowed. From 1 January, will fishing vessels from my constituency and those of other hon. Members be prevented from operating? If the Luxembourg compromise is invoked, will the Commission be entitled to impose quotas that are far worse than the present ones? We need an interim settlement until agreement is reached. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point.
If any of the options mentioned were realised, the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would be simply laughable. The SNP's call for a veto would cause serious harm to our fishermen.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Doran: No. The hon. Gentleman took far more time than any other hon. Member who has spoken.
An imposed quota would cause more harm to the Scottish fishing industry and could lead to its destruction, which the hon. Gentleman said the SNP would not be part of. That is an important point.
It is important to recognise a further political point, and I make no apology for making it. Earlier this week, Scottish Members and other hon. Members interested in the steel industry tried to put together an all-party approach to persuade British Steel to take steps to help the Scottish steel industry, particularly in view of the problems at Ravenscraig and Clydesdale. The SNP decided to boycott that meeting. It decided that it wanted to go it alone. As always, it was looking for an easy headline, just as it did by calling for a veto.

1229
Last night, I attended a meeting called by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food presided over by him and attended by all Conservative Members with a constituency interest in fishing. The SNP, one of whose members has a vital constituency interest in fishing—a boat-building industry—attended that meeting. Its representatives did not walk out because Tory Members were involved. Their attitude is hypocritical and their approach is that of easy headlines. The SNP's remedy for the fishing industry would cause great damage to fishing and the House should reject it.
8.7 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to have the chance to make a few remarks towards the end of this short debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister has dealt effectively with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that he wishes to increase quotas above the scientifically acceptable limits already laid down while at the same time calling for conservation. We have to stay within the scientific limits for at least the next year. Alongside quotas I sincerely hope that we can carry out at least some of the conservation measures suggested by various hon. Members today.
I represent the port of Fleetwood on the west coast of England, which has suffered greatly for many years as a result of the reduction in the British fishing industry. It has not enjoyed the recent prosperity north of the border. Nevertheless, the fishermen in my port recognise the need to rely on scientific evidence to decide the levels of fish catches. If a port which has suffered as much as mine has in the past can see that need, I hope that others, particularly those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, can also recognise it.
I fully support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the knock-on effect. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of what went on in the past, we saw the fish stocks off the west coast of Scotland and England being fished by people coming from the North sea.
It is important to look closely at how we shall achieve stability in our fishing industry. If possible, we must ensure that year on year we do not have continual reductions or increases in the amount of fish that our fishermen are allowed to catch. The long-term viability of our industry depends on stability. We need to do all that we can to refine and increase the accuracy of the scientific evidence on which our fish quotas are based. That is the main way forward.
In addition, we need conservation measures. In particular, will my right hon. Friend the Minister emphasise that we on the western side of England at least believe that industrial fishing should not have the priority that some member states want to give it? As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it cuts across the right policy, which is to increase the amount of fish caught for human consumption.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister well when he goes to Brussels. I am certain that he will fight our case as strongly as possible, and I sincerely hope that he wilt return with a reasonable deal for all our fishermen throughout the British Isles.
8.11 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: We have had several knowledgeable speeches, and there can be no doubt about the anxiety expressed from all sides and every sector of the industry. It is common ground between us that the industry is not all of a piece and that many interests are involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was right to mention the processing side. Inevitably, this evening the spotlight has been on the catching side of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made an important point about the pressure on the prawn fisheries in the Minch and the dangers of a knock-on effect. I have sympathy with the feeling that those particular grounds should be seen as a precious stock area and that consideration should be given to limiting the size and capacity of the fleet operating there.
We have concentrated, understandably, on the North sea. That is justified by the figures, the announcements from Brussels and the evidence of a cruel pressure which will inevitably grow within the industry over the next year or two. I share the doubts about the present operation of TACs. I accept entirely that there is justified criticism of the deal done with the Norwegians. I take the Minister's point that there is room to get something better, even within the present limits of scientific advice. Figures abound. It seems that scientific advice puts the figure for haddock at about 50,000 tonnes and the present TAC at about 43,000 tonnes. The gap for cod is between 113,000 tonnes and 97,000 tonnes for the EEC as a whole.
I am running rather quickly through the matters on which I can agree with the Government. I was pleased to hear the assurance on article 10, which is that, once quotas are exhausted, automatically other species cannot be fished. I was also pleased with footnote 51, which will enforce tie-up provisions of so many days a month on the fleet. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not noted for robust language, but his remark that this was not an area in which he could follow the Commission was a little perjinct. I should have liked something a little more encouraging from him in terms of going into battle.
I shall read carefully what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said. We cannot have a debate on it now, but I am not clear about the SNP position. I am not clear whether he is prepared to live with the logic of what he said—perhaps that is a fairer way of putting it. He seemed to advocate going well beyond what the scientific evidence suggests would be safe.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry. We can conduct this in another way. I shall just make my point.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to say that TACs had not been as effective as he would have liked. He drew from that the message that TACs could safely be ignored, as could scientific evidence. A rather more prudent man would have said that there were great difficulties with the TACs, that we must see how we can make them effective and ensure that they have the desired effect, and then gone on legitimately to talk about restructuring the fleet.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: No. The hon. Gentleman has been up and down like the proverbial yo-yo and he spoke for almost 20

1231
minutes, so he has had his quota. His TAC has been well and truly exceeded. [Interruption.] I can think of several scientific suggestions for the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not go into that. This is a serious debate and I take the hon. Gentleman's view seriously.
I do not intend in a speech that has only five minutes more to run to get into an academic and constitutional argument on the Luxembourg compromise. The hon. Gentleman is in the land of make-believe if he believes that the Luxembourg compromise could be effectively played on this occasion. He may have noted that there has been a slight local difficulty in European politics about monetary union, for example. Clearly, the Luxembourg compromise was not available. I accept that Ministers can be tough in the negotiations. Indeed, all Opposition Members expect that.
I have some sympathy with many of the other points made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The Minister told us in trenchant terms that TACs and quotas were not enough. That is right. There is the problem of the discards, the whiting by-catch, industrial fishing and the increase in the tonnages there, to which several hon. Members referred. The Minister, having declared his own discontent with TACs and quotas as a solution in themselves, said that conservation was essential. He referred to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's views, which I endorse, and to the suggestion that there might be a one-net size on a boat. He suggested that possession of gear rather than proof of use might be an offence in itself and that enforcement rules should be changed. I hope that all that will be looked at sympathetically, as well as some of the other suggestions.
The trouble is that even that, together with TACs and quotas, is not enough. The Minister's speech was strangely incomplete. He tiptoed away from the whole question of a decommissioning policy. Attempts have been made to do something about capacity. In November, the Scottish Office produced a scheme for the consolidation of licences. If boats were to be replaced by new tonnage, the licence would be for only 90 per cent. of the total of the older boats going out of commission. That is a small step towards alleviating the problem.
The multi-annual guidance programme presents substantial reductions by 1992. We know that the market has not been working in that area. Despite all the industry's worries, capacity has been increasing while all these storm clouds have been gathering.
We must consider the decommissioning scheme seriously. I understand that there is already one in operation in Brussels. I do not know to what extent other nations use it. I think that the Danes and the Dutch have used it to some extent. As one person said to me today on the phone from Brussels, we are not "plugged in". I do not care whether we are plugged in. I am not even prepared to judge whether it is the right scheme.
Some scheme seems to be essential. If we do not have one, we shall have an illogical and painful process of change, as distinct from the planned, sensible and to some extent cushioned one which the industry deserves and which would come if we were to combine the attack, including the decommissioning scheme, on a wider scale than the Minister apparently envisages.
1232
This is important. I do not make accusations of disunity in the Government, because I am not in a position to do so. However, I hope that there is at least a genuine debate taking place and I hope that the Secretary of State can say that the Government have not closed their mind to this possibility.
Debates in this Chamber are often heated. I accept that there are important interests—not merely constituency interests but much wider ones—at risk when we consider the future of the fishing industry. That is certainly true for Scotland. I do not want dramatics or bombast during this debate, but we are entitled to ask for determination when our negotitators go to Brussels on Monday. They should be determined to try to get the best possible deal to close the gap which certainly exists between the present TACs and the scientifically allowable levels. We also want a seriousness of intent and a willingness to move on conservation, and we want the Government to look actively and encouragingly at an adequate and flexible decommissioning scheme.
I entirely accept what was said at the start of the debate. The present crisis will generate pain for the industry, but it can be handled more sensibly than it has been in the past. The Government have a heavy responsibility to ensure that we make a much better fist of it over the next year or two.
8.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am happy to reply to this debate. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) I should point out that I reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, not for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should emphasise that over the years both Departments have done extremely well in the interests of British fishermen and no doubt they will continue to do so.
A great number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken in the debate. That illustrates the fact that so many parts of the country have an interest in fishing policy. However, even in the debate, the views of those from important parts of the United Kingdom such as East Anglia, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) was hoping to speak, have not been heard. It also illustrates, as the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) emphasised, the diversity of the fishing industry in Scotland, England and throughout the United Kingdom. It also emphasises that, at present, there is remarkable unanimity on the unacceptable nature of the European Commission's current proposals which have arisen particularly over the past week or so.
We thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) who has helped us in the tasks that we face in Brussels by emphasising that Her Majesty's Opposition share many of the beliefs of Her Majesty's Government. He has shown that we believe the proposals to be, in certain vital respects, unattractive and indefensible.
It was extraordinary that, without giving any good reason, the Commission has departed from the scientific advice that it received and put forward proposals—particularly relating to haddock and cod quotas in which

1233
there will inevitably be major reductions—which were substantially less than the scientific evidence would have permitted.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister emphasised, it is difficult to see the justification in such difficult and unfortunate circumstances for the Commission putting forward proposals to Norway that would enhance its quota while the rest of the Community, for which the Commission is responsible, was expected to accept a severe reduction.
Quota management has also been mentioned. It is crucial to ensure that the Commission realises that its competence does not extend to the way in which national quotas are administered. That is, and must continue to be, a matter for national Governments.
In the short time available, I shall respond to some specific points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) asked for an assurance that the Government will always press for scientifically based total allowable catches, even when these are higher than those proposed by the Commission. I am happy to give such an assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said that the Commission must produce convincing reasons for not accepting scientific advice. As yet, no such reasons have been forthcoming and we are entitled to expect them at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to the European Court's judgment and asked about its implications with regard to quota hopping. We have not yet had an opportunity to examine the text of the judgment, which was made only this morning. It appears that the court has found in favour of our basic proposition that there must be a substantial connection with the United Kingdom before vessels are entitled to benefit from our quota arrangements.
I share the astonishment of many hon. Members at the attitude of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). If I understood him correctly, he proposed that the United Kingdom's quota for haddock must be not less than 60,000 tonnes. The TAC for the Community must be substantially in excess of that, perhaps more than 70,000 tonnes, on the basis of the formula which he appears to identify. When we know that the scientists—not merely the Commission's scientists but our own scientists in the DAFS and the MAFF and elsewhere—agree that 50,000 is the largest safe figure consistent with the maintenance of stocks for the industry's future in Scotland and elsewhere in the Community, it becomes clear that the hon. Gentleman is behaving in a grossly irresponsible fashion.
Mr. Salmond: Does not the Secretary of State understand that if a new conservation policy is introduced, it should put a bottom line on the total allowable catch and the quota to avoid the perverse effects of low quotas, with fishermen flinging dead fish back into the North sea? Does he not appreciate that reasonably simple point?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that he is not speaking to a gullible audience in this House or when addressing the fishing industry. He knows perfectly well that conservation measures such as he suggests, even if they were desirable, could not be brought into effect in time to affect the quota for the next 12
1234
months. I shall not waste the time of the House by pointing out what should be obvious to the hon. Gentleman and is certainly obvious to the fishing industry.
A number of hon. Members asked me for my views and the Government's views on the decommissioning scheme. I remind the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that he asked me the same question on 15 November during Question Time. Then, I referred to the severe criticism of a decommissioning scheme that was in effect in this country some years ago and the report on that of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
In paragraph 6 of its report the Public Accounts Committee concluded:
"We consider that decommissioning grants, licences and construction grants represented a series of interventions that conflicted with and distracted from market forces with unintended and unfortunate consequences."
We also know that, due to the various Community financial arrangements on United Kingdom distributions, the costs of such a scheme when we had one meant that of the total cost of £17·5 million, the United Kingdom provided £15 million, despite the nominal 50 per cent. contribution by the Community. Those are serious and damaging criticisms which we must take into account.
We must also ask to what extent the decommissioning scheme would address the serious problems facing the fishing industry. It would channel money to some fishermen who wanted to get out of the industry and would be attractive to those individuals. However, would it reduce the amount of fishing effort? In its 1987 report, the National Audit Office questioned whether the removal of vessels under the earlier scheme did anything to relieve the difficulties of the fishing quotas that were most under pressure. It would be difficult to target a scheme properly, as it is difficult in such circumstances for the Government to intervene effectively and precisely in an industry with so many active participants.
Mr. Wallace rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I continue because I have only a couple of minutes left.
There are strong arguments against a new decommissioning scheme.
Mr. Wallace rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry. I have only a couple of minutes.
I shall comment briefly on the conservation points that have been made. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen who spoke strongly in favour of more effective conservation measures. The House is aware that the industry has moved in a constructive way towards recognising the need for conservation measures and, earlier this year, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put forward important proposals designed to improve the conservation of stocks. They have three ingredients—the prohibition of attachments to fishing gear which have the effect of constricting meshes and thus retaining juvenile fish in the net, the banning of the carriage of nets of more than one mesh size on any one fishing trip and greater emphasis on enforcement, and the prohibition of the carriage of potentially illegal gear.
I was asked about a likely time scale for the implementation of new conservation measures. The consultation period in our proposals ends very soon and

1235
we will be able to put the proposals to the Commission early in the new year. The pace of progress will then be in the hands of the Commission. We shall press the Commission hard for quick action. It is crucial that in putting forward these proposals we can point to the support that the industry has given to the need for enhanced conservation measures, and that enhances the prospect for early progress in that direction.
I endorse the comment by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that we must take into account the interests of the industry in all parts of the country, including Scotland. That is crucial.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he was looking for determination by the Government at the negotiations in Brussels. I assure him that such determination will be forthcoming. In putting forward our case not only to the Commission but to other Community countries, we will be strengthened by the strong support given by all hon. Members who pointed to the inadequacies in the current proposals and who emphasised the serious consequences for the British fishing industry if major improvements are not made. The House and the fishing industry can assume that we stand four square behind the need to give a fair deal to our industry. We intend to do that.
It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [8 December], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of them.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 119.

Division No. 20]

[8.30 pm

AYES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McFall, John

Battle, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Beith, A. J.

Maclennan, Robert

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Morley, Elliot

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dewar, Donald

Robertson, George

Dixon, Don

Rooker, Jeff

Doran, Frank

Salmond, Alex

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Skinner, Dennis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Spearing, Nigel

Gordon, Mildred

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

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Wareing, Robert N.

Haynes, Frank

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Henderson, Doug

Wilson, Brian

Home Robertson, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Johnston, Sir Russell

Mr. James Wallace and

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Macdonald, Calum A.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Bright, Graham

Amess, David

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

Amos, Alan

Buck, Sir Antony

Arbuthnot, James

Burns, Simon

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burt, Alistair

Atkinson, David

Butler, Chris

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Butterfill, John

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carttiss, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Boswell, Tim

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bowis, John

Cormack, Patrick

1236

Couchman, James

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Cran, James

Moate, Roger

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Monro, Sir Hector

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Day, Stephen

Neale, Gerrard

Dover, Den

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Durant, Tony

Norris, Steve

Emery, Sir Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Evennett, David

Page, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Paice, James

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Fookes, Dame Janet

Redwood, John

Forth, Eric

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Freeman, Roger

Rhodes James, Robert

French, Douglas

Riddick, Graham

Gale, Roger

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Gardiner, George

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Sackville, Hon Tom

Goodlad, Alastair

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gow, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Shelton, Sir William

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hague, William

Sims, Roger

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hannam, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Harris, David

Stern, Michael

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Stevens, Lewis

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hunter, Andrew

Sumberg, David

Irvine, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Jack, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Jessel, Toby

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Knowles, Michael

Thorne, Neil

Lawrence, Ivan

Walden, George

Lightbown, David

Watts, John

Lord, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

Maclean, David

Wiggin, Jerry

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Wilshire, David

Mans, Keith

Wood, Timothy

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Maude, Hon Francis

Tellers for the Noes:

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Miller, Sir Hal

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Mills, Iain

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 2.

Division No. 21]

[8.45 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Cran, James

Amess, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Amos, Alan

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arbuthnot, James

Day, Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dover, Den

Atkinson, David

Durant, Tony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Evennett, David

Bendall, Vivian

Fallon, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fishburn, John Dudley

Boswell, Tim

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bowis, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bright, Graham

Forth, Eric

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

Freeman, Roger

Buck, Sir Antony

French, Douglas

Burns, Simon

Gale, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Gardiner, George

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodlad, Alastair

Chapman, Sydney

Gow, Ian

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Couchman, James

Hague, William

1237

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rhodes James, Robert

Harris, David

Riddick, Graham

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hunter, Andrew

Shaw, David (Dover)

Irvine, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jack, Michael

Shelton, Sir William

Jessel, Toby

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sims, Roger

Knowles, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lawrence, Ivan

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lightbown, David

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maclean, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Sumberg, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Summerson, Hugo

Maude, Hon Francis

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller, Sir Hal

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thorne, Neil

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Walden, George

Moate, Roger

Watts, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Wells, Bowen

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Widdecombe, Ann

Neale, Gerrard

Wiggin, Jerry

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wilshire, David

Norris, Steve

Wood, Timothy

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Porter, David (Waveney)

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Redwood, John

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

NOES

Salmond, Alex

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 12th December 1989 and Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1990, its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 13th December 1989 on the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1990, European Community Document No. 9888/89 on fishery guide prices, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1990 consistent with the requirement for conservation of the fishing stock.

Orders of the Day

  Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Roger Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order now, but I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House to have your guidance on how this and succeeding debates, which are on a related matter, are to be conducted. I think that it would be in the interests of the House to hear hon. Members speak as infrequently as possible on the subject, but some might be tempted to speak on Second Reading and on the motions that are to follow it. I wonder whether it might be possible to learn whether you would be tolerant of hon. Members restricting themselves to just one speech in this debate, thereby saving the time and patience of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. While the subsequent motions are separate, they could be construed as being related. It might be sensible to see how we get on and for me to take account of the advice offered by the hon. Gentleman.
  8.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is part of a package of measures to promote greater competition and consumer choice in the supply of beer. It will give tenants of pubs the same protection as it gives to other business tenants under part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
  The Bill arises from a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer, which was published on 21 March of this year. It found that a complex monopoly existed in favour of the brewers with tied estates. This complex monopoly restricts competition at all levels by protecting brewers from competition in supplying their managed and tenanted estates because other brewers do not have access to them.
  On 10 July, the Government announced a series of measures to remedy the public interest detriments identified by the MMC. The Bill forms part of the Government's response to the MMC report. Other measures are being implemented through orders under the Fair Trading Act, 1973, which hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate later this evening.
  The starting point for considering this Bill is the MMC report and its recommendations. In its report, the MMC said:
  "tenants of on-licensed premises are not, under the present arrangements, able fully to act as independent businessmen. We therefore consider that it is essential that a tenant's interest in on-licensed premises should be legally protected."
  It recommended in consequence that the interests of all tenants of on-licensed premises should be brought within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. whether the premises were subject to a tie or not. The Bill is addressed to this recommendation.

  1239
  The MMC also outlined a number of further measures to increase tenants' security. They included, in respect of tenants of licensed premises, disapplying the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that allows parties to an agreement to agree to apply to the court to contract out of the Act, and a recommendation that the Director General of Fair Trading renegotiate the current Brewers Society's code of practice with all interested parties. The code would then be given some mandatory status.
  Following publication of the MMC's report, the Government recognised that, like any radical proposals, the MMC's recommendations could have consequences that could not be anticipated, and that they were best explored in public debate. The Government therefore listened to representations from all shades of opinion, including the Brewers Society, individual brewers, representative organisations of licensed trade tenants and managers, individual tenants, consumer associations, members of the public, and, of course, hon. Members.
  It became clear as a result of that process of hearing representations that the issue with tenants' security was how to increase protection without making the tenancy system so unattractive commercially that it would be killed off. The Government concluded that it would not be right to set up a special class of tenancy under the Act just for licensed premises. It is therefore intended that licensed tenants should simply be placed on all fours with other business tenants, and that it should remain for the parties concerned to decide whether it is in their commercial interests to forgo their statutory rights.
  Similarly, the Government concluded that a mandatory code of practice was inappropriate. The brewers have said that they are prepared to accept the present proposals on tenants' security. The National Licensed Victuallers Association too, while continuing to press for more extensive security for tenants, has made it clear to us that the inclusion of licensed tenants within the Act is the key, and it is pressing for its earliest adoption.
  Although I cannot agree to all that the tenants seek, I want to assure them and their representatives that we do understand and appreciate the difficulties that many of them face. Nobody likes paying higher rents or having their tenancies terminated against their will, but we cannot solve such problems by legislating. Pub tenancies, like rented property or any other form of asset, are part of a market, with terms governed by supply and demand. A pub tenancy agreement is the result of a commercial negotiation, and while we can set out what are fair procedures for reaching agreement we cannot force the agreement to be more or less favourable to one side than what the market dictates. Our proposals therefore represent a balance, as carefully struck as the balance in the Act itself. That has been shown over 35 years to be workable.
  I should like to describe briefly how part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act works. Essentially, it sets out rules for both landlords and tenants of business premises with regard to the beginning and ending of tenancy agreements. Under these rules, if a tenant has paid the agreed rent on time and complied with the tenancy agreement, the landlord can bring the tenancy to an end at or after the end of the current tenancy only by serving the tenant with a notice of termination.
  1240
  Upon receipt of the notice, the tenant has the right to apply to the court for a new tenancy, which it is bound to grant unless the landlord can show grounds for being granted possession. Such grounds include failure by the tenant to comply with the conditions of the tenancy or the fact that the landlord wishes to occupy the premises himself for the purposes of running a business, a residence or to reconstruct the premises.
  Currently, section 43(1)(d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, part II, serves to exclude licensed tenants. We are proposing that section 43(1)(d) should be repealed. We are additionally proposing to repeal paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to the Finance Act 1959, which substituted a new paragraph for the original section 43(1)(d). As a matter of keeping the statute book tidy, it should also be repealed.
  The transitional provisions are intended to ensure that tenancies agreed before 11 July 1989 are unaffected if they end before 11 July 1992. Most brewery tenancies are for terms of three years, and the Act will apply in those cases only when a new tenancy is agreed. The significance of the 1992 date is that it is exactly three years after the 10 July 1989 statement. Clause 1(3) provides that, where the Landlord and Tenant Act provides for statutory notices to be given by a landlord or a tenant, these notices can be validly served before July 1992, where appropriate.
  As I have suggested, the Bill represents a carefully struck balance between the interests of tenants and those of their landlords, who are in most cases brewers. In this, the approach mirrors the one we have taken with all the measures to deal with the MMC's findings. Some hon. Members will feel that we should have gone further. Others, I know, will argue later this evening that we have gone too far, and that the measures are an unnecessary intervention in the market.
  I would urge hon. Members in both these camps to recognise that, while the package of measures will not satisfy everyone, it achieves a balance between the conflicting interests involved. Tenants will have greater freedom to buy products that meet their customers' preferences, and they will be able to do so at competitive prices. They will also have the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Consumers will benefit from this greater freedom on the part of tenants. They will be beneficiaries of the more open and competitive market that we shall see in beer and other drinks.
  Brewers and pub owners will also benefit. The long-term success of their industry depends on creating an environment in which a wide range of products that people want to buy can be offered at prices people believe are competitive.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The Opposition support the principle behind the Bill but we believe that the Bill has major flaws and we shall seek to amend and modify it as it passes through its various stages of consideration. We want to give the Bill a backbone so that it can make a real contribution to improving competition in the industry and protecting the 33,000 tenant landlords of Britain's pubs. Our support follows the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer, which we welcomed some months ago as a useful and long overdue report on monopoly practices in the supply of beer.

  1241
  Tenant landlords know that there is a monopoly every time they are threatened with increased rents or a loss of tenancy, or are forced to accept the brewer's tied products. The consumers—regulars and even weekend punters—know that there is a monopoly every time that they pay over the top for lager, every time they cannot get a cask beer and every time they are forced to buy a brewer's soft drinks. The Consumers Association estimates that the average price of a pint of orange juice in an English pub is £2. The Secretary of State knows that people in Northumberland shudder—perhaps it is the same in the west country—when it is their round and their friends want a soft drink. Workers know that there is a monopoly every time the brewery is threatened with rationalisation and every time the company is threatened with a takeover.
  Mr. James Couchman: I know that the price of soft drinks is of great concern and causes dismay among those who use public houses, but the overheads that accrue in serving a whisky and those that accrue in serving a soft drink are precisely the same for the person serving them.
  Mr. Henderson: That may well be so, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, but I do not think that it is central to the point about competition in the industry.
  The Opposition, like the tenant landlords, the consumers and the work people, agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that a complex monopoly exists in the supply of beer. We shall discuss that in greater detail in our next debate. I hope that at that stage I can show that the orders fail to tackle the real measures required to bring competition to the industry. It is in that context that the Bill should be debated.
  I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill is necessary, not only to protect tenants but to protect the industry from monopoly pressures, and thereby to protect consumers. We have all had our arguments with pub governors in our time, and no doubt won very few of them. Perhaps that is why the public ask, "What has protecting pub governors to do with guaranteeing competition in the industry? Are they not the same people who overcharge us and often restrict our choice of beer?" They are the same people, but they are not ultimately responsible because they are not the ultimate governors. Hon. Members know, and I hope that the Government recognise, that one of the principal ways that breweries control the industry and reinforce the monopoly is by tying tenant landlords to taking their beer. If the tenant has no security and if he is forced into the pocket of the brewery, ultimately the consumer will suffer.
  The Opposition firmly believe in a competitive environment in the brewing industry and the supply of beer. We back the consumer and we welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. In the past, Governments have rejected legislative controls and there has always been a powerful lobby against them. Now, the brewers' arguments against legislation have been shown to be spurious. Indeed, in their evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the brewers argued that the relationship between a landlord and a tenant was special and that the rental terms were at a discount as a condition of the tie. If the tenant lost his licence, perhaps for some criminal offence, how could the brewery get that person to leave his premises? That sort of argument might be defensible if there was an agreement that the monopoly should continue, but if we are to go down the road of
  1242
  encouraging competition—I hope that that is the Government's intention—and if we are to break, or at least to loosen, the tie, the brewers' arguments have no basis. Without a tie, the first thing that the brewers will do is to put rents up. In any case, their ability to protect their interests in relation to someone who may be justifiably dismissed for some felony could still be protected through a code of practice.
  The National Licensed Victuallers Association has a major interest in the Bill. On numerous past occasions, including when giving evidence to the Monopolies arid Mergers Commission, it has insisted that it needs a legislative shield to protect its members against excessive rent increases. In its evidence to the commission it cites a number of cases. A tenant in Kent complained that after agreement had been reached for alterations at a cost of £35,000, the brewer wanted to increase the landlord's rent by 200 per cent. to £11,000 per year. On top of that, the tenant would also have to fund the cost of furnishings, recarpeting and new fittings. He said that the new rent level represented the equivalent of 13·75 per cent. of his turnover. The association also cited the case of a tenant in Berkshire who complained about high rent increases. In particular, he complained about an increase of 208 per cent. after the public house had been refurbished and about the practice of increasing rent in line with barrelage. He said that the brewer's representative had told him that his rent might be further increased if he did not purchase soft drinks from the brewer. He also complained about the wine and spirits tie which made retail prices higher than they need be. Those are but two of hundreds of examples which occur throughout Britain because of the weak bargaining position of tenant landlords in relation to rent increases.
  The association argues that the voluntary code of practice is completely ineffective and that if a tenant wishes to challenge the decision of a brewery, the costs of doing so, even within the code of practice, are prohibitive. The association has also shown that tenants who have built up a business can end up with little or no compensation if a brewery disposes of a public house. It cites the example of a tenant in central London who had been given notice to quit the house which he had run successfully for 12 years. The tenant told the association that no suitable alternative premises were offered. In fact, his request for a suitable alternative was met with a refusal. The brewer offered the minimum compensation payable under the code, which would largely be used for redundancy payments to his long-serving staff. The tenant suggested that the motive for the brewer's action was based solely on the value of the site for redevelopment.
  The case for legislative protection is overwhelming, but there are major weaknesses in the Bill. The Secretary of State alluded to some of them. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, as amended by the Law of Property Act 1969, landlords and tenants can mutually exclude themselves from the terms of the Act by making an application to the court. The evidence submitted by the tenants' association is that in the overwhelming number of cases the court accepts the joint application. The National Licensed Victuallers Association has argued that that is completely inappropriate for governing the relationship between brewers and landlords. If there is an exclusion clause, the brewer will say to the tenant, "If you don't

  1243
  accept such a clause your future might not be so bright as you imagine when you next seek to review your tenancy." That is the evidence from the people involved.
  Does the Secretary of State accept that that could be the case? Does he accept that poor Bet and Alec Gilroy could be in trouble in the Rovers Return or that Pat and Frank could be saying goodbye to the Queen Vic if they do not agree to an exclusion clause? All of us know that they have enough troubles without having the Secretary of State adding to them with this legislation which is supposed to help them. Does the Secretary of State accept that, in a world of ever-tightening margins and international competition, pressure will be put on landlords to opt out? If he accepts that that will be the case, does he also acknowledge that it will undermine the whole purpose of the Bill? Will the Government make proposals to meet that major problem?
  Why have the Government not recognised that the timing of the Bill is too slow? If it lets off the hook most tenancies expiring before 1992, brewers will simply terminate tenancies so as to avoid the Bill's effects. Will the Secretary of State not recognise that a code of practice is necessary as an adjunct to the Bill? Is he aware that most tenants believe that the existing voluntary code is unworkable and that the brewers are unchallengeable? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the introduction of a code of practice during the progress of the Bill?
  The Government claim to believe in private ownership. If that is so—I do not suggest for one moment that it is not —why have they failed to introduce the right to buy for pub tenants? Partly because of the current market situation, partly in an attempt to avoid the legislation, and partly in anticipation of some of the matters that we shall be debating later today, brewers will try to dispose of some of their tenanted houses. In fact, in my own area in the north-east Scottish and Newcastle Breweries announced only last week the sale of 250 of its premises.
  If council tenants have the right to buy council assets, why should not brewers' tenants, who have shown a deep commitment to their businesses and who have built up much goodwill in their houses, have the right to buy brewers' assets? Surely Scottish and Newcastle Breweries public house tenants should have the first right to purchase their tenanted houses and to protect their livelihoods. Or does the principle of a property-owning democracy not apply when those who should comply are contributors to Conservative party funds?
  Another worrying aspect of the Bill is the exclusion of Scotland from its provisions. The level of brewery-owned tenancies in Scotland is lower than in England and Wales, but about 750 tenanted houses will still be at risk. Will the Secretary of State consider inserting into the Bill protection for Scottish tenant landlords? Those matters are all of concern to tenant publicans, and if they believe that those shortcomings weaken the Bill and their protection, the public at large should also be worried. If the tenants' position is undermined, competition will also be undermined. If competition is undermined, public and consumer interest will also be undermined.
  I described five main objections to the terms of the Bill, but it has merit of purpose, and on that basis the Opposition will not seek to block its Second Reading. I have no doubt, however, that the Bill in its current form
  1244
  would fail to achieve its purpose—to offer landlords the necessary protection—or to make a lasting contribution to improving competition in the industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine all the issues and seek to strengthen the Bill before it returns to this Chamber. If the Secretary of State is receptive in Committee, he may continue to receive the wider support of the whole House when the Bill returns here.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) gave a grudging welcome to a Bill that I thought had received almost universal acceptance throughout the industry. I welcome the Bill largely because it is a generally agreed measure.
  It is something of a disappointment to me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs felt unable to translate the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into a series of voluntary agreements, which I believe were on offer and would have been immensely beneficial to all concerned in a great industry. None the less, the Bill that we are debating this evening has been welcomed by all concerned —with the exception of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. Certainly most of us accept the argument for greater security for tenants, and we welcome the fact that that has been agreed with the brewers.
  Having said that, I must add that I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. He said that the Opposition broadly welcomed the MMC report; if that is the case, the Opposition would have done more damage to the tenants whom they now claim to defend than any of the minor factors cited by the hon. Gentleman.
  I regret the introduction of this package of proposals, which I believe will do serious harm to every aspect of the industry. They may provide protection for tenants, but there will be fewer and fewer tenants, and that will mean a major loss not only for the tenants themselves but for the whole cause of small business. This package of restrictions will cause a gradual decline in a tenancy system which in the past has proved a splendid way for small business men to build their own businesses, often with limited resources.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the lessons are never learned. Let us go back to the simplest relationship between landlord and tenant—that covered by the Rent Acts. We know that there are no properties to rent; similarly, the more the agricultural tenant is protected, the fewer farms there are to rent. It is utter hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North to suggest that the proposals will improve the position of tenants: in fact, fewer and fewer brewers will be prepared to offer the partnerships that are currently offered so widely.
  Mr. Moate: Indeed, the sad logical consequence of the MMC report is that we shall end up with fewer pubs owned by the brewers, and of those many will be managed rather than tenanted. Nevertheless, we welcome the increased security: there are many arguments for it.
  In my constituency—and, I believe, in many others—the views expressed by the trade unions, which Labour sometimes claims to represent, have been totally at variance with the stance adopted by the hon. Gentleman

  1245
  and his colleagues. When the MMC report was published, I was concerned not for a specific sector—the large national brewers, the regional brewers, the smaller brewers or individual publicans—but for the industry collectively. I felt that the proposals would damage jobs in one of our greatest and most successful industries. The proposals that the Opposition Front Bench has supported were opposed by the Transport and General Workers Union, particularly in my area, and any loss of jobs will be in part due to the remarks of Opposition Members.
  The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. The view that he propounded—that some tenants are unhappy with the terms imposed by their landlords, and that that implies a monopoly—is simply nonsense. Commercial partnerships often involve unequal relationships, but the fact that a tenant does not like the terms of a contract, or would rather buy elsewhere, while it may call that particular relationship into question, does not suggest the existence of a monopoly.
  The hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—mentioned the allegation that a complex monopoly was in operation. There has been considerable debate about whether that term has any meaning; indeed, it has been suggested that it is a technical concept that people latched on to with the purpose of bringing this subject within the competence of the MMC. Certainly it does not conform with the view of the man in the street about what constitutes a monopoly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point, because we do not want the MMC in future to dredge up a "complex monopoly" in the absence of other obvious public detriments so that it can make recommendations that the House, for one reason or another, feels obliged to follow through. I should like to see that concept eliminated: a monopoly either exists or does not exist.
  In my view—and, I believe, in that of any fair-minded person—the brewing industry in this country is highly competitive. There is little evidence of consumer dissatisfaction with the brewing industry. Beer prices are generally low compared with those in almost every other country. The quality of pubs has improved dramatically in the past few years and they have made a major contribution to our leisure industry. More than 440,000 people are employed in one of our most successful industries.
  Against that background, the MMC report made its wide-ranging attack on a supposed monopoly. Are we not foolish to be inflicting damage on one of our most successful industries, which is far more competitive than those in almost every country of Europe with which we are supposedly in competition? For that reason, we are being extraordinarily foolish in accepting this package of measures so blithely. That may sound ungrateful, but I do believe that the package, including the Bill and the other measures, is a dramatic improvement on the original recommendations. I realise that I have sounded churlish, so I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, because they have been receptive and flexible. I make those comments now, as I intend to vote against the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989 later tonight. However, although I think that the order is bad, I welcome the rest of the package and the tremendous improvements that have been introduced.
  1246
  Some bad consequences will flow from the whole package which will become visible not in years, but in months. We shall see a concentration in brewing. Many of our brewers will amalgamate or be taken over, some into foreign ownership. We shall see a reduction in the number of pubs, the sale of pubs—ultimately, some may move out of serving the public—and fewer tenanted pubs. Those consequences will flow directly from the MMC report and partly from the recommendations tonight.
  I want to put on record, as the House should, the fact that this package is a bad move for British industry, for British brewing and for the public. The other result of all the measures will be higher rather than lower prices for the consumer. The object of introducing anti-monopoly measures is to try to obtain a better deal for the consumer, but there is no evidence that consumers were paying too high a price for beer. One judgment of a monopoly is that the producers were making excessive profits, but that was not alleged in the MMC report. Is it not extraordinary that we are faced with these recommendations and that it has been decided to implement them? Higher prices will result.
  If we force the brewers to change from tenancy to management in many cases, they will become, in effect, property owners and will no longer use pubs as retail outlets. The breweries will no longer be interested in beer production or beer retailing, but will move out or will be obliged to charge far higher rents to tenants and higher prices to the consumer. That will be the net result of the extraordinary intervention of the MMC.
  Is it not extraordinary that the MMC—and I stress again that the Bill arises from the recommendations of the MMC investigation—made no reference to the experience abroad. The Australians went through this exercise and the result was a dramatic increase in beer prices. Beer production became concentrated to the extent that two brewers control 98 per cent. of production. That is what came of breaking the tie. How can that be defended? Yet that is the road that we are supposed to be taking. We have more competition than in almost any other country. As I have said, in Australia, two brewers control 98 per cent. of production. In Japan, four brewers control 99 per cent., in the Netherlands, four brewers control 95 per cent. and in France, four brewers control 93 per cent. Yet here we need to consider four brewers to arrive at a figure of 58 per cent. of the market.
  We have a highly competitive industry. There is a large number of regional brewers and small brewers. There is a total of 66 sizeable brewing companies. There will be fewer and fewer brewing companies as a result of the proposals. I deeply regret that. I deeply regret also the fact that we were not able to reject the MMC report in its entirety, because it will be bad for business, the industry, jobs, and the consumer.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I declare that I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I must disagree with almost everything that we have heard from the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). He seems to think that brewery companies are charitable institutions which are only too anxious to provide their tenants with all the protection for which they could possibly ask on the basis on voluntary agreements The lessons of history are against him. As for the latter part of his remarks, I cannot believe that a brewery

  1247
  company cannot stay in business with fewer than 2,000 pubs. It is not logical to suggest that the proposal that will be debated tonight will put brewery companies out of business.
  The Bill is warmly welcomed by the National Licensed Victuallers Association and its members. It is a long-overdue reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, it does not go as far as it should. The voluntary code of practice has been of some value, but it does not alter the fact that there have been far too many cases of tenants being treated disgracefully by pub owners—not always brewers by any means, but the people who own their public houses. The trend towards ownership by companies other than brewers will be accelerated as a result of the orders. Bearing in mind that, in any case, the code of practice is subscribed to only by the Brewers Society and the NLVA and that people outside the Brewers Society are not covered by it at all, the need for a Bill of this kind, which provides a measure of protection for all tenants, irrespective of who owns the pub in question, is particularly important.
  I do not intend to regale the House with a long rigmarole of horror stories, but I will mention just one or two examples. One of the worst in recent times concerns a licensee in Lancashire who won some cans of lager in a raffle. They were presented to him by the area manager of his brewery company, who said that he could drink them or sell them as he wished. Being a decent man, the licensee decided to sell them at £1 a can in aid of an excellent charity, cancer research. It seemed a sensible and reasonable thing to do. When the head brewer found out about it, the licensee was called to the brewery office and handed his notice to quit because he had been selling lager that had not been supplied to him for that purpose by his landlord, the brewery company.
  There was a long argument. The NLVA's legal advisers were brought in , but eventually the man who had been the licensee of the pub for 14 years finished up out on the street with a derisory amount of compensation. That is one particularly disgraceful example, but there are many other equally disgraceful stories.
  Recently in the south of England, a licensee—a woman, as it happens—who has been paying rent of £13,000 a year for a pub which is in great need of repair and improvement has been offered a 20-yar lease by her brewery company landlord—one of the big six; not a small regional outfit —which is part of its policy. Many people will guess that I am referring to Grand Metropolitan. It is a full repairing lease, which provides for total responsibility for all the money that has to be spent on the pub at a rent of £40,000 a year, which is just over three times what she is paying now.
  In my constituency, a licensee of a small Victorian pub —a nice little place where I have been known to have a pint or two myself—was told by his landlords, a company that is expanding fast in the leisure industry not in brewing, that it wished to sell the premises. He was invited—at least, he expressed his wish—to make an offer. He did so and was told by the owners' representatives that if he increased it a little, it would be enough to clinch the deal. In fact, he increased it substantially to well above the local valuation. It is alleged that the owners let his rival bidder know the
  1248
  amount of his bid. The rival bidder then put in a slightly higher offer and the first that the licensee heard of the result was when the other man walked into his premises and said, "I've bought your pub." That happened just a few weeks ago—not a very nice Christmas present for any licensee.
  However, at least that man was invited or allowed to put in an offer for his own pub. Even that has not been permitted for the tenants of Scottish and Newcastle, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North referred. Scottish and Newcastle has decided to sell 250 pubs without allowing the tenants the chance to put in bids to buy them. Scottish and Newcastle is selling them to bring itself below the level that would render it liable to various responsibilities under the orders that we shall be debating later. Surely it would have been reasonable to allow the tenants to put in an offer for the premises in which they make their livings. Although I should have thought that reasonable, there is no obligation on the landlord companies to do so, and they have not done it.
  While licensed tenants appreciate the protection that the Bill will afford them under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the provisions do not take account of the unique features of the licensed trade—features that do not apply to other kinds of business tenancies. The most important is the fact that for the vast majority of licensees their pub is not only their business, but their home. If, because of some capricious decision by the owners of the premises, they lose their business, they also become homeless. That in itself is sufficient reason for giving them special treatment, which would not necessarily apply to other business premises.
  At the very minimum, it would be reasonable if the Bill provided for some of the MMC's recommendations, which the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, said that he was minded to implement. I refer especially to the M MC recommendation that there should be a provision in every tenancy agreement such that
  "the brewer/landlord shall not be permitted to take back the premises for the purposes of installing his own manager if the licensee/tenant wishes to continue in business at the premises on terms agreed (or in default of agreement as determined by the court)".
  That proposal seems eminently reasonable. It would need only a small amendment to the Bill, possibly in the form of a schedule, to require those provisions to be written into tenancy agreements. I can see nothing wrong with that. At the moment there is nothing to protect a tenant from being put out of his pub by the owners so that they can install a manager. The compensation payable in such circumstances is derisory. As I understand it—I may be corrected on this by the Secretary of State—even with the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the only compensation statutorily required would be six times the rateable value.
  Although this has not yet been mentioned, we must bear in mind the fact that the goodwill in the business does not vest in the tenant; it is held by the brewery company. A tenant who has devoted a great deal of work to building up a successful business does not have equity in the sense of goodwill in the event of the business being transferred. That is a serious matter. It is nothing new. A former right hon. Member, one Mr. Gladstone, told the House about it a long time ago on 5 March 1880. He said:

  1249
  "As to compensation, the licensed victualler ought to be dealt with on the same principle as every other class in regard to which a vested interest has been permitted to grow up."
  That has not happened. Compensation for a licensed victualler who loses his business is not based on the same principle as the other classes referred to by Mr. Gladstone. A few months later he called for equitable compensation. Such a provison should be written into the Bill, which is intended to provide some form of protection for occupants of licensed premises.
  We must bear it in mind that an owner is unlikely to take back most types of premises covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act to put in his own manager because of the nature of the business. For example, the owner of a grocery shop is unlikely to be in the grocery business himself. It is unlikely that he will put out the tenant in order to put in a manager. It takes only a moment's thought to appreciate that that applies to many other types of business premises. The owner of a public house is likely to be in that sort of business and, if the tenant has built up a flourishing business, may wish to get rid of the tenant to put in a manager. Tenants rightly feel that they should be provided with that sort of protection under the Bill.
  It is unfortunate that the Government have not been persuaded that such protection is needed. When the Secretary of State says that the problems cannot be solved by legislating, I am bound to say that I disagree. The Opposition will seek provisions to solve the problems during the progress of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North referred to another great weakness in the Bill. It is the proposal to allow contracting out, as provided for in relation to other premises covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act. The MMC was right to suggest that contracting out should not be allowed in this case because of the special circumstances of licensed premises. It said:
  "We recommend there should be no right on the part of the parties to contract out of the provisions contained in Part 11 of that Act, except for a preliminary period not exceeding one year. This exception is solely to allow a probationary period for a new tenant to establish the satisfactory nature of his abilities."
  Again, that is a reasonable suggestion.
  It is unfortunate that that important recommendation has been rejected by the Government. I do not wish to repeat my hon. Friend's remarks, but contracting out could defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. When negotiating a tenancy, an owner of a public house, whether a brewery or other company, could say to a prospective tenant, "You will join me in going to court to apply for us to be contracted out of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act". The prospective tenant will say, "No, I would like the provisions of the Act made by Parliament on my behalf to apply to me". The owner will then find someone else who is willing to contract out. As time goes by we may find that the new protection which the Bill is supposed to provide will be used less and less because the owners of the premises decide that they are not prepared to let their premises to someone who will not join them in applying to the court to contract out of the protection of the Act.
  Tenant licensees are appreciative that the Government are introducing a Bill to bring them within the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act. They are grateful to the Secretary of State for what he is doing. If he would go just that bit further and close those loopholes, he would earn their undying gratitude.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said.
  For more than 30 years, part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 has unquestionably served business premises and leasing well. The Act has stood the test of time and proved to be excellent. However, many people in licensed premises—I have known some personally—who have gone into a broken-down public house and built up the business find, perhaps at the second rent review after five or six years, that for improving the sales of the company's liquor and other products, they face a huge rent increase. That does not occur in any other business areas which come within the terms of the 1954 Act.
  Under the terms of the Act, if agreement cannot be reached on the rental the matter goes to the courts. That is a perfectly right and fair way to proceed. Years ago there was no voluntary code of practice for licensed tenants of public houses. It has been formulated over recent years. For many years I have been in favour of this type of legislation because it is entirely wrong that licensees of public houses should be treated differently from anyone else in business. For that reason I am sure that the House welcomes the Bill.
  Part II of the present Act lists exceptions in which a landlord can gain possession, and I see nothing wrong with them except in one case. It is right that a landlord should gain possession, for example, before a comprehensive redevelopment. But that can be covered by the licensee getting the right sort of compensation. The management area worries me. It is a technical area and we must understand it. As the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly said, when the .lease of a business premises runs out, the landlord can step in and run it as his own business, thus gaining possession. If a brewery puts in a manager, is that the same as running one's own business? It is not strictly the same. The Committee must give careful consideration to that point. It must ask itself whether the management should lose that right, so that there is continuity for the lessee. In normal business, one can assign a lease on business premises. I wonder whether that should happen in this case.
  If the management has to stay at the end of the lease, the only other alternative is to give substantial compensation which takes account of goodwill. There is no doubt that a couple can go to work in a pub and the wife can work extremely hard on the food side to build up a business which is going very well, and then the couple can find that they have nothing. They will have lost not only their home, but an immense amount of goodwill which they had built up over a great number of years. That is morally wrong and it happens nowhere else in business. I hope that the Committee will address itself to that problem, because it is a matter of grave concern. Although I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, if we are to give the proper protection, we must deal properly with that area in Committee.
  I know that many of my colleagues want to speak tonight, so I shall merely refer to one other matter: the code of practice. The right place to decide the rental is the court. That should not be done by any code of practice set up outside but, as part II of the 1954 Act states, when a rental cannot be properly agreed, the matter should go to the courts.

  1251
  If we can resolve the small issue relating to management when we discuss the Bill in Committee, I sincerely hope that we can start to create not more managements, but more tenancies. I have often seen a public house which is built up by a tenant but, when changed over to management, starts to deteriorate rapidly. If we want to encourage the small business man, as the Conservative party has said over and over again that it does, the right way to do so is to give him the right protection within a tenancy.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I shall begin with a declaration of interest which came about in a curious way. About three years ago I first became involved with tenants in my constituency who had problems with breweries. I was then a consultant to a firm of London solicitors called Watts, Valiance and Valiance. Two months ago, in October this year, that firm amalgamated with another and by a complete coincidence that firm, now known as Valiance Lickfords, is the firm retained by the National Licensed Victuallers Association. Therefore, although I have never done any paid work for the NLVA, I have an indirect connection with it because I am a consultant to the firm of solicitors which acts for the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I felt it right to declare that interest right from the start.
  I am drawn to speak in the debate because of my concern about relationships in the brewery industry. Like all hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is to be extended to licensed premises. However, I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill may be seen as a halfway house because it does not go far enough to secure the better relationships in the industry which it is designed to bolster and support.
  About three years ago, I first became aware of concern in tenancies in my constituency about the way in which breweries were behaving. Since then, my appreciation of what is happening in my constituency suggests that some breweries behave extremely well towards their tenants while others behave poorly. It was because of that mixture of relationships and behaviour that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made its recommendations. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) suggested, life could be sorted without legislation, it would be a lot sweeter and better than it is. Alas, however, we cannot in all circumstances rely on those with greater power than others to use that power fairly.
  In my investigations of the relationships in the industry in my constituency I am most concerned about the inequality of bargaining power between brewers and tenants. I welcome the Bill because to some extent it redresses that inequality of bargaining power, but it does not go far enough.
  I have been greatly helped in investigations in my constituency by Mr. Peter Roberts, chairman of the local branch of the National Licensed Victuallers Association and owner of the Grant's Arms in Ramsbottom. He and his colleagues were enormously helpful in taking me through the trade and in preparing some of the concerns which I shall express. Before I became so closely interested in the subject, I did not appreciate that relations between
  1252
  some tenants and brewers were so bad. Many people who go into pubs do not appreciate that behind the pumps all is not so cheerful as it appears. Some of that is caused by sharp practices on the part of the breweries. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) gave examples of tenants who had worked extremely hard in the pub in which they were living and then found that as a result of their hard work the rents were increased and, effectively, money was taken from them.
  There are other sources of concern which are not immediately apparent on the face of the Bill. It is not widely known that the provision of machines such as juke boxes or one-armed bandits, which many people enjoy using when they go into a pub, do not necessarily provide profit for the tenant. The tenant may have taken the trouble to have such machines installed to increase the amount of enjoyment in his pub, but the brewer takes a considerable rake-off without having done anything at all. Such matters make tenants feel that they are not being fairly dealt with. Such worries were set out in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and that has led to legislation rather than to a voluntary code of conduct.
  I quote briefly from the Morning Advertiser of 7 July to show why it was important to have certain provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 incorporated in the Bill so as to protect tenants. It says:
  "If their landlord wants to take their pub into direct management because they have built it up so successfully, he can.
  If their landlord wants to take a bigger slice of their income as rent—again, because of their success—he can.
  If their landlord wants to introduce arbitrary and sweeping changes to the nature of the tenancy agreement, he can.
  Can this be justice? Of course it can't, and now at last you"
  —that is, the Government—
  "are in a position to do something about it by altering the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to protect pub tenants."
  Such sentiments have led to the Bill. The Bill is needed and I welcome it.
  I wish to direct the Minister's attention to one or two matters which should be examined in Committee. I share the concerns expressed by some hon. Members about contracting out. It is clear from what hon. Members have said that there is genuine inequality of bargaining power. Those who wish to become tenants of pubs may seek to sign an agreement. They may be told by the brewery that unless they agree to contracting out they will not be allowed to sign and that there is another person in the corridor who is even more anxious to become a tenant. The attitude is that if the prospective tenant does not wish to contract out, there are plenty more applicants waiting.
  One of the great tragedies in the industry is that many people imagine that they should spend their life as pub tenants, and sometimes they want to do that so badly that they do not read between the lines and appreciate everything that they are signing. The trade must do something about that. There should be better training and instruction, and breweries could help a little by preparing tenants for what they will have to face. At the end of the day, inequality of bargaining power is not always dealt with in that way. If contracting out is not possible, the protection desired by the Bill and the Government may not come about. I should be grateful if the Minister would look at that again.

  1253
  I share the concerns expressed about management and I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said about that. I also share the concern about the date on which the Bill will come into effect. It would be better to have it as early as possible; 1992 is too late and the brewers may take unfair advantage of that. Perhaps I could suggest a way forward. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues would look carefully in Committee at the defects of the Bill that have been mentioned. There is great good will for the measure and there is wide understanding of the great importance of the brewery industry in this country.
  In many ways and in many places, the system works perfectly well. We are trying to make a good system work better, and to ensure that the poor relationships in the industry, which would ultimately destroy it from the inside, can be remedied with sensible legislation that is properly followed.
  I would welcome a commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister that, even if he cannot make concessions during the passage of the Bill, he will agree to monitor the effects of the Bill carefully and listen to further representations from tenants, and if he finds that the spirit of previous voluntary agreements and of the Bill is not adhered to—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is any help to the House, the affirmative motion and prayer that will follow the debate will last for an hour and a half.
  Mr. Burt: In conclusion, if my hon. Friend would make such a commitment to monitor the situation, some of our concerns will be covered. I recognise the balance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained at the beginning of the debate, and it has been evident in some of the speeches that we have heard already. Sometimes the poor old Secretary of State is caught in a vice between the interests of the brewers and the industry and those of the tenants so that he cannot get it right. The Bill is a genuine effort to help, and I believe that it will help in a number of ways.
  The Bill could be further improved, but if there is a commitment to monitor its effects the best things about the brewing industry in Britain—the quality of pubs, their management and tenants—can be further enhanced. The Bill will not have a detrimental effect—it will be beneficial for tenants, for my constituents, and for the people of Britain.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I declare my interest in the licensed trade, as I have done on a number of occasions in the House. I am the chairman and majority shareholder of a small family company which runs six houses in London. They are held on a variety of tenures, but are all tenanted or leased. I am also a member of the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I was delighted at the robust and stout defence of interests in the House by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther).
  1254
  I had some difficulty earlier in the year when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was published, because at the time I was, as I now am, Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and at the Department of Trade and Industry. I was thus constrained to silence at a time when I might have been able to say something about the report, which I consider to have been a flawed piece of work by people who did not understand the industry and all its ramifications despite two and a half years' investigation.
  I believe that too much notice was taken in that report of two interests in particular—Guinness and Bulmer's. Guinness has a unique position, as it supplies almost every public house with its products, but until recently it had riot invested in any public houses. Bulmer's had a monopoly, and was pretty upset when it was destroyed by the creation of a second company.
  The report offered a grotesque piece of retrospection, because the suggestion was that brewers who owned more than 2,000 public houses would need to sell off all the houses in excess of that number. The brewers had acquired those assets for the sale of their products entirely legitimately, either as individual purchases or through takeovers. The law which prevailed at that time allowed them to acquire the houses. Then, all of a sudden, six people came along, wrote a report and said, "You shouldn't be allowed to do that—you must flog them all off." To me, that was a piece of interference in the market which seemed utterly inappropriate, unfair and retrospective. I thought it particularly so because of the strange phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) highlighted—the "complex monopoly". We have diffuse ownership in the brewing industry. Although it is far less concentrated than in the United States, Australia and several continental countries, it has been held to operate as a "complex monopoly". I found that concept difficult to grasp.
  I also found that, after two and a half years of work, the MMC had come to some strange conclusions. I shall mention just one. It concluded that the brewers, who had assiduously built up their managed house operations over 20 years, had done so to make a loss. That seemed a peculiar and curious conclusion. It is, of course, untrue.
  Above all, I was worried by the MMC's suggestions, as it seemed to demand a weakening of a substantial, successful and mature industry which has operated in a unique way when we should be strengthening our brewing companies in preparation for 1992 when they may be able more freely to take our unique beer to the continent and interest them in drinking our beer rather than the other way round.
  I am worried that the consequences of the report, and what the Bill and the motions that we are to discuss later suggest, will be a weaker brewing industry. I am aware of at least one of the big six companies which is likely to sell its brewing interests. Another is likely to put them at arm's length as a separate plc. A third does not know quite where it is going, but would like to stay in its present vertically integrated form, although it would be caught by the steps that we are taking in these three pieces of legislation. A fourth company's brewing operation is already almost off-shore. A fifth appears to be trying to get itself below the

  1255
  2,000 houses limit. The management of the sixth has yet to reveal its hand and where it may go. We know little about it.
  I am worried that those six companies will, as a result of the MMC report, substantially damage the structure of an efficient industry. That structure has allowed investment by brewers in their public houses, knowing what the likely throughput for their brewing interests would be. That is the purpose of vertical integration. In such circumstances, brewers know with some certainty how much of their product they will sell and if they sell in the free market, that is a bonus.
  I was worried that the MMC report came to some curious conclusions, but it was obvious that my noble Friend Lord Young, for whom I worked at the time, was minded to accept much of the report. It seemed, therefore, that there were bound to be changes in the industry. I set myself the task, in a fairly humble way, of acting as a kind of bridge between my friends and landlords in the brewing industry and the Department for which I was working.
  I have spoken of my vested interest and experience. Perhaps I may be permitted to take the House back to the early 1970s when brewers decided to build up their chains of managed houses in a pretty rough way, dispossessing successful tenants of their houses and therefore of their homes. The brewers took the successful houses into management, but they did not try to exploit those which were badly run by tenants. They frequently did that without paying any compensation or without offering an alternative house. If an alternative house was offered, it was of a lower standard. Where compensation was paid, it was at a derisory level. As a result of the fight by the trade, a code of practice came into being, which was considered an improvement on the previous position although it had no force in law. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to the code.
  Recently, the major brewers have tended to set houses back from management to tenancy. That is because they made a mess of running the houses under management. This, to some extent, has opened up new opportunities. The kick is that downgraded houses in need of substantial repair are frequently being offered on a lease rather than being set back to tenancy. I speak with personal experience because I recently took a house in such circumstances on a 20-year agreement. It is a good trend as it may allow into the trade those who would not otherwise have been able to enter it, but they will do so on a basis entirely different from that which has prevailed traditionally in the trade. I speak with the experience of my company, which has seen people come into the trade at 18 years of age as barmen, work through management and eventually, in their early thirties, with modest capital, take a tenancy on their own account. That is a way into small business that we should continue to encourage. When premises are put to lease, the capital required is entirely different from a tenancy agreement. Again, I speak with some personal experience.
  The worry about security stems, perhaps, from a spate of sales of blocks of houses—the freeholds of houses—over the heads of tenants without any offer being made to the tenants. The houses go to all sorts of companies and are then sold on again. The relationship between the tenant and the brewer landlord is broken entirely and instead there is a purely property relationship. When that
  1256
  happens a lease may be offered, but at a rack rent, by someone who is not interested in selling beer through the property. It may be that the rack rents will relate to property rather than the public house. The House may know that public house rents have traditionally been quite low compared with those for other retail outlets. When a person is faced with a rack rent on a lease and full repairing terms, however, there is a much greater commitment than that which many people would wish to face, especially if the offer comes late in a career. A man of 55 or 58 may not wish to take on a 20-year lease and may wish, for example, to continue a tenancy with three-year reviews.
  I suppose that the Bill offers a degree of security that we have not had before, although I, too, am worried about the right to break out of the landlord and tenant relationship if that is mutually agreed. The mutual agreement is an uneven relationship and may be used either as a lever to ease the tenant out of his house or as part of the interviewing process for new tenants. I am concerned that the Bill may lead ultimately to an end of tenancy as we know it and that there will be a far greater prevalence of leases. That would be a shame. It would mean the end of a route into small business with modest capital, which has allowed many people to enter the industry.
  I do not wish to speak at great length about the order, but I should be grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the procedure is a little difficult. We are dealing with the Bill and later we shall deal with the orders. It might be better if questions about the orders were left until we reach that debate.
  Mr. Couchman: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will postpone my questions on the orders, but I regret that that will mean asking for the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in the next debate.
  I hope that this great and successful industry will not be irreparably damaged by the steps that we are taking today. Had the inclination to accept the original report unamended prevailed, it would have led to masses of changes in the industry and, ultimately, to far fewer pubs and a great deal of damage. I hope that the Bill will offer a sensible balance. I am timorous about asking for codes of practice to be added at later stages. The question of contracting out should be considered exhaustively in Committee. I am only sorry that I have to serve on the Committee on the NHS and Community Care Bill, and thus will not be able to take part in discussions in Committee on this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the concerns about contracting out that have been expressed by several hon. Members tonight.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I shall not detain the House for long. I intend to make a short but important speech on behalf of the small independent brewers. I am disappointed that hon. Members have spoken only about the large brewers and have given no encouragement to the smaller businesses. Hon. Members have talked about the retailing, the distribution and the selling in public houses

  1257
  of the products of extremely large organisations. No one has said that new people wish to come into the business. How do they do that? How do they challenge the great brewing houses?
  Some colleagues may say that there are complex problems, and I agree with some of their assessments. However, my few remarks tonight are really an appeal both to the Minister and to House for a little lateral thinking. We need to consider how this measure will encourage new starters in the business. No one has said how one actually starts a new business and how one challenges the big guys. The measure, through its protection of tenants, will encourage those who wish to try.
  I have some sympathy with the original reaction to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals, but I think that the Government have the balance about right. Many of the proposals that have been mooted and much of the to-ing and fro-ing during recent months have now been distilled into a practical, good working code. I should like it to go further and encourage small brewers.
  If I catch your eye in the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will talk about guest beers. There are at least 200 members of the Small Independent Brewers Association who want the opportunity for small business men to begin to brew beer and to get into that big market. I do not formally represent them, but they are my friends and some of them are my constituents. One thing that we can do tonight is to recognise the importance of such people. It is the Government's policy to encourage small business men and entrepreneurs who, strangely, have so far been denied access to a market for their specialist beers. We cannot buy Old Tusker in our local public houses because they are tied and because of the monopoly. Change is needed.
  Why was such a big industry, with all its strength, incapable of innovation, of encouraging such people? The CBI, most businesses and even the old steel industry encourage small entrants into their businesses. The breweries have failed to do that, and we need to encourage small new entrepreneurs to enter the business.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate but I was attending a Standing Committee.
  I support the Bill. In general it moves in the right direction. But I share many of the concerns that I have heard voiced in the Chamber in the past half hour or so. First, I share the concern that the inequality of power between the two contracting authorities might give the brewery a dominant position over the publican, allowing contracting-out to work to the advantage of the brewery in almost every case. I ask the Minister seriously to consider bringing forward the Bill's implementation date of July 1992. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is nodding. I speak as someone who is the son and grandson of a brewer—a large brewery, too, for most of the time —and my earliest memory was going to a brewery. I do not come to this from a prejudiced position.
  A third matter which I have not yet heard mentioned relates to a practice which can often mean that a publican can be put under considerable pressure by breweries. Publican constituents of mine have regularly come to me under such considerable pressure. Widows have had the
  1258
  traditional indulgence of the widow's year, whitch breweries are not necessarily keen to uphold. I hope that in Committee such a custom will be legalised so that a spouse of a deceased or otherwise incapacitated publican who wishes to continue will be allowed to do so for an additional year.
  Let me say one final thing which is not necessarily in support of licensed victuallers or publicans. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Many people make a substantial contribution to the pleasure and variety of brewing and to the interest of the public by setting up, running and developing small brewing companies. We do not want to prevent them from being able to develop and practise. There was an over-restrictive practice and it was right that that should be examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I, too, am happy that in the event the original recommendations were not implemented. The Government are moving in the right direction.
  The concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House, not just those who represent members of licensed victuallers associations, appear to command widespread support, and I hope we can ensure that we protect against the danger of inequality. In seeking to provide better security of tenure, we must ensure that publicans are more secure in practice as well as in theory.
  10.24 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: I do not propose to dwell on my role as chairman of the all-party alcohol policy and services sub-committee and as a specialist in public health; that would be inappropriate, given the tenor of tonight's debate. I have preached to the House often enough about the difficulties that some people have with alcohol, and no doubt I shall have ample opportunity to do so again.
  I wholeheartedly support the remarks of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). My own experience of pubs began about 25 years ago—I must be sure that that puts me over the age of 18 at the time—in the dark, dingy, smokey places that we had to frequent in Scotland in those days because they were all that was available. There has been a remarkable improvement in the standard of public houses since then. I wish that I could say the same for the beer. Like the hon. Member for Meriden, I should like to see a proliferation of small brewers being given the opportunity to sell their products on licensed premises.
  Tonight's debate is part of a highly complex issue. The Bill itself is unexceptionable so far as it goes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, we do not intend to oppose its Second Reading. One could say that the Bill is distinguished solely by the fact that it is the only one that we shall be considering this Session that is shorter than the legislation dealing with student loans.
  The Bill gives on-licence tenants the same rights as other commercial tenants, thereby bringing them within the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, from which they were previously excluded. The Bill's provisions have generally been accepted by the brewers and have the support of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke earlier. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House accept the conviction and knowledge with which he spoke

  1259
  in respect of the attitudes of an association that represents the wishes and aspirations of tenants. I sincerely hope that the Minister listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks and that his points will be taken on board.
  Monopolies are complex entities, and the brewing industry is no exception. I suppose that one might more properly call it an oligopoly because there is more than one competing company in that industry. Just because that oligopoly takes a different form in this country from that in other countries—where there is vertical rather than horizontal integration, with the buying out of competitors that one sees in a country such as Holland—does not alter the fact that there are constraints on competition in Britain, which the report of the Monopoly and Mergers Commission properly saw fit to examine.
  The Government recognise that there are problems with the present form of the industry. Attempts have been made to modify the Commission's recommendations and to specify which of them should be implemented and which should not. Fair enough. We may challenge the Minister on some of them, and may accept others. Tonight we are attempting to improve the Bill, and we shall do so again in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned giving the Bill backbone, and we shall certainly seek to do that in Committee.
  Specific cases cited by hon. Members in all parts of the House are indicative of the many unfair pressures that are often placed on tenant landlords by their breweries. They make it essential that we try to give the Bill real powers. The Opposition do not accept that a voluntary code of practice is an adequate safeguard against abuse, certainly in the form that has been suggested; we recognise the need for tenants to receive adequate protection, however, and will therefore do our best to give the Bill the teeth that it needs.
  Let me add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, and ask the Government to consider extending the provisions to Scotland. There can be no logic in retaining an anomaly of this kind.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to all who have contributed to this workmanlike debate. Many good points have been made, some of which can be discussed more appropriately and at greater length in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that he welcomed measures that offered protection to the landlord, balanced by increased competition in the brewing industry. That is the Government's case tonight in comparing the Bill with the orders that we are shortly to consider. The hon. Gentleman feared that the prices of soft drinks were too high: he was worried about paying £2 for some orange juice. He will see that the orders contain proposals to break the ties concerning soft drinks, which may help competition—and competition is the friend of the customer.
  I am glad that the Opposition agree that the Bill is necessary. It will be the Government's task in Committee to explain why this Bill, and this Bill alone, provides the
  1260
  required balance—for it is a case for balance, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. Other hon. Members have pointed out that, if we go too far, not enough tenancies will be on offer, and the market will be considerably affected, whereas if we do not go far enough we shall not be offering a reasonable deal to tenants who have made representations to my Department, both directly and through other hon. Members.
  The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) mentioned Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. As we have seen in the press, the brewery is selling some pubs, and I have heard about the nature of the sale from one of its advisers, who tells me that existing tenancies will be honoured as part of its terms. The sale will, of course, lead to more diversified ownership in the pub market, so in a way it satisfies the Opposition's demand that we further implement the MMC's recommendations.
  Both the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) mentioned the Scottish legislation. There are two important differences. First, there is more free trade in Scotland anyway, so the market starts from a different point; secondly, there is no Landlord and Tenant Act in Scotland, so the legislation would not be appropriate there. We chose this route because we felt that, in England, there should be a symmetry between the treatment of pubs and the treatment of other types of business tenancy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made a good point about the need to balance protection with the danger of fewer tenancies resulting. He was worried about the possibility of higher prices. The purpose of the orders is to introduce more competition, which should—in one combination or another—improve service, or prices and choice, for the customer.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for making his points about tenants' protection. He will know that I have met the National Licensed Victuallers Association to hear its representations, and my door is open whenever the association wishes to bring new material to my attention or that of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government are keen to ensure that the NLVA has a role in monitoring the way in which changes in the industry take place, and the way in which the Act and the orders work in practice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North were worried about the case where a tenant builds up a business and is then threatened with the loss of it as the pub tenancy changes. Under current legislation, there is no compensation in such a case. Under the Bill, such tenants will be eligible for compensation. That is an improvement which many hon. Members will welcome. I am sure that there will be further debate in Committee about the way in which that compensation is arrived at, but it is progress to have compensation and the Government's case will be symmetry of treatment between pubs and other business tenancies.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) wants the Bill to proceed. I was grateful for the persuasive way in which he put his points and for the way in which he said that, if we pledged careful monitoring, he might see his way to welcoming our proposals. I can pledge tonight that the Government will,

  1261
  of course, monitor the proposals when they are implemented extremely carefully and we shall have an open door to good representations on changes.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was concerned about the original MMC recommendations and thought that they were a little over the top. I am glad that he now agrees that we have abated some of the recommendations and I hope that he will agree that this is a balanced package which reflects the concerns that were put to the Government by the brewing interests on the one hand and by the tenants' and the customers' interests on the other.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) was interested in the plight of small business. Like him, I am a fan of small business and of more choice and competition. He may find that the guest beer provision in the order goes some way to meeting his point. Of course we welcome more small businesses. Pubs provide a way of building a small business for the tenant and there will be more free houses as a result of the proposals. There is a niche in the market for certain kinds of brew. Listening to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy who, from his Scottish viewpoint, casts aspersions against our English beers,I
  1262
  suspect that he may be part of the market for the new beers which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden would like to see.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was worried about the implementation date. It will be two months after Royal Assent. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have been a little confused about the transitional period. There has to be a transitional period for tenancies that are already in force, but new tenancies will be governed by the provisions from an earlier date than he thought. I shall look into his question about the spouse of a publican who dies or who becomes an invalid during a tenancy; that is a point to which I shall respond in Committee.
  I recommend the Bill to the House. It represents great progress for tenants. It is part of a balanced package to improve the shape of the brewing industry and I hope that the House will agree that we should proceed without a Division.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Supply of Beer (Tied Estates)
10.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2258), dated 1st December 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be annulled.
Mr. Redwood: The hour is late and I do not want to detain the House at great length. The two orders are an essential part of our balanced package for the brewing industry in response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order includes the guest beer provisions, the reduction in the number of tied houses under the formula identified in the measure and the breaking of the tie on soft drinks, non-beer drinks and low alcohol drinks, which will improve choice and competition.
The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order deals with the need to have a facility to repay loans and to obtain an exit from the loan tie within a reasonable time, and it introduces a maximum wholesale prices list. It introduces a supply obligation and restricts or prevents covenants on the sale of pubs after 1 January 1990, under which a brewer tries to sell a pub and to stop its further use as a pub.
These are important measures which are part of a balanced package for the industry. They are the result of a great deal of consultation and thought with the industry, with tenants and with customer groups, following the MMC report. It would be best for me to reply to the specific concerns of hon. Members that they raise in the debate.
10.39 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I am somewhat disappointed at the way in which the Government have approached these matters. I should have expected a more detailed and thorough approach by the Minister. The order has caused considerable controversy over a long period. By no means is there unanimity in the House on how these matters should be dealt with.
The Government have failed the industry and the consumer by bringing forward the proposals. They have failed to take the opportunity to restructure the industry and bring about competition. They have failed to satisfy the valid objections of pub customers who are fed up with being overcharged for beer and, in particular, lager. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reckoned that there is overcharging to the tune of 20 per cent. We know also that there are considerable regional differences. A product produced in a certain brewery sells at remarkably different prices in similar circumstances in different regions. The Government have failed to outlaw overcharging for soft drinks, low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers. That subject
1264
was mentioned in an earlier debate this evening. More important, the Government have failed to give future security to the people who work in breweries and bars.
The proposals are a cave-in to the brewers' lobby. They are half-baked, and they fail to address the need to introduce real competition in the industry, and they will probably do very little to bring down beer prices.
The extent of competition in the brewing industry has always been controversial. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in March was but another stage in what has become a long controversy. At the time of publication of the report, Lord Young stated that he was mindful to—
Mr. Graham Riddick: Minded.
Mr. Henderson: He was minded to implement the findings. We all know that it did not take Lord Young long to be less minded, and it did not take him long to realise the error of his ways. Few hon. Members are surprised that such a transformation can occur after a little word in the ear from Victoria street and, perhaps, a bigger word in the ear from the Brewers Society. We all know that, in March, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that brewers are protected from competition in a complex monopoly. By December, and a Secretary of State later, it seems that the brewers are protected from competition by a new complex monopoly.
The Government have repeatedly stated that they believe in competition policy—the Minister hardly needs me to remind him of this—but does competition apply only to local authorities and public authorities? Where is commitment to competition in the brewing industry? Is it the case that competition is all very well if it involves selling or, as has more often become the case, giving away public sector assets? If it entails compulsorily divesting private capital, we are told that it is an infringement of business freedom. Is it not more honestly an infringement of Conservative party ideology, a cave-in to the Brewers Society and the £6 million of advertising, and a surrender to Conservative Back-Bench Members with vested brewing interests? There are many of them present this evening.
Mr. Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about my vested brewing interests, for example?
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remark on the number of hon. Members who have declared a direct interest in the industry. I have made no specific reference to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Moate rose—
Mr. Henderson: I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity—
Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a vague feeling that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was looking in my direction. My vested interest is not as a brewer; it is as a licensee and a publican in six tenanted and leased premises. I have no brewing interests whatsoever.
Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order, but the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has now got his point on the record. Does the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) have a point of order?
Mr. Moate: Only to the extent that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made a point about vested brewing interests. When some of us speak, we are not speaking for vested interests: we believe that we are speaking for our constituents. In my case, I was speaking for the Transport and General Workers Union, which the hon. Gentleman has singularly failed to do.
Mr. Henderson: I know that you will have realised the relevance of that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a little lost on me.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for raising his point of order because the fact that he thought that I was looking in his direction suggests that he accepts some guilt.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission may or may not have the right approach to breaking up monopoly in the industry. I believe that if a limit of 2,000 were put on ownership, a firm policy of preventing the further concentration of ownership would be absolutely necessary. Only that action could prevent predators from gobbling up the assets disposed of by the brewers. If the loan tie for large brewers were outlawed, we would need a lower limit on pub ownership, which would be permissible to protect the genuinely regional and local breweries.
The Government now appear to have accepted the important principal of tackling the issue of loan tying. If they have—I hope that they have—how can they justify their scheme to outlaw only half the loan ties above 2,000 units? Surely that would still allow the big six to dictate the market. Bass will still have 4,650 units that are owned or tied, out of an estate of 7,300 units. Allied Breweries Ltd. will still have 4,300 units tied or owned, out of an estate of 6,600 units. Many believe that the impact of that will not be to extend competition meaningfully. Indeed, that view has been put to me by people who work in the industry and who believe that it will create instability, threaten jobs and make breweries more vulnerable to takeover.
It is noticeable that the Brewers Society has been remarkably silent of late. We all recall the outrage expressed by the Brewers Society when the MMC report was published in March which had become something of a reservation by the time Lord Young changed his position in July. Where is the Brewers Society now in December? Does it believe that its complex monopoly has been let off the hook by the Government's proposals? If that is the case, where are the Government now? Can they still say that they have stood their ground in the face of pressure from the Brewers Society? Can the Government still say that competition is on the agenda in the brewing industry? How minded is the current Secretary of State to face up to the issues that his predecessor chose to duck after four months? Do the Government really expect that these proposals will dent monopoly power in the industry? And to what extent do the Government believe that their proposals will succeed in bringing down beer prices around the country?
The Opposition accept some parts of the orders. The publication of wholesale price lists for beer, with discounts that are both shown and known, is an important contribution to increasing the information that is available
1266
to publicans. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the MMC's views on this matter—and those of many people in the industry. The provisions that prevent brewers with over 2,000 outlets from tying those outlets to their exclusive supplies of non-alcoholic, low alcohol and non-beer drinks are welcome. That is long overdue. As I mentioned in the previous debate, the Consumers Association estimates that the average price of orange juice in an English pub is £2 a pint.
Large profits are to be made on soft drinks, low-alcohol beers and non-alcoholic beers. Regrettably, the Government have caved in on applying the regulation to regional breweries with fewer than 2,000 units. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission believes that the provision should apply to outlets throughout the country, and I agree.
In my area in north-east England—I apologise for repeating what I said in the previous debate—the new regulations have motivated Scottish and Newcastle Breweries to dispose of its outlets over the level of 2,000. That means that, in many instances, people who drink in regionally owned pubs will have to pay more in the long term for soft drinks and low-alcohol beers. I am the first to concede that in my local area there is not the same demand for low-alcohol beer as there is perhaps in other parts of the country. However, that is no excuse for not providing protection. Consumers in the north-east and those who consume in other regional breweries should have the same rights as those who patronise pubs in national chains.
The Opposition welcome the provision to allow tied pubs to offer a guest beer if they wish. There is a danger that swap arrangements will develop between big brewers. That would undermine consumer choice and keep small cask beers from the smaller breweries out of pubs. As with the soft drinks regulations, regional brewers with under 2,000 units will be completely exempt from the provision and drinkers in north-east England, who are largely required to drink in the outlets of regional brewers, may not have the same choice as drinkers in other parts of the country.
The Opposition believe that the regulations are inadequate to break up what the MMC described accurately as a complex monopoly. Consumers and workers must have better protection. Because of the way in which the regulations have been presented to the House, we do not feel bound in the long term by their contents. We shall not finish with the matters before us this evening. They must be kept under constant review.
The Labour party believes that competition can be enhanced and security for the industry's work force achieved only if several other measures are taken. Further concentration of the big brewers must be stopped. Companies such as Anheuser-Busch and Heineken should not be allowed to plunder the United Kingdom market and would not be allowed to do so under a Labour Government. They would be subject to strict regulations which would be reinforced by the Office of Fair Trading—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is what this is all about."] The matter of the tie should be reviewed. We recognise the need for protection to allow smaller regional and local brewers to develop their business.
Mr. Roger Gale: How would the hon. Gentleman effect the regulation under EEC regulations?
Mr. Henderson: The EEC has still to come to an agreement on how the balance will be struck between powers in Brussels, in Westminster and other powers. If we gave notice that a Labour Government would not allow further concentration of monopoly power in the brewing industry, that would be consistent with the arguments put forward in Brussels to improve competition not only in this country but throughout the European Community.
Non-brewing retail companies which might move into licensed retailing should similarly not be allowed to dominate the market and any ownership limits should also apply to them. Full statutory protection and the right to buy should be guaranteed for pub tenants. Tied arrangements for soft drinks, low-alcohol beers and non-alcoholic beers should be outlawed in all outlets. The Office of Fair Trading should be charged with constantly monitoring competition in the industry. A Labour Government would want discussions with brewers and their work force on how the British brewing industry can break into the European market. In 1988, we had a trade deficit in beer of £73 million.
If competition, consumers' choice, reducing prices, protecting jobs and building a sound future for the industry matter, the Government should further review these orders and face up to the real issues in the industry.
10.55 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I am sure that it is no new commentary to my hon. Friends that when the two Front Benches agree, let the people of this nation beware for their freedom for their choice and, on this occasion, for their beer.
In case anybody listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and interpreted it to mean that the Labour party was against the Government's proposals, I should point out that only one Labour Member has sat throughout the debate, recently joined by another. That shows the depth of feeling in the Labour party. I understand that there is to be no demonstration in the Lobby from the Labour party. It will be up to others to demonstrate that the Government are not going along the lines that we believe to be in the best interests of consumers.
The Transport and General Workers Union, which is deeply involved in the brewing industry, rightly and wisely made representations, as have non-political clubs. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is in charge of these matters for the Opposition, however, believes that there is "a feeling" against the big brewers. In more than 20 years in this House I do not recall once having a letter complaining about a monopoly, near-monopoly or technical monopoly in beer. The reason is perfectly simple. If one does not like the house in which one finds oneself, one goes down the road to another. I do not understand how it has been possible magically to dream up the supposition of a monopoly in the supply of beer.
This is not an unimportant matter. Half of British adults go into licensed premises at least once a month and a third do so more than once a week, so if there were a monopoly we would surely have heard about it. We hear of many strange things, so I am sure that we would have heard about that. The Office of Fair Trading dreamed up this inquiry. There were no complaints on its table. It
1268
thought up the inquiry itself. Is Marks and Spencer to be investigated because it sells only St. Michael products in its shops? There is no monopoly there, of course, because one can go round the corner if one does not like its products or prices. So why was the brewing industry investigated in the first place?
If only one point emerges from this debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take seriously the widely held view that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is no longer up to the complex, important and elaborate investigations that it has recently been asked to carry out. I know one or two people on the long panel of those selected for these difficult hearings. They are busy, knowledgeable and intelligent people, but the sheer volume of material presented to the commission is a barrier to full understanding, and the salaries paid mean that the staff are generally young and inexperienced. The Government must grasp the nettle either by employing some seriously well qualified people to head up the teams in the MMC or think of going along the American road and passing proper legislation so that cases can be hacked out in the courts of this country. It is completely wrong and against the interests not just of big business but of the nation's shareholders and our national interest in Europe and the world for our great companies to be threatened by such a totally incompetent organisation. I say that advisedly because I can use this report as an example.
The MMC never understood the nature of the retail market in beer. It failed to recognise the importance of clubs. In one village in my constituency the chairman of the licensed victuallers association has a club opposite his pub. He tells me about the competition that the club provides for his pub. The MMC failed to accept the competition between outlets and the choice of beer available in many pubs. It never grasped one of the most elementary facts about the industry, which is that most profits are generated from retailing and not production. That did not take much finding out because it is in the annual reports of all the breweries which are public companies.
The MMC complained about regional price variations, but took no account of variations in land and house prices or labour costs. We who travel from our constituencies to London know about the differences in retail costs in different areas. We accept that everything is more expensive in the centre of London.
There is a wider choice of beer in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. The United Kingdom industry is less concentrated than that of any other country, except possibly West Germany. Prices in United Kingdom pubs, relative to earnings, are lower than in bars elsewhere. Perhaps this is not a good example, but the other day in Rome I was charged the equivalent of £5 for a bottle of mineral water and a bottle of lager beer.
The MMC never accepted that vertical integration was the brewers' incentive to invest in retail premises. It became extremely concerned about the ability of new brewers to enter the market, but more than 50 per cent. of beer sales occur outside brewers' premises. The beer market, particularly in ale, is a mature market and its most successful new entrants have been internationally known brands advertised at great expense, as we all know as we walk through the streets.
I shall not dwell upon the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill which has just received its Second Reading for fear of being ruled out of order. Pubs and

1269
their ties were created as retail outlets for the breweries. Tenants who entered pubs did so in the knowledge that they had a contract, just as a farm tenant takes on his farm knowing that he has a contract with his landlord. The tighter we make the protection for the tenant, the less we induce the landlord to enter into an agreement. I confidently forecast that the number of tenancies which continue on the same basis will start to decline rapidly as the legislation begins to bite.
I fully understand the concern felt about loan ties, but brewers are not banks and if they lend money for the improvement of a club, which is the usual form, it is not unreasonable that they should tie that loan to some interest of their own. That is a perfectly normal commercial transaction.
One of the more agreeable events of my annual calendar is to attend, as an honorary member, the annual general meeting of the Weston-super-Mare Conservative club. In recent years if has borrowed a large sum of money to purchase the property next door, to expand the club, open it up to ladies and generally prosper. It has become so prosperous that it has amassed capital sufficient to pay back the loan that it received under an agreement from a brewery. I listened with interest as the members argued among themselves about the desirability of paying off the loan and being able to buy cheaper beer, from a wider market, and I understand that desire.
Once the order is passed, however, clubs will be unable to obtain such loans as brewers will be less and less willing —because they will see less and less benefit to their businesses—to make such loans available to clubs. That is to be deplored. The publication of wholesale prices is an interference with trade which is unique to beer. I hope that the Minister will justify that in much more detail and with better arguments than the MMC has used.
The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order contravenes all the Government's best principles. It is the most serious intervention in private property rights since Labour's Rent Acts. Many public houses will come on to the market. Given the size and location of some of those properties, many of them will cease to be licensed premises because their value as residential property will be greater. One more nail will thus be driven into the coffin of rural communities with low-profit pubs.
There has been a decline in the number of brewers. I have the figures for the past 10 years. In 1978 there were 143 breweries and in 1988 there were 107. That decline will be strongly accelerated because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who knows more about the industry than most of us put together, said in his extremely well-informed speech, some of the big brewers will escape the effects of the order by selling their brewing interests. My guess is that before our time is up there will be only a small handful of breweries. That will be the result of the work of the Government—who have no business to interfere in a free market, as they constantly tell us in relation to other areas.
I am disappointed in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who brought a fresh mind to his new position. I had expected him to look at this matter and say that his best market philosophies were not in total agreement with those of his predecessor, but he did not take the view that he could reverse his predecessor's decision. I hope that I am not being too mischievous in reminding the House that his successor at the Department of the Environment took a completely different view about
1270
a well-known planning application at Foxley Wood. Perhaps in his heart my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will have some sympathy with me in reminding the House of that.
If the theory of monopoly grabs the mind of any hon. Member, I ask him to remember that the position of the regional brewers is greatly strengthened by the order. The competition for the regional brewer, which so far has been the national houses—the big breweries—will be taken away. Out of that will come a greater strengthening of he position of individual regional brewers and that, of course, is at the heart of the reason why the Brewers Society has been so impotent in the matter. That was one of the few things on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It is a problem of all trade federations—and I have some sympathy for them—that they cannot meet the interests of all their members when there is conflict in the organisation.
Happily, for once there is a positive and easy solution to the problem and I regret that the Government have turned their back on it. It is to review the licensing laws, because it is the existence of those laws which allows the value of a public house to exist. The Government have said that in the next year or two they will review the licensing laws with a view to dealing with the number of licensed houses in an area. Meanwhile, this draconian measure is to be pressed through the House and in three years the Office of Fair Trading will look again at the brewing industry, casting yet another shadow over its future and its commercial development. Why on earth has it not been possible for the Government to say that they will review the licensing laws and consider the proposition that the licensing justices shall not take into account the number of licensed premises in an area? If the Government did that, competition would be rife and free and none of the problems mentioned today, which I do not think exist anyway, would have occurred in the first place.
The Secretary of State should change the decision. The Office of Fair Trading operated under a false premise, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was incompetent, the Brewers Society was muted and the Government's final decison disastrous. I shall vote against the order.
11.9 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: Before I refer to previous speeches in the debate, I must tell the House how pleased I was to be in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was telling us about his public houses. I have the great good fortune to live bang opposite one of them. It is appropriately called the Constitution, and it is a very attractive and popular-looking pub. A few yards further down the road there is another pub called the St. George's Conservative Club, so I am well served, although I am ashamed to tell the House that I have not been in either of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]. Hon. Members must understand that I am not a heavy drinker, and I have to spend so much time here, working hard.
The comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), when he referred to Conservative Members having vested interests, were somewhat discourteous, to say the least. I have no vested interest whatever. My only interest is that I used to work for a company that sold soft drinks to the licensed trade,

1271
so I know a little bit about the industry. I realise that that may be a disadvantage when one is talking about a subject, particularly if one is a Labour Member.
The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was one of the most blatant and cynical exercises in political point-scoring imaginable. He is totally out of step with his own Back-Bench Members.
Mr. Alistair Burt: What Back-Benchers are they?
Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that there are not many Labour BackBenchers in their places. I can count one, and I know that he has an interest.
Mr. Stan Crowther: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, how can he say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) is out of step with me, and I am the only Back-Bencher here?
Mr. Riddick: I have talked to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about this issue on many occasions, and I am not sure that he altogether disagrees with some of the comments that I may make.
During the past few months, I have had conversations with Labour Members who were concerned about the possible repercussions of the proposals of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Market Access carried out a survey among right hon. and hon. Members, showing that only 23 per cent. of Labour Members believe that the MMC's proposals should be implemented in full. However, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was criticising the Government for not implementing the MMC's proposals in full, and was suggesting a few months ago that the Government should go further.
I take very little notice of what the hon. Gentleman has to say, particularly his comment that a Labour Government would stop the likes of Ansheuser Busch from getting a foothold in the British market. The proposals will lead to that outcome—they will open the door to the big foreign predators—but he does not seem to realise that.
The brewing industry provides 450,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. It is a significant contributor to the Exchequer and it has invested billions of pounds in pub refurbishment in recent years. There is more variety in the outlets, a larger number of brands are sold—there are more than 1,000 brands of beer in the United Kingdom —beer prices are lower and the average number of brands per bar is greater than in any other industrialised country. Consumer surveys have shown up no great consumer dissatisfaction with the current pub scene. In short, the British pub and the British brewing industry is a success story. How does the British establishment react? As is often the case, we try, perhaps unwittingly, to undermine and even to destroy it.
These orders will severely undermine the delicate and complex balance in the industry. The vertical integration which the order is designed to upset, and which the Office of Fair Trading and the MCC seem to dislike so much, has led directly to the provision of a wide range of brands and the brewers' high level of investment in retail outlets.
1272
The order encourages brewers to entice customers to drink more of their beer, not by making their pubs and amenities more attractive, but by spending more on advertising a few, select big brands.
Nevertheless, the order represents an enormous improvement on the MMC's recommendations. I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have shown that they are prepared to listen to some of those who understand the industry. They have made some sensible alterations. As I know them both to be firm believers in the free market, I have no doubt that, had either of them been in the Department during the spring, the original report would have ended up where it most certainly belongs—the dustbin.
I hope that I have not embarrassed my hon. Friend the Minister. He will of course deny emphatically what I have said. Unfortunately, the previous Secretary of State, who we imagined believed in the free market, embraced a report the recommendations of which amounted to a massive and unwarranted intervention by Government in the workings of the free market.
The report raises some questions about the brewing industry and about the role of the MMC and the Office of Fair Trading. After an investigation lasting two and a half years, how could the commission have got it so wrong? Its proposals were based on a number of false premises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said. It wrongly concluded that most profits were made out of brewing, not retailing. The report failed to understand that consumers are more interested in the amenities on offer than just price. The report almost totally and, it seems, deliberately ignored the clear lessons to be learnt from international experience, which shows clearly that, where brewers have no tied outlets, the market is dominated by a small number of massive concerns.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said in the Second Reading debate, the report would take us down the route followed by Australia some 10 years ago. The MMC dismissed the results of that experience, which was that the market became dominated by two major players and prices rose way ahead of inflation. The MMC recommendations were condemned by those whom they were intended to help. The original guest beer provision which was designed to help small brewers was condemned by small brewers. The proposed ending of loan ties to the free trade was condemned by those in the free trade. How could the MMC get it so wrong? Was the report plain flawed or was it drawn up with one purpose in mind—to destroy the vertical integration which is the central structure around which the brewing industry is built?
I have heard from more than one source of the Office of Fair Trading's dislike of vertically integrated industries. Sir Gordon Borrie, the director general, has confirmed to me in a letter that he was consulted about the MMC's recommendations when they were being drawn up, so it is a little surprising that the OFT, which has great experience, did not draw attention to some of the obvious flaws in some of these recommendations.
The failure of the MMC and the OFT to grasp the obvious solution to any so-called problem that might exist in the market—to limit the number of houses that any brewery could own in any geographical area—suggests to me that those responsible for the MMC's report were determined to arrive at a preconceived set of conclusions regardless of the realities of the industry and so long as it

1273
undermined the vertical integration that they disliked so much. They failed to tackle regional monopolies. There seems to have been dogma at work.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should initiate an investigation into the conduct of the MMC's inquiry. The orders will lead to some breweries divesting themselves of their brewing interests and to more money being spent on brand advertising and less on pub refurbishment and improvements. I fear, too, that the price of a pint will increase, not decrease. If my worst fears come to pass, the MMC will have much to answer for. I am minded not to support the orders.
11.21 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I declare an interest as the proud representative of the great brewing centre of Britain. The constituency is proud of the contribution to its daily life for over a century of such great brewing names as Bass, Ind Coope, which is part of Allied Lyons, and Marston's which is one of the great regional brewers.
I congratulate the Government on a shrewd piece of business management in scheduling the debate, when the House has been hammered by world-shattering events over the past few weeks, when we have faced the demands of television and the urgent requirements of our families to see us before we slip into the Christmas mode, and when as a result the House is emptier, especially on the Opposition Benches, than it would have been. It is as shrewd a piece of business management as could have been engineered in the interests of business efficiency. When my hon. Friend the Minister says, "The hour is late, these measures are not all that important and really, chaps, it is time for us to pack up and get home," I can appreciate how clever the Government have been.
So it comes about that, at the fag end of the pre-Christmas part of the Session, we are debating changes as potentially damaging to the British drinker and the production of the British pint as it is possible to conceive in a free society. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had had its way, the only brewer left in Burton would have been the Heritage brewery, which, although an excellent institution, is a working museum. However great its output and however delightful its product, it hardly satisfies the nation's thirst in the same way as the great breweries of Allied Lyons, Bass and Marston.
The MMC's report was a production so manifestly damaging and absurd in its major pronouncements that the industry could hardly believe its ears when Lord Young of Graffham, in a moment of inadvertence, which he must have lived to regret, said that he was minded to accept it. So great was its authors' commitment to the removal of restrictive practice, wherever it is, however it is and whenever it is, that they seemed never to begin to grasp some of the essential truths about the brewing industry.
They did not understand that commercial rents are not always being charged for public houses. The country is full of small pubs that could not exist if commercial rents were charged. Why is that? Because the brewers can get their profit from volume sales of their own beer, and there is no need to make money from rents. Small villages often have uneconomic village pubs. They are of great charm and beauty, existing in some of the most beautiful parts of
1274
Britain, but their existence could hardly be justified by turnover. They are encouraged to continue by the large breweries, which consider them publicity outlets—perhaps loss leaders—or perhaps quite simply can afford to carry their losses.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not understand that beer prices are lower in tied houses than in free houses because there are lower rents and cheaper loans and the prices are kept down by the tie. In my constituency town of Burton upon Trent we visited a number of pubs and found that in almost every case the price of beer in tenanted houses was lower than that in the free houses.
The commission did not understand that the good pubs, and there are very many of them, provide a far wider choice of beers, produced by major brewers, than can be found anywhere on the continent. The French do not come to Britain expecting a limited supply of beer or a limited choice, and neither do the Italians. We could go anywhere on the continent and find nothing like the opportunity in Britain to choose between the different sorts of beers produced by the same brewer, or even different brewers. The sheer number of small pubs in the streets of towns and villages in Britain provides the competition for which the MMC thirsted, and it is far greater than in any street in any town or village on the continent where the tie does not exist.
The MMC did not understand that, if we force major brewers to choose between being manufacturers of beer and being retailers, because they have shareholders they have to choose to be retailers. That is where all their capital is tied up. One major brewer said to me, "We have £30 million tied up in our manufacturing estate, but we have £750 million tied up in our retailing estate. If we are forced to choose, we will shift our production abroad or import beer that is manufactured abroad." One of the primary fears about the MMC report was that it would cause a serious decline in the manufacturing of beer in Britain.
The MMC did not understand that, in any event, 50 per cent. of beer sales are made not in public houses, but in supermarkets and other outlets. It is no longer true to say that one must go to a public house for beer.
Nor did it understand that the commitment to a certain brand of beer is often very strong. The nearest to a riot that I have experienced in my constituency office on a Saturday morning was when Bass and Allied decided to swop some pubs in Burton. The appalling thought occurred to some of my finest constituents that they might have to walk a little further down the road to get the Double Diamond they loved. They would not put up with a change of product in their local public, house. That sort of commitment is peculiar to beer and has nothing to do with the choice that the economists say the customer craves.
As a result of all those misconceptions of what are fundamental truths about how the .,British brewing industry works and how the drinking people respond to it, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was driven to some truly absurd conclusions.
It recommended the forced sale of private property, some 22,000 pubs, as tyrannical a measure as could be found in any Socialist regime in eastern Europe, and one which is totally unacceptable to a Britain of the Thatcher era or even to the era that preceded it, when the Prime

1275
Minister was my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He also would never have tolerated such tyranny.
The commission recommended a low ceiling on the number of tied outlets which, as my hon. Friends have already said and I will not labour the point, would inevitably have forced down sales and forced up closures, reduced public houses and restricted competition and the availability of beer to the British drinker.
The commission threatened the disruption of clubs. They are competitors to pubs. They provide not only a high proportion of the draught beer that is drunk in Britain, but they do so at low prices. It proposes to draw a distinction between the major brewers and the regional brewers. So in parts of Britain, such as Wolverhampton, the regional brewers would be permitted to operate every pub, because the regional brewers are not a major brewer, and the major brewers would not be allowed to operate such a monopoly—an absurdity. Like so many of these economic rules stretched to a completely alien environment, the logic of it leads to the most absurd results.
The commission proposed to restrict the outlets of a brewer's product—an interference with the working of the free market. That is what we have in Britain at present. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the most outstanding spokesman of the free market on the Government Front Bench, choked on his words. He could hardly sit down quickly enough. His introduction of the order took about two and a half minutes flat. No wonder he was ashamed of what he was saying. All his life he has fought for the free market and that is the very thing that the commission's proposals will interfere with.
I do not seek to delay the House a moment longer than is necessary to try to convince hon. Members of the nonsense of the measures. The question is whether the Government have seen enough sense to cut, to trim, to neuter, the commission's harmful recommendations. I am driven to the conclusion that they have not. They have hardly begun. They think that they have come to some kind of compromise and it is true that the compromise will cushion the blow to some extent.
The Government have done good things such as the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill, to which the House has just given a Second Reading. They have done things that are not unacceptable, such as the introduction of a guest beer, as though there are many pubs that do not now have guest beers. That is another misunderstanding of the commission. Practically every pub has some kind of guest beer, if it is only Guinness. I do not think anyone will mind too much about the breaking of the tie of the soft drinks.
But the fundamental matter is the forced closure, the forced transfer, the restriction of outlets, the restriction of choice, the restriction of competition within Britain where we understand how beer is brewed, the reduction in the access which ordinary drinking people in our society will have. I see one curled up in the corner there. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is a great tribute to the drinking masses. When the drinking people of Britain wake up tomorrow morning and hear what we have done in their name tonight, they will throw up. I am driven to
1276
the conclusion that the Government have done nothing near enough to trim away what is bad and absurd in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report.
I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)—who has left the Chamber to have his goodnight tipple, or whatever—concerning jobs. The Opposition Benches are crowded with hon. Members who are concerned about the possible job losses inherent in stripping down the major brewers' contribution to employment. One is talking not just of the people working in the breweries but of those employed in pubs and, in my own constituency, in the factories that produce brewery equipment. We must consider all those matters. I welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. I hope that he sustained himself with Burton ale.
Under these orders there will inevitably be a concentration of a smaller number of brand products produced in a high volume. A limitation on choice will be the result. There will also be a restriction on the capital investment in public houses. The price of beer will rise, and although the market may assuredly be open to the foreign brewer, he cannot claim to produce beer of the quality that we in Britain know how to produce.
To argue, as the Opposition have done, that the Bill represents a craven collapse to the brewers' lobby or to the Brewers Society is as much nonsense as we have heard from the members of the Opposition Front Bench on any subject so far in this Session. The very opposite is true. The Government are instead guilty of a craven collapse to the views of some very strange reporters in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I conclude by reminding the House of the minority report. Mr. Mills commented:
"I consider my colleagues' recommendations to be far more drastic than is necessary and indeed that they could worsen the problem … I consider that the recommendations are unnecessary and indeed could lead to a reduction of competition and less consumer choice."
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the great stalwart for consumer choice and for more competition, should take heed of those words.
Mr. Mills continued:
"Many [tenants] would presumably become unemployed … in my view the proposed changes might even lessen that competition … and … the other recommendations … would be an unnecessary leap in the dark, could be counter-productive and damaging to the structure of the industry and consequently be against the public interest. The tied estate and the loan tie should be left to continue as they are and the brewing industry should be left to change and develop as it is already doing."
I pay tribute to the major brewers in my constituency who have done wonders in improving their pubs. With the help of flexible licensing hours, they have been encouraged to introduce whole families into the environment of the traditional English pub. The standard of behaviour has also improved. At the very moment when the British brewing industry and the British pub are beginning to expand and improve, and to be greater than they have ever been, we are going to break the glass and dash it in the face of the consumer. That is a very odd way for a Conservative Government to behave.
There seems to be no sense in these measures that this Government of all Governments are introducing. They will damage one of our great industries, reduce

1277
competition, weaken quality, and drive up prices. If there is a Division at the end of these proceedings, I shall go into the lobby and vote against the Government.
11.39 pm
Mr. James Couchman: After that eloquent speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes.
Although the interest that I declared earlier is still relevant, let me put it on record that I am no longer a licensee, having passed the joint licenseeship of my six houses to a fellow director. It happened quite recently, and I overlooked it in my point of order.
It is the Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order that mainly concerns me, as I believe that it will wreak the most damage on the traditional pub estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was particularly worried about rural pubs, and other hon. Members have also mentioned them, but I believe that if brewers are forced to choose between putting a substantial number of their pubs at arm's length and selling them off they will choose the latter course. They will begin to sell valuable high street properties, which will almost certainly be worth more if sold for some other use than they are as public houses, and not only rural communities but many urban ones will lose their pubs.
Mr. Gale: As a friend, colleague and fellow Kent Member, my hon. Friend will know only too well that many rural pubs in Kent are already faced with exactly that prospect, standing as they do in as much as three quarters of an acre of development land. The order will result in villages in Kent and throughout the country having no pubs at all.
Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend's remarks encapsulate the problem in the south-east, particularly those areas where land values and property prices are high. That is where the most pubs will probably be sold.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister has managed to modify the extent to which certain classes of licensed premises are caught by the Act, he has failed to address the problem of full on-licence premises that are not public houses. I refer particularly to hotels, in which the proportion of turnover representing beer sales is extremely small. I believe that there is also a problem relating to bingo clubs and the like, although I am not personally acquainted with it.
I have one more question for my hon. Friend, concerning the estate that the brewers will be allowed to retain under tie. New developments are taking place: in the old Chatham dockyard in my constituency, a complete new community will be built up through such a development, which includes residential, office, leisure and commercial elements, and the addition of a public house —perhaps two or three—will undoubtedly seem an attractive proposition. What will be the position of the major brewers, who may have the money to invest in the new properties? Will they have to put further houses at arm's length to compete? It would be ridiculous, surely, if the overall pool of licensed premises were increased by those houses.
My next point is very parochial and vested: it relates to the guest cask-conditioned beer that those of us who are the tenants of six major brewers will be allowed to stock.
1278
Personally, I consider that my hon. Friend was right to exclude the regional brewers, although we must remember that the biggest is nearly as big as the smallest of the big six. The regional brewers, especially the small ones, had a legitimate fear that their pubs would be flooded wiLth major, heavily advertised national brands of lager if they had had to have a guest beer in those houses.
There are problems that the orders do not address. The orders speak of additional rents that may be required by brewer landlords so that the loss of income shall be made up, but they do not address problems such as the use of equipment. The near-mutilation of counters is involved in the installation of new facilities for the supply of cask-conditioned beer. The installation of a pump is a substantial modification and that problem should be addressed. Refrigeration equipment is used to cool beer and, in its modern form, is a far more complex piece of equipment than it used to be. Can the guest cask-conditioned beer be served through that or will additional equipment have to be installed?
There is also the question of advertising and promotion. I got out my six agreements—in five different forms—and the one point that they have in common is that I am not allowed to advertise or promote within those pubs other people's products. What provision does my hon. Friend propose to make for the advertising of guest beers? What is more natural, if a minor or regional brewer manages to get its product into a major brewer's pub, than to want to promote it in some way? Those questions need to be answered.
We are now seeing no alcohol and low-alcohol beers in pubs—the so-called "NABLABs"—on draught as well as in bottles. If we are to free the tie for NABLABS, it will require additional dispensing equipment which will have to go on to the counter. That will bring into question the brewer-landlord's ownership of those counters and their use for dispensing.
There is a myth about the mineral tie. I am not tied on minerals for any of my public houses. By and large, the major brewers do not tie for minerals. It is the regional brewers which still tie for minerals and they are excluded from the order, which makes it a bit of a nonsense. Those are the questions—which I accept are technical and parochial within the industry—that my hon. Friend has a duty to the House to answer if the order is to have any substance.
I want to say little about the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order. The publication of wholesale price lists with discounts that are available will do nothing other than to allow brewers to publish their maximum wholesale prices. Those maximum wholesale prices will undoubtedly be exacted from the tenanted trade, so the tenanted trade—the weakest purchasing power—will be unable to use the benefits of the publication of those price lists.
If I had more time, I should like to say more to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about mineral prices. I can justify the prices that are charged for minerals in public houses, but perhaps we shall have another occasion on which to discuss that.
11.47 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I seek to detain the House for no more than two minutes. I do not wish to argue the merits of the MMC report, which has been dealt

1279
with sensibly by several of my hon. Friends who are better qualified than me. I wish to make just one comment about the Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to create a level playing field—an overused metaphor these days—but to ensure that the tenants of regional breweries have the same slope on the counter as colleagues who belong to larger breweries in relation to the tie for minerals and ciders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) properly pointed out, it is nonsense that the regional breweries have been excluded from the provision which removes that tie for the larger brewers. The tenants of those regional brewers in my constituency would welcome the opportunity for that tie to be swept away.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at that point in Committee and to accept certain evidence on it.
11.49 pm
Mr. Redwood: A good number of points have been raised. Of course, Opposition Members have raised points in a diametrically opposite way from those raised by my hon. Friends who are worried about the impact that this measure may have upon the brewing industry. My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I might have had some difficulties with the order. I remind them of my personal history in this connection.
I seem to remember that, as a Back-Bench Member, I signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) when the MMC report first came out, and when the then Secretary of State said that he was minded to implement the report in full. I felt, as my hon. Friends feel today, that that was an extremely large attack on property in the private sector, which I could not support. When the proposals were substantially changed on 10 July so that mandatory sale of pubs was no longer to be imposed upon brewing companies, I withdrew my name from the early-day motion, and I am glad that I did as Opposition Members might otherwise have been unkind enough to point it out. That reflected my then judgment that a good compromise had been reached between the recommendations of the MMC and those who did not wish to see any change at all in the industry after the identification of a public interest detriment with respect to competition.
I cannot say that I accept the criticism that I, the apostle of competition and free markets, am eating all my own words, because I am responding to an MMC report which identified defects in competitiveness in an industry and I am making proposals today which go some way to remedy the identified defects. Some Labour Members have criticised me, saying that I have not been competitive enough in the proposals that I have brought forward.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was concerned that this measure is not the craven collapse to the brewers that Labour Members are suggesting. He felt that we would have been well advised to take the advice in the minority report. In some ways, one can say that the Government did that, as our proposals are nearer the views of Mr. Mills than to the recommendations of the
1280
main report in terms of the treatment suggested for the industry in the orders. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that the minority report also found a public interest detriment. The author of the report did not say that there was no case to answer. He said that he thought that the remedies recommended in the main report went too far. That is the Government's view, too, and that is why the 10 July statement, as amended in response to subsequent consultation, has taken the form of the current orders and not the more extreme form of remedies suggested in the original MMC report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare thought that there was some inconsistency in the Government's treatment as between these measures and Foxley Wood. There is a missing link in his argument. which does it some damage. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arrived at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Government had already had second thoughts on the MMC report and, in the light of consultation and of feelings in the House, had come forward with the excellent compromise proposal that has been embodied in the orders, with some minor amendments in the light of further consultation. That was not the case when my other right hon. Friend arrived at the Department of the Environment, where the report had been through only one stage. The Secretary of State then said that he was minded to accept it, and consultation revealed that that was not a good idea. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will appreciate the nuances and see that there is a distinction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham asked a number of detailed questions. He asked whether high street pubs rather than rural pubs might be sold and whether they might pass out of the pub business altogether. I do not think that there will be a huge change between the position after these orders have gone through and the position that already exists. Brewers are becoming much more aware of the valuation of their retail estates, and they are making a distinction, for management purposes, between running the property and running the brewery. That was quite clear in the trends in the industry before the orders came forward. Therefore, I do not think that there is such a sea change as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting and I do not hazard a view as to which types of pubs are more likely to be sold or to pass out of pub use altogether.
Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is suggesting that there is already a trend in the way in which the brewing industry is structured and that there has not been a significant sea change, but others would suggest differently. We are already seeing evidence of major and significant changes as a direct result of the MMC report. If the trend appears to be hastening and we are to see a substantial divestment of properties—my hon. Friend has said that he was against the original proposals because of the implications for enforced sales of properties—what proposals does he have for altering and relaxing these proposals, perhaps to undo some of the damage that people may suffer?
Mr. Redwood: There is all the difference in the world between forcing people to sell pubs and giving them choices to deal with the problem of the tie which is what the report and these orders address. There is evidence that pubs are coming on to the market, but there is also evidence that before the orders were laid before the House

1281
and before the MMC report was published major brewers were looking hard at their property values and were beginning, for management purposes, to segregate the returns on rented property from those on brewing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham asked about new pubs and new developments. If a national brewer wishes to buy and open such pubs, it will be governed by the dynamic formula. There are several ways in which that brewer could acquire a new pub and still meet the target of the dynamic formula by, for example, adding one untied property for every tied property or by making other changes in the estate. Because of the way in which the dynamic formula works, people are not prevented from adding pubs to their chain, but the numbers of tied and untied are influenced under the formula. I am glad that my hon. Friend feels that the Government were right to exclude the regional breweries. There is logic in that case, as the hon. Gentleman described.
The questions of equipment, advertising and new agreements which might be necessary to implement some parts of the provision are commercial matters that will be settled by negotiation between the parties. It would not be right for the Government to have a view on how those negotiations should be conducted or how they may turn out.
To my hon. Friends who are worried that we may have gone too far against the brewers and who fear that there may be a threat to the British pub, I say simply that that well-known independent publication, "The 1990 Good Pub Guide", passes into the realm of political and industry comment when it concludes:
"Our research shows that the MMC proposals to break the big brewers' complex monopoly pose no threat to the future of the British pub as a thriving institution."
As my hon. Friends may know, those responsible for the publication have conducted an extensive survey of all pubs. If we are concerned about the charge brought by the Labour party that there may not be enough competition in the proposals, Labour Members can listen to my hon. Friends who feel that too many changes may be in view.
Another independent source—a leading stockbroking analyst in the City, with a good knowledge of the brewing industry—has stated:
"What will probably happen as a consequence of the latest recommendation is that the proportion of UK beer sales sold in some sort of free market place could rise from 54 per cent. towards two thirds, and it is possible that the proportion could rise even as high as 70 per cent.… Our view is that the UK brewers will find the new environment considerably more challenging."
That may well be a sensible conclusion to have reached on the evidence.
Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that he will ask the Office of Fair Trading regularly to investigate this matter and report to him?
Mr. Redwood: I give no specific assurance of the kind sought by the hon. Gentleman, but it is the duty of the Director General of Fair Trading to keep all matters relating to competition under some kind of watching review. It is always open to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to make representations if they feel that major problems have been brought to their attention.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that he was disappointed that I had been so brief. I was simply trying to give my hon. Friends
1282
adequate time to make their points and myself adequate time to reply to them. I was disappointed in his speech because I came expecting a major parliamentary occasion. I had read "What's Brewing". It said that the Labour party planned to force a new major brewing debate. [Interruption.] It gets better. This great debate, manfully conducted by one Back Bencher, one Front Bencher and one silent Whip was going to be a huge occasion. "What's Brewing" tells us that
"the aim is to combine with pro-competition Conservative MPs, force the Government to withdraw the orders, and come back with something more impressive."
Where are the pro-competition Conservative Members wanting to unite with Labour on the grounds that the orders do not go far enough? I have not heard any of them speak. If anything, Conservative Members feel that the Government have been a little too firm with the brewers. Where are the serried ranks of Labour Members who are to bring about this amazing challenge to Her Majesty's Government? If they are not testing brews in the pubs of London, they are probably tucked up in their beds where all sensible people should be at this hour. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's interview in the CAMRA publication is a case of him playing to the camera. Perhaps in future when he is about to savage the Government he will ensure that all his hon. Friends are on a one-line Whip. That seems to be the form here this evening.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North also says that I stand accused of lacking enthusiasm for competition. I will defend myself with some spirit against that rum charge. Much of what I have said and written shows that I am not lacking in enthusiasm for competition, and much of what the Government are doing shows that they are committed to a firm competition policy. They are much more enthusiastic than the Labour party was when in office and than it advises us to be in individual decisions and problems brought before the House.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that there will be competition. The policies that he faintly outlined tonight would make matters worse rather than better. Competition will be seen in the creation of more free houses, the guest beer provisions and the breaking of the tie on soft drinks and low alcohol beverages. The publication of price lists, which he welcomed, will help competition, particularly from tenants and smaller purchasers who feel that they do not get a fair deal. I am surprised that he attacks the regional breweries. An important part of rigorous competition in the brewing industry is to give the regionals the chance to expand and produce their alternative wares.
I hope that micro-brewers—the very small brewers about whom we heard earlier—will flourish. I am sure that there is scope for the good niche brewers whose products the public will savour and like to buy. There will be more chance for the public to buy such products under the arrangements set out in the orders.
Some of my hon. Friends accused the MMC of bad workmanship and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said that the MMC should be strengthened in various ways. I remind him that the MMC already has a large number of experienced panel members from industry and commerce. They are there to provide a leavening of experience and expertise based on their business to go alongside the work of technical experts on the staff. I hope that he will bear that in mind when considering the way in which the MMC operates. He also

1283
asked whether there had been any case where wholesale prices had been revealed. Proceedings are usually undertaken as a result of inquiries. Two examples that come to mind are British Gas prices and the price of plasterboard. We are not singling out the brewers.
The Government are reviewing the licensing system for the very reason identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. One of the underlying reasons for the power in the market place identified in the report is licensing. But licensing also has benign consequences. There is a good reason why pubs are licensed, as all hon. Members will accept. The Government are aware of the problems. That is why the matter is being reviewed to see whether there need to be changes in the light of the problems identified by my hon. Friends and others.
This has been a good debate. It has revealed that the House is split between Labour Members—who want the orders toughened up and the brewers taken further to task —and my hon. Friends who feel that there has not been enough care taken in responding to the brewers' concerns. In that connection, the brewers have made many good representations in recent months and the orders now represent a sensible conclusion to those negotiations with several important modifications that I hope my hon. Friends will welcome.
It is important that the Government have taken out of the equation food chains which sell some beverages, perhaps alcoholic ones, as part of their general food service. They are not offering a general pub service to the public coming in off the streets. That was a mistake in the earlier versions and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that it was a good idea to remedy that problem.
The reason why the Government have kept the full on-licence as the criterion is that a definition of a pub is that its service involves serving a drink and nothing else to people coming in off the street. That is the problem that the MMC identified, which is why the orders are drafted as they are. That does not make a huge impact on most of the chains concerned because the number with hotels of the size for which exemption is sought are few and the number of hotels is also few, so it does not have a material impact on the total number of pubs covered.
I hope that the House will vote for the orders, reject the Opposition's prayer against the one order and support the Government's positive resolution in favour of the other. The orders represent a good deal for tenants, for customers and for the brewing industry in the light of the MMC report, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support them.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 8.

Division No. 22]

[12.7am

AYES

Amess, David

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Arbuthnot, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Atkinson, David

Irvine, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kennedy, Charles

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bowis, John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

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

Mans, Keith

Burns, Simon

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Burt, Alistair

Mills, Iain

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Norris, Steve

Carrington, Matthew

Paice, James

Carttiss, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Chapman, Sydney

Porter, David (Waveney)

Chope, Christopher

Redwood, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Speed, Keith

Durant, Tony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Fallon, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Fishburn, John Dudley

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Forth, Eric

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Freeman, Roger

Wallace, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Widdecombe, Ann

Goodlad, Alastair

Wood, Timothy

Gow, Ian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mr. David Lightbown and

Hague, William

Mr. Nicholas Baker.

NOES

Golding, Mrs Llin

Skinner, Dennis

Haynes, Frank

Vaz, Keith

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Lawrence, Ivan

Tellers for the Noes:

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Jerry Wiggin and

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Roger Moate.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Supply of Beer (Tied Estates) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

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

  MEDICINES
  That the draft Medicines (Intermediate Medicated Feeding Stuffs) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  EDUCATION
  That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 15th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. —[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Question agreed to.

Consumer Protection
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alastair Goodlad.]
12.17 am
Mr. David Porter: I shall start by thanking Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise the subject of consumer protection. I also want to thank and pay tribute to Miss Susan Fleming, a third-year politics major student at the university of East Anglia. As part of her course she has been assigned to work on a project of my choice for one day a week this autumn term, and I am grateful to Miss Fleming for her research. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving me time to air some of my views. I also thank most warmly the staff of the National Consumer Council who have provided helpful assistance.
In order to make consumer protection a reality and not a pious intent, I call for the establishment of a CIA in Britain, a consumers' interests authority. Although I am reluctant to advocate more bureaucracy, I think that, parallel with the green revolution and in tandem with individual choice and responsibility, we need to go into the 1990s with strengthened consumer protection.
The proposals by the National Consumer Council for a consumer guarantee on cars and household goods costing over £50 go a long way towards providing the consumer with real choice and protection in the marketplace. That guarantee concept is at the heart of customer confidence.
Our trading standards service generally does a good job. Sometimes its members are limited by resources, and sometimes by their brief, the criminal side of the standards enforcement, which leaves a gap on the civil side, which has no protection.
An authority or agency such as the one that I propose would include the parameters of the trading standards service to some extent, some parts of the Office of Fair Trading, weights and measures, and the various schemes for independent arbitration and would reduce some of the work load of the small claims courts.
Local authorities should decide their priorities on trading standards. Consider the differences in spending per head on consumer protection last year—it ranged from £2·05 in Warwickshire to 64p in Lancashire. The projected range for the current year is from £2·62 in Warwickshire to 89p in Lincolnshire.
Local democracy apart, consumers are entitled to a more certain sign that local authorities, as enablers, are meeting their commitments. I accept that the figures could, to some extent, reflect the inefficiency of the statistical service. I do not want to go too far down that road, and talk about those figures, but they illustrate my point.
We hear daily about the rights of voters, the rights of women, the rights of workers and even the right to die. Surely, as consumers, we must expect a minimum agreed standard of manufacture and service. That is not too much to expect, is it? I do not think that an agreed standard that manufacturers of goods and suppliers of services have to meet is too much to expect.
Let us take the famous case of Mr. Bernstein. Some 27 days and 140 miles after he bought his Nissan Laurel car, the engine seized. He was forced to take the garage that sold it to him to court, but the judge told him that it was too late for him to reject the car, and that he was only entitled to compensation.
1286
The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 gives the consumer the right of redress against the retailer if goods are faulty, but it is flawed, because the consumer is deemed to have accepted the car or the goods after an unreasonably short time. Therefore, the consumer loses the right to get his or her money back.
Let us take the case of Miss Cox and Mr. Flowerday, two of my constituents, who started a small business under the Government's enterprise allowance scheme. They bought a brand new Fiat for the business. From day one it was clearly a dud. Eventually, after endless repairs, an independent assessment and much citing of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a solicitor advised them to accept £100 m compensaton, because they could not afford the court procedures. Why should they have had to go to the expense, the delay and the inconvenience of going to court? If they could have gone to a consumer interest authority, the court element might not have been necessary, but if it had been, the authority would have handled it on their behalf.
Under current legislation, a contract is established between the retailer and the customer. Last Session, I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill—the Public Servic:e Contracts Bill. I sought to lay down the right to compensation when public services such as British Rail, the Post Office, and local authorities failed to deliver an agreed minimum standard, if possible a legal minimum standard. I still believe that that is right, and that it should apply to the sale of goods in the same way.
The Retail Consortium hopes to be able to support the concept of consumers' guarantees, a subject on which much has been said lately. It wants satisfied customers. After all, business depends upon satisfied customers. In millions of daily transactions, best practice prevails, and can be demonstrated to do so. Of course there are cowboy sellers, and unreasonable customers, but retailers are keen to protect consumers' rights.
The Retail Consortium is part of a monitoring group on misleading prices, which was set up by the Minister, who, I think, prefers a code to regulation when there is detailed agreement within a trade and with enforcement agencies. Perhaps the role of the DTI in those matters needs defining.
The convention that the retailer is liable stems from the clout that he presumably has with his own suppliers and the difficulty of the individual taking on the large manufacturers. Consider the Philips fan-assisted oven that did not reach roasting temperature unless the fan was disabled. It was a straightforward design fault, but Philips denied responsibility and passed the buck back to the retailer. The customer was left out of that entirely.
We also have the case of the Honda motor bike, the brake of which would seize in snowy weather—with obvious consequences. Honda did not see it as a manufacturing problem, but blamed the British practice of salting roads in icy weather.
They may be isolated and extreme cases, but an enforcement agency could make even giant manufacturers more responsive to consumer demands. We should never under-estimate the power of consumer demand. The marketing of products in aerosol cans, for example, is being changed out of all recognition because of it.
I believe that there is a growing tide of demand for a legally enforced, reasonable minimum standard for goods and services. In Britain, up to 6 million people a year fail to get adequate satisfaction when something they have

1287
bought goes wrong. It is not just the purchaser who loses out. As consumers, we all pay for the production and marketing of shoddy, if not useless, goods.
A potential buyer looking at a line of washing machines or fridge-freezers has nothing to tell him or her how much faith the manufacturer has in the reliability of his product or how efficient the after-sales service will be. That means that British manufacturers are missing a vital element that would help them enormously.
The NCC consumer guarantee would cover the entire product for 12 months at least, and any fault would be repaired at no cost to the consumer, provided that the consumer had not caused it. If the item were not repaired within five days—three days for cars—the consumer would be loaned a similar one, or compensated for loss and expenses. A fault would be put right in three attempts and the product would not be out of use for more than 30 days in any 12-month period, or there would be a choice of a refund or replacement.
The idea is not to cause manufacturers to mark the goods with a guarantee, but to oblige those without it to be clearly marked "This has no consumer guarantee." What an incentive for improvement that would be. What an act of faith it would be for quality manufacturers. What a death sentence it would be for most of the cowboys.
Details are subject to debate, but what about the principle? Even then, things may still go wrong. We have independent arbitration schemes, and banks and building societies have ombudsmen. There is talk of the tourist industry having an ombudsman. Ombudsmen have the good will of the industry and the support of the public. We should have a high street ombudsman for the consumer in the street.
Sweden has an independent arbitration scheme in its Public Complaints Board. It deals mainly by post with civil claims, at very little public cost. The board gives an advisory judgment which, if not accepted, is sent to arbitration. Names and details are widely publicised, which has proved effective. Power of public embarrassment is an additional tool on the consumer's side. Sweden's system is less bureaucratic than our small claims court, and I hope that it commends itself to the Minister.
There is a model in the United States. Most states have a utilities commission with power to refer to the district attorney complaints of violation of legal service standards. In effect, the district attorney can prosecute on behalf of individuals, and most get compensation out of court as a result. It is a principle that can be adapted here—legal minimum standards without being too complex, expensive or off-putting.
A CIA would be customer-friendly and be seen as such. It would present not an obstacle course in the minefield of consumer legislation but a powerful ultimate sanction in a society in which the Government have given the individual choice and responsibility.
I ask two things of the Minister. First, he should give periodic remits to the NCC. It has independence written into its constitution, but it is funded by taxpayers. Will he ask it to explore the issue of redressing the high street and how it may be made more effective? Secondly, if the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) or any other hon. Member brings forward a consumer guarantee bill as
1288
a private Member's Bill, will the Government maintain benevolent neutrality or support the guarantee concept, even if they want to amend the details?
I shall end by paraphrasing Lord Palmerston who, you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from history lessons, not from memory—said in 1850:
"a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him".
I say that, in whatever high street, market stall, corner shop or out-of town shopping centre, and whatever service a consumer pays money for, he shall have the strong arm and watchful eye of the CIA—the consumers' interests authority—and the consumers' guarantee available to him.
12.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the debate. The House should be grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to discuss an important subject that represents a major part of my portfolio and for drawing our attention to his constituents' concerns. I acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who has taken the trouble to be in his place, to whom my hon. Friend referred. Also present is my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who has shown an interest in these matters and who is with his parliamentary neighbour this evening to give him support.
I shall examine any proposals that come forward in the form of a private Member's Bill, or any other form, to give effect to the National Consumer Council's recommendations. I shall do so with a critical eye because I am concerned to ensure that any proposals are workable and not over-bureaucratic. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney prays in aid the United States, and I admire that country more than most hon. Members. I am aware, however, of the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom. I would be reluctant to take this country down the rather litigious route that the United States has taken in many instances. The costs of remedy often exceed the benefits either to consumers or producers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly laid stress on the importance of giving protection to the consumer. That is a principle to which the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry have always been fully committed. I remind my hon. Friend of a passage in my Department's White Paper of January, 1988:
"In consumer protection, the policy emphasis will reflect the Government's belief that the best form of protection comes fom consumers making well-informed choices and acting in their own interests. To achieve this, information can be more effective than regulation. However, where the case is made out for regulation on safety or other grounds, the Government will not hesitate to act."
That remains our position.
The consumer already enjoys the protection of a comprehensive and well-developed framework of legislation, backed by effective and equitable mechanisms for redress. The Government provide support to the National Consumer Council and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which provides an important source of advice, information and research to consumers.

1289
Legislation, and even the new type of bureaucracy that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has suggested, is not necessarily the answer to every perceived problem. New legislation takes time and can often be over-bureaucratic, and that is a danger that exists with my hon. Friend's suggestion. Voluntary response by industry is often quicker and more effective. Consumers have benefited considerably from industry initiatives to develop codes of practice and to provide mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, driven, as ever these matters are, by the need for it to compete in the marketplace and to attract and retain the confidence of consumers in the products that it is offering. An effective consumer policy is a combination of statute law, self-regulation and information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has spoken about the importance of protecting consumers' rights when goods are bought. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 sets out what the consumer is entitled to expect and provides him with remedies if things go wrong. The Act is one of the most fundamental pieces of our statute law, covering everything, as has been said, from a box of matches to a nuclear submarine. I do not know how many claims have been made under the heading of the second item, but it is one that we like to quote.
No statute can have been more frequently effective—it is usually unseen in its operation—in everyday life. If the average shopper made only three purchases a day, for example, the number of daily transactions governed by the Act would be over 100 million. Under the Act, traders are required to sell goods which are of merchantable quality, which are fit for the purpose and which correspond to their description. Traders cannot exclude these provisions from their contracts with consumers. The Act allows the buyer, if he acts within a reasonable time, to reject goods which are not of merchantable quality and to receive back the purchase price.
If a latent defect comes to light later, after the goods have been in use for some time, the buyer is still entitled to claim damages and this right is not subject to any time limit except the normal rules which apply to the limitation of actions. In awarding damages, the courts would take into account the use the consumer had had from the goods.
Mr. Martyn Jones: This is crucial to the idea of the consumer guarantee mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). The problem with the Sale of Goods Act is that rejection is the immediate remedy. In the case of a product that is not repairable, which the Minister mentioned, there is only action at law for repair. If a consumer guarantee were enshrined in law, the product would carry a guarantee for replacement or a refund within a statutory period. That would provide a right for consumers that they do not currently enjoy under the Act. The Minister is missing the problem with the Act in dealing with a rogue product.
Mr. Forth: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of the matter. He and I discussed it recently, and no doubt will do so again, as I am sure I will also discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. I do not claim that the Act is perfect. The hon. Gentleman knows that for some time we have wanted to update it. Neither do I claim that all is perfect with guarantees. However, I am not yet convinced that the
1290
National Consumer Council proposal is workable or ideal. I hope that, between us, we can find the best way forward. I shall strive to do so, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do so.
The Law Commissions' review of legislation governing the sale and supply of goods, published in 1987, made a number of recommendations that have been accepted by Government. The main recommendation is that the old requirement of merchantable quality should be replaced with an up-to-date term that recognises the aspects of quality—something dear to the hon. Gentleman's heart —which are important for consumers as end-users of the goods in question. The new Act will spell out that the relevant aspects in determining satisfactory quality include fitness for purpose, the appearance and finish of the goods, their freedom from minor as well as major defects, their safety and their durability. The Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation to implement those changes, which will clarify and strengthen consumers' rights.
Some have argued that consumers' rights should go further. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend both said as much. The argument is that the right to reject and to obtain a refund should be a long-term one and should not necessarily expire after a reasonable time. They also argue that latent defects may come to light only afer some time in use. My hon. Friend referred to the famous—some would say notorious—Bernstein case of the motor car that broke down after a limited period.
The House should be aware that the Law Commissions gave very careful consideration to all the arguments when they considered this issue, but they recommended against creating a long-term right of rejection. They argued that such a right would create major commercial uncertainties and be extremely unfair to sellers. Consumers who bought a defective product would, in effect, get free use of it until the defect appeared. The seller would then be obliged to take back a used product and to refund the purchase price in full. Suppliers would be obliged to hedge against the commercial uncertainties of such a regime and the unwelcome implications for consumer prices. I should want to avoid that, and so, I suspect, would other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend welcomed the National Consumer Council's recommendations on consumer guarantees. He urged me not just to consider them, but more or less to adopt them. I have already given them careful consideration, and there is much in them that I want to think about positively. I agree that guarantees should state their terms clearly and in plain English and I could support legislation that would make such guarantees legally enforceable. I fully endorse the view that any guarantee must be additional to existing statutory protection.
But I do not accept that it is necessary to lay down detailed terms or procedures which would attach to specific products covered by consumer guarantees. To do that would be needlessly bureaucratic and would constrain rather than encourage competition on the terms of individual guarantees, and it may result in some manufacturers withdrawing existing guarantees which offer different terms, which could have the effect of leaving consumers less protected than before.
The Sale of Goods Act provides the consumer with a clear right of action against the supplier, who is normally a retailer. The NCC proposals would involve the manufacturer, who is not normally a party to the contract.

1291
There is a risk that that would result in confusion in some disputes, which might undermine the consumer's rights against the retailer under the Sale of Goods Act.
I would welcome measures that would promote greater transparency of information about guarantees and wider and more open competition in their terms, but the NCC proposals would need more development along those lines before they would attract Government support.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of legal redress in consumer disputes and the problems associated with seeking that redress in some circumstances. Earlier this year, the Lord Chancellor announced, in response to the civil justice review, the introduction of a programme of reforms, designed to improve access to justice by speeding up, simplifying and reducing the cost of civil proceedings.
The Courts and Legal Services Bill permits the Lord Chancellor to replace the present system of jurisdiction with more flexible criteria for allocating business between the High Court and the county courts. This will enable more cases of higher value to be handled and tried in the county courts. Procedural changes, such as a requirement for early exchange of information, the introduction of new pre-trial rules covering more informative pleadings, interrogatories and admission of facts, and the creation of a new system of court control could and should also assist smaller plaintiffs to pursue claims more effectively.
A further development arising out of the civil justice review is the raising of the upper limit for small claims proceedings from £500 to £1,000. I appreciate that that may not be relevant in the case that my hon. Friend cited, but it will be a substantial increase in the facility given to consumers to benefit from the simplified proceedings.
My hon. Friend referred to the problems that his constituents had with the purchase of a motor vehicle. The code of practice for the motor industry is an important supplement to the general law covering the sale of motor cars and it is a good example of self-regulation by the responsible sector of an industry. It provides consumers not only with minimum standards in the sale, repair and
1292
servicing of motor cars, but also with a mechanism for resolving disputes that does not entail having to go to court.
The code has the support of the Director General of Fair Trading, who also has a role in monitoring it and keeping it under review. Any proposals for changing the code are a matter betweeen the director general and the trade associations concerned, and any complaint about a member failing to abide by the code should be directed to the trade association and also to the Office of Fair Trading.
A code of practice is not intended to be a substitute for legislation, and it does not act as such. Nor is it designed to be enforced in the same way as legislation is, but codes of practice have distinct advantages over statutes. Because they are voluntary, they represent a genuine desire on the part of the traders concerned to go beyond the letter of the law in their dealings with consumers. Codes are also more flexible than statutes and can be interpreted more liberally and modified more readily. Furthermore, codes such as the motor code provide consumers with valuable alternative facilities for resolving disputes, which may be quicker, cheaper and less intimidating than going to court, particularly in the case of larger claims.
I have tried to answer most of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have also tried to deal with some of the matters that have been considered by others, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, who has been listening, has been persuaded that the Government are aware of the concern shared by many hon. Members in this most important area. We shall always look positively at suggestions that may come forward in the shape of legislation or in any other form. But, above all, our concern is to ensure that we combine what is effective and practical while resisting what may be bureaucratic. In striking that balance, we shall provide the best and most effective protection for the consumer.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  Representations have expressed a variety of views on different aspects of the proposals. Many support the underlying principle that students in higher education should contribute to their living costs.

  Research
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements exist between the Medical Research Council and Celltech on the exploitation of research results.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council and Celltech Ltd signed a memorandum of understanding for a period of five years on 2 November 1988.

  The main feature of the memorandum of understanding is provision for regular dialogue between the council and Celltech. The understanding does not oblige the council to give preferential treatment in respect of new technologies.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the numbers of pupils remaining in full-time education after 16 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1988–89, 345,000 16-year-olds were participating in full-time education in England. The details are as follows:

  Pupils

  Maintained schools:

  180,000

  Maintained further education colleges:

  126,750

  Independent schools:

  38,300

  This represents an overall full-time participation rate of 51 per cent.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will reply to the letter of 19 September from the hon. Member for Oxford, East on the future of the Workers Educational Association.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.
  740
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will reply to the letter of 19 July from the hon. Member for Oxford, East on the points indicated in his letter of 17 October.

  Mr. Jackson
  I did not think that the hon. Member's letter required a reply.

  Her Majesty's Senior Chief Inspector (Report)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when the next annual report of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector will be published on the state of schools;

  (2) whether he intends to edit or amend the annual report of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector on the state of schools before it is published.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect to receive the annual report from the senior chief inspector early in the new year. When I do so I intend to publish it without editing or amendment.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which city technology colleges have signed agreements with his Department; and what areas these agreements cover.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will shortly be concluding funding agreements with all city technology colleges on the lines of the model agreement placed in the Library of the House earlier this year. Pending the conclusion of these agreements, there have been exchanges of letters with principal sponsors setting out their commitment and the conditions on which the Secretary of State accepted their sponsorship.

  Bradford City Technology College
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money, to date, Dixons has paid towards capital and revenue expenditure at Bradford city technology college; what is the total financial commitment of Dixons to the capital and revenue expenditure of Bradford city technology college to date; by what dates Dixons is required to pay additional amounts; and whether any of these commitments are conditional on Dixons remaining free from takeover.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total financial commitment of the Dixons Group plc to the capital development of the Bradford city technology college is £1.1 million. This is being paid by a deed of covenant over five years in five equal payments of £220,000. The first payment was made in March 1989, the next being due in March 1990. Our agreement with Dixons is based on the understanding that the covenant by Dixons is such that it would have to be taken over by any successor of the Dixons Group plc.

  Further Education
  Mr. Derek Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list(a) the 1986–87 and 1987–88 grant-related expenditure assessments for 16 to 19-year-olds' education provision by local education authority and (b) the actual level of expenditure for 1986–87 and 1987–88.
  741
  Mr. Jackson
  Table 1 shows the grant-related expenditure assessments (GREA) by local authority for the years 1986–87 and 1987–88 for provision relating to 16 to 19-year-olds. The assessments shown are the GRE for school pupils aged over 16 (OSLA) and for non-advanced further education (NAFE) and the pooling GRE for advanced further education. The NAFE GRE includes further education provision for students aged over 19 and is distributed on the numbers of NAFE home students in full-time, part-time day release and block-release and youth training scheme (YTS) courses. The pooling GRE covers also provision for a wider age range.

  Table 1

  Grant Related Expenditure Assessments

  1986–87 and1987–88 OSLA and NAFE GREs and the AFE Pools, in £ million.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  LEA

  OSLA

  NAFE

  POOLS

  OSLA

  NAFE

  POOLS

  Barking

  1·4210

  2·3837

  1·5216

  1·6845

  2·2553

  1·5798

  Barnet

  6·7172

  5·9062

  71637

  7·2191

  5·6217

  7·4339

  Bexley

  3·8971

  4·2116

  3·1860

  4·5575

  4·4537

  3·1082

  Brent

  6·2415

  6·7094

  6·8363

  6·8605

  7·660

  7·2494

  Bromley

  5·5222

  4·6319

  5·9212

  6·0047

  5·0973

  5·8800

  Croydon

  4·8889

  6·4768

  6·4430

  5·7831

  6·4775

  6·3971

  Ealing

  5·2962

  7·3855

  6·5584

  6·0115

  7·1603

  6·8490

  Enfield

  4·9578

  5·2520

  5·2143

  5·4973

  5·6142

  5·4249

  Haringey

  4·0245

  5·7764

  5·3178

  4·4135

  5·8670

  5·5284

  Harrow

  4·6889

  4·2608

  5·2305

  5·4283

  3·9612

  5·2552

  Havering

  3·5613

  4·4512

  3·4866

  4·3357

  4·3753

  3·1977

  Hillingdon

  3·8055

  4·0883

  41897

  4·3024

  41549

  4·1240

  Hounslow

  3·8350

  3·9257

  3·7846

  4·2360

  4·2482

  3·8106

  Kingston

  2·5499

  2·2729

  2·8971

  2·7567

  2·4036

  3·0455

  Merton

  2·7769

  3·0265

  2·8180

  2·9728

  3·1292

  2·8872

  Newham

  3·3723

  5·2619

  4·1609

  3·6348

  6·0091

  3·9277

  Redbridge

  4·1971

  3·9960

  4·2675

  4·8762

  4·0160

  4·1001

  Richmond

  ·5181

  4·6504

  3·4863

  ·5480

  4·9176

  3·5337

  Sutton

  2·8939

  3·3290

  2·7217

  3·2122

  3·1006

  2·7527

  Waltham Forest

  3·6076

  4·8795

  3·7989

  4·0335

  4·42770

  3·6877

  ILEA

  30·1963

  46·2986

  49·7162

  32·0359

  49·7585

  50·9260

  Birmingham

  14·6681

  16·3064

  18·4695

  17·6544

  17·9318

  18·8193

  Coventry

  4·7315

  6·4711

  6·9196

  5·5654

  6·9683

  7·0017

  Dudley

  2·7909

  8·0633

  5·2054

  3·1096

  7·5264

  5·1411

  Sandwell

  3·8869

  5·5749

  4·0927

  4·4171

  5·7844

  4·1051

  Solihull

  3·1631

  4·9295

  4·2417

  3·8077

  5·1548

  4·5599

  Walsall

  3·9950

  4·7055

  4·8804

  4·6714

  5·0086

  4·8266

  Wolverhampton

  3·5822

  5·3754

  5·3822

  3·9588

  5·9377

  5·5341

  Knowsley

  1·9714

  3·8633

  2·5138

  2·1919

  3·9683

  2·2904

  Liverpool

  7·5045

  9·2188

  9·2911

  8·6696

  9·5059

  9·0451

  St. Helens

  2·9447

  3·8589

  3·6334

  3·4100

  4·2772

  3·6680

  Sefton

  4·8146

  5·9304

  7·0388

  5·5496

  6·5124

  7·3637

  Wirral

  5·5689

  7·1185

  7·7825

  6·6350

  7·4905

  7·9891

  Bolton

  3·5818

  5·7068

  6·1728

  4·3318

  5·8240

  6·2502

  Bury

  2·9412

  3·4973

  3·7942

  3·6108

  3·9259

  3·9357

  Manchester

  6·6694

  7·7488

  8·8854

  7·6048

  8·3378

  8·9971

  Oldham

  2·5852

  4·1344

  3·8347

  3·1632

  4·3047

  4·0035

  Rochdale

  3·0893

  3·5733

  3·6982

  3·5865

  3·5287

  3·7218

  Salford

  3·2843

  3·6904

  3·5454

  4·0918

  3·7147

  3·4666

  Stockport

  4·8964

  6·0530

  7·2915

  5·7565

  6·4273

  7·5516

  Tameside

  2·7620

  4·4418

  3·4246

  3·0058

  4·7125

  3·3961

  Trafford

  4·2633

  5·2484

  5·3404

  4·7191

  5·4605

  5·7047

  Wigan

  2·9304

  7·0770

  5·4957

  3·6194

  7·4044

  5·6563

  Barnsley

  2·4460

  4·0468

  3·3991

  3·1163

  4·3849

  3·3687

  Doncaster

  4·3146

  5·1801

  5·5979

  4·8023

  4·8794

  5·9407

  Rotherham

  3·3843

  4·9609

  4·4411

  3·9741

  5·3075

  4·5306

  Sheffield

  7·3981

  10·6159

  11·8852

  8·2633

  11·8952

  12·2711

  Bradford

  7·4602

  6·8017

  8·7233

  8·7910

  8·1134

  8·7442

  Calderdale

  2·9714

  3·3870

  3·7624

  3·4723

  3·6888

  3·8047

  Kirklees

  5·9654

  7·6264

  7·6808

  7·1706

  8·4657

  7·8588

  Leeds

  10·1982

  11·2013

  13·1661

  11·5771

  11·9987

  13·7239

  Wakefleld

  2·7944

  6·3332

  5·0287

  3·1951

  6·8730

  5·1835

  742
  Table 2 shows the net expenditure by local education authorities on non-special secondary education, polytechnics and other maintained further education establishments for the years 1986–87 and 1987–88, which cover the areas dealing with 16 to 19-year-olds' education: no separate figure is available for secondary education for pupils aged 16 and over. The grant-related expenditure assessments cannot be compared easily with the expenditure shown because the coverage of each figure is different. The expenditure figures include estimates for three authorities in both 1986–87 and 1987–88 which did not make returns.
  743

  Table 1

  1986–87 and 1987–88 OSLA and NAFE GREs and the AFE Pools, in £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  LEA

  OSLA

  NAFE

  POOLS

  OSLA

  NAFE

  POOLS

  Gateshead

  2·3224

  3·2500

  3·5420

  2·6262

  3·2743

  3·6110

  Newcastle

  3·4705

  3·8327

  6·1526

  4·1759

  3·8396

  6·4799

  North Tyne

  2·7899

  3·4673

  4·1285

  3·3394

  3·8989

  4·1377

  South Tyne

  1·6734

  4·3732

  3·3209

  1·8745

  3·9502

  3·3607

  Sunderland

  3·5196

  4·6668

  5·8453

  3·9955

  5·2862

  6·1069

  Isle of Scilly

  0·0245

  0·0704

  0·0667

  0·0338

  0·0634

  0·0610

  Avon

  12·7125

  15·3536

  16·4283

  14·1458

  16·2210

  16·8475

  Bedfordshire

  8·6903

  8·8109

  10·2428

  9·6129

  9·2168

  10·3091

  Berkshire

  12·1247

  14·8914

  15·3845

  13·7402

  16·4875

  15·5982

  Buckinghamshire

  11·5343

  11·9879

  12·7879

  13·1905

  13·0053

  13·4367

  Cambridge

  8·3047

  12·3585

  10·2390

  9·7843

  13·1989

  10·8203

  Cheshire

  16·0909

  21·3202

  21·1801

  18·8959

  23·9672

  23·0431

  Cleveland

  9·1466

  9·6033

  11·6532

  10·6006

  10·6944

  11·6598

  Cornwall

  6·7119

  8·4693

  6·6954

  7·7672

  9·2234

  7·2745

  Cumbria

  6·7763

  9·1688

  7·9667

  7·9154

  9·7176

  7·9488

  Derbyshire

  10·6946

  18·9447

  16·5113

  12·2068

  22·3227

  17·1278

  Devon

  9·9219

  21·5102

  15·8355

  11·0669

  23·2751

  15·6448

  Dorset

  7·4301

  10·2165

  9·7829

  7·8925

  11·8849

  10·0172

  Durham

  7·0914

  9·2538

  10·4972

  7·9938

  10·0294

  10·7041

  East Sussex

  9·6728

  10·8399

  10·9003

  11· 0594

  11·0740

  11·5481

  Essex

  22·8475

  26·2580

  25·9320

  25·3278

  27·7856

  25·6711

  Gloucestershire

  7·7987

  9·3300

  9·6097

  8·5251

  10·5146

  10·1352

  Hampshire

  19·4850

  35·9221

  27·0052

  21·8919

  37·9027

  27·4604

  Hereford and Worcester

  9·2644

  13·4535

  11·9953

  11·1941

  14·6439

  12·1071

  Hertfordshire

  18·6229

  19·4794

  22·5806

  20·4377

  20·6686

  25·0542

  Humberside

  12·1301

  14·3289

  16·0721

  13·7406

  15·4554

  16·0071

  Isle of Wight

  1·7237

  2·4630

  1·8169

  1·9216

  2·2492

  1·7714

  Kent

  23·8374

  28·9307

  24·8749

  27·1837

  29·7682

  25·5046

  Lancashire

  14·1041

  33·9718

  27·2558

  15·8680

  36·8203

  28·4850

  Leicester

  16·0377

  14·7526

  16·9372

  18·1764

  16·8878

  17·4708

  Lincolnshire

  7·2592

  11·6851

  9·4760

  8·4486

  12·9926

  9·8644

  Norfolk

  8·2102

  11·9843

  9·4893

  9·0588

  13·1012

  9·7804

  North Yorkshire

  11·2841

  15·2090

  13·5418

  13·2148

  16·7412

  14·6450

  Northants

  7·6992

  10·3348

  9·1468

  8·9448

  10·2897

  9·4616

  Northumberland

  4·6883

  4·2472

  5·7162

  5·4850

  4·4681

  5·8428

  Nottinghamshire

  12·2744

  18·8825

  16·8375

  14·2670

  20·6049

  17·4208

  Oxfordshire

  8·1646

  10·6817

  10·3380

  8·7612

  12·0597

  10·9262

  Shropshire

  5·9921

  8·3594

  6·9795

  6·9801

  8·8079

  7·1872

  Somerset

  3·8283

  9·7017

  7·1279

  4·3517

  10·7239

  7·2232

  Staffordshire

  13·8471

  19·7678

  18·9114

  16·2486

  21·3089

  19·3024

  Suffolk

  8·1406

  9·3154

  9·2070

  9·5148

  10·0508

  9·4306

  Surrey

  19·8491

  18·7693

  22·1494

  22·3371

  19·3123

  22·7233

  Warwickshire

  6·9218

  11·7521

  9·3600

  8·2308

  12·5251

  10·0037

  West Sussex

  11·4628

  10·9251

  11·8375

  13·1692

  11·9078

  12·0534

  Wiltshire

  5·7765

  12·0900

  8·8426

  6·3063

  13·4514

  9·0406

  Total

  684·5000

  915·8996

  885·5412

  779·3997

  981·7002

  909·4627

  Local authority expenditure derived from forms RO1

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Barking

  14,054,518

  17,737,663

  5,009,138

  15,580,576

  17,435,865

  4,704,240

  Barnet

  24,751,342

  24,628,018

  5,995,300

  25,515,330

  23,796,750

  7,433,242

  Bexley

  21,621,435

  0

  4,174,570

  22,421,041

  0

  4,089,369

  Brent

  28,353,337

  0

  9,872,252

  31,478,748

  0

  10,209,844

  Bromley

  25,202,486

  0

  6,375,384

  27,601,471

  0

  6,693,668

  Croydon

  28,850,687

  0

  7,915,221

  31,832,888

  0

  8,648,216

  Ealing

  21,481,862

  0

  13,165,166

  23,003,070

  0

  14,045,026

  Enfield

  23,638,117

  0

  5,949,893

  24,932,086

  0

  6,200,058

  Haringey

  23,767,766

  0

  7,546,015

  24,173,330

  0

  8,400,912

  Harrow

  17,079,468

  0

  6,953,490

  16,104,444

  0

  10,753,000

  Havering

  25,817,484

  0

  4,415,561

  27,262,507

  0

  4,738,624

  Hillingdon

  21,445,499

  0

  2,128,605

  23,170,160

  0

  2,564,917

  Hounslow

  18,186,828

  0

  4,574,193

  18,965,636

  0

  4,755,165

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11,741,849

  16,455,818

  4,983,001

  12,750,493

  17,594,935

  5,503,178

  Merton

  15,041,739

  0

  3,529,466

  16,337,819

  0

  4,394,640

  Newham

  26,045,956

  0

  9,911,726

  25,101,795

  0

  8,783,287

  Redbridge

  21,664,444

  0

  1,944,135

  22,389,430

  0

  1,923,063

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  8,260,492

  0

  5,511,414

  8,150,925

  0

  6,327,100

  Sutton

  13,516,457

  0

  2,633,580

  13,787,484

  0

  3,171,719

  744 745

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Waltham Forest

  26,781,188

  0

  5,136,245

  30,343,067

  0

  6,276,524

  Birmingham

  94,822,941

  16,740,741

  21,554,879

  100,039,459

  18,089,726

  22,996,178

  Coventry

  31,335,917

  15,587,491

  10,807,057

  32,770,584

  16,747,980

  10,288,831

  Dudley

  25,737,138

  0

  9,826,924

  27,736,367

  0

  10,838,246

  Sandwell

  31,430,396

  0

  11,160,133

  33,405,606

  0

  12,207,385

  Solihull

  20,096,842

  0

  4,584,769

  20,782,066

  0

  5,689,111

  Walsall

  29,836,611

  0

  5,958,204

  31,471,938

  0

  5,900,718

  Wolverhampton

  26,649,914

  14,935,697

  8,049,002

  28,331,489

  15,633,531

  8,382,372

  Knowsley

  19,699,913

  0

  3,280,121

  21,623,664

  0

  3,315,952

  Liverpool

  50,642,663

  21,958,007

  16,874,860

  54,963,367

  22,190,092

  18,357,088

  St. Helens

  20,779,211

  0

  6,335,486

  21,662,168

  0

  6,838,822

  Sefton

  27,016,074

  0

  5,801,317

  28,615,998

  0

  6,362,420

  Wirral

  31,488,630

  0

  9,172,436

  34,068,961

  0

  10,601,473

  Bolton

  24,575,108

  0

  9,965,243

  26,249,544

  0

  11,435,542

  Bury

  16,518,223

  0

  2,518,244

  17,382,959

  0

  4,480,469

  Manchester

  46,762,101

  31,418,997

  22,818,665

  45,178,393

  32,304,627

  21,222,708

  Oldham

  20,312,788

  0

  3,988,124

  21,198,256

  0

  4,966,864

  Rochdale

  24,180,643

  0

  3,893,796

  26,158,949

  0

  3,595,573

  Salford

  22,682,622

  0

  8,395,577

  24,430,856

  0

  9,474,718

  Stockport

  25,730,352

  0

  6,362,472

  28,655,243

  0

  7,404,429

  Tameside

  20,796,166

  0

  4,627,880

  22,389,356

  0

  4,836,309

  Trafford

  20,298,289

  0

  5,447,215

  21,985,719

  0

  6,012,683

  Wigan

  34,780,886

  0

  11,536,011

  37,039,195

  0

  12,461,861

  Barnsley

  23,355,839

  0

  3,563,201

  23,603,194

  0

  3,849,655

  Doncaster

  30,583,327

  0

  7,474,486

  32,636,292

  0

  7,795,320

  Rotherham

  25,337,218

  0

  5,598,074

  26,979,323

  0

  7,133,170

  Sheffield

  49,720,884

  22,327,827

  13,620,891

  52,234,343

  22,354,943

  13,665,601

  Bradford

  56,389,876

  0

  16,626,819

  61,568,887

  0

  18,055,605

  Calderdale

  19,963,017

  0

  3,171,015

  20,385,255

  0

  3,165,053

  Kirklees

  38,029,100

  14,300,567

  10,286,810

  40,783,819

  15,167,203

  11,026,788

  Leeds

  74,060,184

  16,484,363

  13,934,478

  79,230,701

  17,636,128

  14,684,701

  Wakefield

  31,182,719

  0

  10,499,751

  33,046,106

  0

  11,316,079

  Gateshead

  18,726,809

  0

  3,682,485

  19,865,048

  0

  4,123,808

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27,543,317

  19,385,648

  8,145,143

  29,299,534

  21,070,833

  7,845,403

  North Tyneside

  22,966,186

  0

  2,772,509

  24,750,072

  0

  2,991,303

  South Tyneside

  14,699,240

  0

  5,788,449

  15,014,472

  0

  6,603,349

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Sunderland

  28,910,534

  11,368,509

  5,362,780

  30,680,917

  12,034,587

  5,612,805

  Isles of Scilly

  339,194

  0

  0

  339,374

  0

  0

  ILEA

  263,550,157

  85,810,985

  122,713,747

  274,271,804

  92,095,400

  123,827,759

  Avon

  78,976,793

  17,228,655

  23,729,305

  82,422,127

  18,449,698

  24.678,676

  Bedfordshire

  57,919,533

  0

  16,388,943

  63,392,671

  0

  19,592,484

  Berkshire

  63,516,809

  0

  24,850,660

  68,221,071

  0

  26,921,589

  Buckinghamshire

  54,989,146

  0

  14,926,890

  59,805,927

  0

  16,789,043

  Cambridgeshire

  55,071,889

  0

  19,288,705

  59,289,498

  0

  21,242,501

  Cheshire

  92,211,665

  0

  27,055,026

  97,931,033

  0

  28,631,229

  Cleveland

  60,295,116

  11,411,208

  13,693,042

  63,974,681

  12,959,355

  17,047,000

  Cornwall

  39,249,979

  0

  10,815,248

  43,204,459

  0

  11,435,517

  Cumbria

  48,476,614

  0

  12,523,013

  52,528,084

  0

  12,973,434

  Derbyshire

  89,548,946

  0

  19,799,691

  97,216,591

  0

  21,910,747

  Devon

  78,870,103

  13,948,748

  26,539,126

  84,764,306

  15,024,025

  29,296,523

  Dorset

  49,551,320

  0

  19,365,803

  52,723,808

  0

  20,231,823

  Durham

  54,043,391

  0

  13,834,774

  57,906,897

  0

  14,789,948

  East Sussex

  47,923,466

  16,256,938

  12,545,484

  51,278,270

  16,782,672

  13,357,708

  Essex

  144,454,040

  0

  36,578,456

  156,024,923

  0

  39,209,411

  Gloucestershire

  45,519,110

  0

  14,889,432

  48,348,511

  0

  16,673,461

  Hampshire

  119,527,811

  16,608,327

  46,184,422

  130,863,006

  17,946,655

  50,061,746

  Hereford and Worcester

  63,512,232

  0

  20,631,671

  68,917,232

  0

  22,679,847

  Hertfordshire

  93,683,862

  13,158,289

  30,545,977

  97,717,214

  17,181,112

  31,546,645

  Humberside

  92,936,999

  0

  27,818,100

  97,904,378

  0

  30,245,535

  Isle of Wight

  12,639,121

  0

  2,696,727

  13,949,615

  0

  2,960,494

  Kent

  133,640,920

  0

  27,372,100

  141,954,852

  0

  29,596,292

  Lancashire

  126,151,218

  13,589,904

  42,153,105

  137,268,238

  14,444,995

  42,776,664

  Leicestershire

  92,938,882

  18,141,357

  20,438,492

  97,263,400

  19,196,252

  22,394,890

  Lincolnshire

  52,485,781

  0

  10,726,632

  54,801,391

  0

  11,433,412

  Norfolk

  58,036,611

  0

  14,798,698

  62,566,535

  0

  16,125,738

  North Yorkshire

  62,331,868

  0

  11,048,666

  65,777,429

  0

  14,028,961

  746 747

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  Secondary Education

  Polytechnics

  Other maintained FE Establishments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Northamptonshire

  59,642,016

  0

  15,532,719

  63,205,529

  0

  17,406,937

  Northumberland

  36,010,583

  0

  3,576,802

  39,309,452

  0

  4,341,694

  Nottinghamshire

  101,585,516

  20,689,701

  22,452,042

  108,102,884

  23,168,204

  24,852,158

  Oxfordshire

  49,043,978

  12,227,878

  11,953,540

  52,360,679

  12,538,322

  14,289,167

  Salop

  40,578,656

  0

  9,079,307

  43,796,429

  0

  9,600,907

  Somerset

  38,700,788

  0

  13,738,327

  41,837,745

  0

  15,486,287

  Staffordshire

  104,690,337

  14,256,528

  23,201,060

  110,827,224

  15,240,624

  24,982,875

  Suffolk

  59,171,049

  0

  12,188,395

  64,064,406

  0

  13,781,489

  Surrey

  67,508,936

  0

  21,415,621

  73,461,788

  0

  23,016,997

  Warwickshire

  37,425,447

  0

  13,734,713

  40,671,657

  0

  15,019,664

  West Sussex

  52,558,783

  0

  10,950,249

  56,549,273

  0

  13,545,159

  Wiltshire

  48,443,812

  0

  16,371,171

  51,682,518

  0

  18,943,196

  Total

  4,472,697,109

  496,657,864

  1,279,355,542

  4,765,527,509

  527,084,514

  1,382,881,791

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the present waiting period for appeals against refusals of applications for legal aid in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the operations of the legal aid service in Northern Ireland.

  The Attorney-General
  The present average waiting period for appeals against refusals for civil legal aid in Northern Ireland is four months.

  The Law Society of Northern Ireland produces an annual report on the operation of both civil and criminal legal aid which incorporates a report by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid in Northern Ireland. The report for 1987–88 was laid before Parliament on 20 October 1989.

  Taken Over Cases
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those cases taken over by any Government officer other than the Director of Public Prosecutions since 1980 and the reason for the takeover in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  The power to take over the conduct of criminal proceedings contained in section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 extends only to the Director of Public Prosecutions but that power may be exercised by a Crown prosecutor acting under his direction. Prior to the implementation of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 the corresponding legislation was the Prosecution of Offences Act 1979 which conferred a similar power on the Director of Public Prosecutions. That power was exercisable by an assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. A similar power is conferred on the director of the Serious Fraud Office by section 1(5)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 but has not been exercised. On the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office the conduct of a number of current cases passed by agreement from the Crown prosecution service to the Serious Fraud Office. I shall write to the hon. Member listing those cases. It is to be noted that neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor the director of the Serious Fraud Office is correctly described as a Government officer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Spirit Measures
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade arid Industry what arrangements will apply in future in Great Britain for measuring spirits for consumption on licensed premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Having considered the responses to my department's consultation paper, I have concluded that the present range of imperial quantities of 1/6, 1/5 and ¼ gill for serving whisky, gin rum and vodka should be replaced by a single round metric quantity of 25ml.

  A single metric measure throughout Great Britain would have the advantage of enabling consumers to compare prices and monitor their alcohol consumption more easily. It would also allow instrument manufacturers to make economies of scale. Licensees should find the new quantity more convenient since it is an exact fraction of the bottle.

  I therefore intend to lay in draft an order which would permit the four major spirits to be served in this new metric quantity from the middle of next year and would prohibit the use of the imperial quantities for this purpose from 1 January 1995.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the minute of the meeting of 4 July with British Aerospace at which tax benefits were discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  The agreed way of recording this meeting was an exchange of letters between the advisers of British Aerospace and the Inland Revenue; copies of these letters dated 8 July have already been sent to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library correspondence between his predecessor and British Aerospace on 6, 12 July and 13 July.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have already done so, together with other letters between my predecessor and the British Aerospace chairman dated 14 July 1988 relating to the terms and conditions of the sale of Her Majesty's Government's shareholding in Rover Group to British Aerospace.
  749
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the raising of the ring fence for capital losses includes capital gains in property companies acquired by British Aerospace.

  Mr. Ridley
  Following the lifting of the contractual ring fence on capital losses which had been a part of the March 1988 conditional agreement for the sale of Rover, British Aerospace has the right to use Rover Group capital losses to set against gains to the same extent and subject to the same statutory conditions as any other group in equivalent circumstances.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information was provided to the European Commission of the tax benefits for British Aerospace of the Rover deal.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Commission was informed that the benefit of using Rover Group's carried forward pre-acquisition trading tax losses was effectively limited to £500 million by the conditional and the final agreement with BAe: that the March 1988 conditional agreement ring fenced the capital losses and disclaimed capital allowances so they could only be utilised by Rover Group; and that as part of the final agreement these would be unringfenced so that BAe would have the same freedom as that available under tax law to any other group. The Commission was made aware of the difficulty of estimating the value of restoring that freedom.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who paid the fees for(a) Rover's and (b) British Aerospace's advisers as part of the final contract with British Aerospace.

  Mr. Ridley
  As I explained in my statement of 30 November the Government paid Rover Group £1·5 million for its privatisation costs. BAe paid its own advisers' fees.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what date he was informed that a plate finishing mill was being stored at British Steel, Lackenby; whether he was consulted by British Steel before the company issued a denial of any knowledge of such a plant; whether he was consulted by British Steel before the company confirmed that a plate mill had been stored in Lackenby for several months; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he regards British Steel plc's admission that it has been supportive of the Davy Corporation's acquisition of a second-hand Japanese plate finishing mill as likely to affect guarantees given by his Department relating to the future of the Scottish steel industry;

  (3) whether the Government would intervene to stop British Steel plc going ahead with any closure proposals which relate to the Scottish plants covered by the guarantees issued by his Department on 3 December 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: The acquisition and disposition of items of plant are matters for British Steel. Ministers have not been, and do not expect to be, informed or consulted by the company on such matters. There are no current Government guarantees in relation to the future of any of British Steel's works, the last such guarantee having expired at the end of August 1988.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of assets in bankruptcy in the last available year were absorbed by the cost of the proceedings as opposed to distribution among creditors.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: The last year for which the information was maintained in the form requested was 1984. In that year out of every £1 of net assets realised in bankruptcy cases where the official receiver was trustee 64·5p was spent on administration expenses, 15p was paid to the preferential creditors and 20·5p was distributed among the unsecured creditors. The comparative figures for cases where a non-official trustee was appointed were 52·9p, 17·9p and 29·9p. Such information for the years after 1984 could not be obtained other than at disproportionate cost.

  Since the Insolvency Act 1986 came into force on 29 December 1986 official receivers have been able to ensure that nearly all bankruptcies with sufficient assets to produce a distribution to creditors are administered by private sector insolvency practitioners. Those bankruptcies which remain to be administered by the official receiver as trustee are therefore unlikely to produce such a distribution, any assets realised in such cases being absorbed in payment of the costs of the proceedings.

  Cross-Media Ownership
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the outcome of the investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into cross-media ownership; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) when the Director General for Fair Trading is going to announce the conclusion of his investigations into cross-media ownership.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to the reply, 15 November 1989, c. 281–82]: How media companies promote their interests in media services and products raises questions of standards of behaviour which go wider than those which can be addressed by the Director General of Fair Trading using competition legislation. I have therefore agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that there should be an independent inquiry, to be undertaken by John Sadler CBE, which will start work as soon as possible. In view of this the DGFT has decided not to pursue his investigations.

  The terms of reference are as follows:

  1. To consider to what extent it is proper for media companies to promote their own, or any associate's interests in the provision of media services or products.

  2. Where such behaviour is found to be improper and taking into account the effect on the relevant markets to consider what remedies might be appropriate.

  3. The provisions of the Broadcasting Bill 1989 are being considered by Parliament and are outside these terms of reference.

  4. To report with any recommendations, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rainfall
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has formed of the rainfall levels required in England and Wales during the coming winter if drought conditions next summer are to be avoided.

  Mr. Howard
  Recent information suggests that average rainfall over the next five months would restore water resources to near-normal levels for the late spring in most areas of England and Wales. However, the National Rivers Authority estimates that the amount of rainfall required in parts of Yorkshire, the south-east and East Anglia might have to be as much as 50, 40 and 10 per cent. above average respectively. Where necessary, water undertakers are considering contingency measures.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water supplies in the north-east contain aluminium in excess of the terms of the European drinking water directive.

  Mr. Howard
  Eighteen supply zones in the north-east have been notified to the Commission as being subject to a derogation under article 9(1)(a) of the EC drinking water directive in respect of the aluminium standard and hence comply with its requirements. We expect to notify the Commission shortly of a derogation for one further supply zone.

  Improvement works are planned to treatment works to remedy failures of the aluminium standard in a further 24 supply zones. Improvements are also being carried out to the distribution system to remove residual aluminium deposits.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and 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. Chris Patten
  My Department includes the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers. In 1988, a total of 175 contracts were let which were covered by the European Communities (EC) supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000. Of these, 128 were awarded following advertisement in the EC official journal and 47 were considered to be exempt from advertising and may have been awarded to the previous supplier. For 1989 no comprehensive figures are yet available.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.
  752
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The latest readily available information covers 1988–89 when a total of seven accountancy firms were engaged by my Department. Accountancy firms are invited to tender for the provision of advisory services to Departments on the basis of their suitability to provide the relevant advice. In making such appointments consultations are carried out as necessary, and where appropriate in the light of advice given by Treasury on consultancy appointments.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in setting up salaries and terms of negotiating machinery for manual, white collar and senior staff in the nine months since the creation of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Howard
  The National Rivers Authority's arrangements for pay negotiation with its employees are entirely a matter for the management of the authority, as an independent body.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the chairman of the National Rivers Authority has met the recognised trade unions since the National Rivers Authority came into formal existence; and what information he has on the chairman's plans for any future meetings with the trade unions.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: Negotiations with staff—including dealings with trade unions—are a matter for the management of the National Rivers Authority, as an independent body.

  Social Services
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure per capita of population on social services in each shire county in England and Wales for the last financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for English counties is as follows.

  Expenditure1 on social services per capita—1988–89

  £

  Avon

  60

  Bedfordshire

  56

  Berkshire

  55

  Buckinghamshire

  52

  Cambridgeshire

  55

  Cheshire

  58

  Cleveland

  69

  Cornwall

  49

  Cumbria

  55

  Derbyshire

  72

  Devon

  49

  Dorset

  42

  Durham

  51

  East Sussex

  56

  Essex

  50

  Gloucestershire

  45

  Hampshire

  42

  Hereford and Worcester

  44

  Hertfordshire

  50

  Humberside

  65

  Isle of Wight

  52

  Kent

  48

  Lancashire

  67

  753

  £

  Leicestershire

  56

  Lincolnshire

  46

  Norfolk

  46

  Northamptonshire

  58

  Northumberland

  57

  North Yorkshire

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  69

  Oxfordshire

  50

  Shropshire

  43

  Somerset

  51

  Staffordshire

  45

  Suffolk

  42

  Surrey

  39

  Warwickshire

  51

  West Sussex

  44

  Wiltshire

  49

  1 Net current expenditure.

  The information relating to Welsh counties is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those members of the Nature Conservancy Council or members of its advisory committees whose periods of office expire or are to be reviewed at the end of the present financial year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The members of the Nature Conservancy Council, or its advisory committees, whose periods of office expire on 31 March 1990 are as follows:

  Council

  Sir William Wilkinson

  Sir John Burnett

  Professor J. A. Allen

  Lord Blakenham

  Miss A. M. Lees

  Mr. J. Teacher

  Mr. A. R. Trotter

  Advisory Committee for England

  Dr. P. H. Banham

  Mr. J. B. Elkington

  Professor B. M. Green

  Miss A. M. Lees

  Professor T. O'Riordan

  Mr. A. T. Swindell

  Mr. J. Teacher

  Dr. M. B. Usher

  Mr. W. J. Wilder

  Advisory Committee for Scotland

  Mr. J. M. S. Arnott

  Mr. J. C. Compton

  Professor P. S. Corbet

  Mr. A. D. M. Farquharson

  M. J. L. Goodfellow

  Professor W. Ritchie

  Mr. J. H. Scott

  Miss V. M. Thom

  Mr. A. R. Trotter

  Advisory Committee for Wales

  Mrs. E. M. Colwyn Foulkes

  Mr. J. M. Harrop

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  Advisory Committee on Science (ACOS)

  Professor J. A. Allen

  Dr. P. H. Banham

  Dr. J. P. Dempster

  Dr. C. J. 0. Harrison

  Advisory Committee on Birds (ACB)
  754

  Dr. C. J. 0. Harrison

  Mr. J. M. Harrop

  Professor G. V. T. Matthews

  Mr. J. Teacher

  Miss V. M. Thom

  European Environment Agency
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff will be employed by the European Environment Agency; and how many will be(a) seconded staff and (b) new recruits.

  Mr. Trippier
  About 20 professional staff, some of whom will be transferred from the Commission, together with a limited number of support staff will be employed by the European Environment Agency. The precise total numbers, secondments and new recruits have yet to be determined.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the cost of establishing and running the European Environment Agency will be additional spending by the European Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  The cost of establishing and running the European Environment Agency in its first year is estimated at 5·5 million ecu, equivalent to about £3·8 million. It is likely that part of this expenditure will be met through transfer of expenditure on existing Community programmes.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the European Environment Agency will have powers to obtain information from companies and individuals.

  Mr. Trippier
  The European Environment Agency will not have powers to require companies and individuals to provide information.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homeless people in London currently sleeping rough; and what is his estimate for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no regular and reliable counts or estimates. The most recent study undertaken for the Salvation Army found 753 people sleeping rough on the streets of 17 London boroughs on one night in April this year. We have no other reliable estimate.

  Woolworth Products
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to the management of F. W. Woolworth plc in respect of their product lines Christmas Snow and Silly String, in view of their ozone-depleting properties; if he will take steps to ban the use of ozone-depleting chemicals in non-essential products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that it is the intention of the British aerosol industry that by the end of this year at least 90 per cent. of their products will be CFC free. It is the policy of the Government to phase out all CFC consumption by the end of the century.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish his Department's research on very sheltered housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  With the expected increase of three quarters of a million people over the age of 75 in the next 20 years I am today publishing this report which shows the contribution that can be made by very sheltered housing schemes to the care of frail elderly people in the community.

  The report based on research by my Department showed that the vast majority of elderly people liked living in very sheltered schemes which are an enhanced form of sheltered housing with extra wardens, provision of meals and help for residents with domestic and care tasks, and which are currently provided by about one in three local authorities and one in four housing associations.

  Caring for an elderly person in very sheltered housing was less expensive than a place in a local authority old people's home and much less expensive than equivalent care in hospital. Very sheltered housing schemes were, however, more costly than comparable care provided in an elderly person's own home and about one in four of those interviewed would have preferred this cheaper option. The schemes also varied considerably in the frailty of the people they catered for, some schemes containing a high proportion of relatively fit elderly people.

  The report recommends that future schemes adopt a slightly more flexible approach to caring for residents by making use of visiting care support services provided by social services departments and district health authorities rather than relying entirely on permanent in-house staff. It also suggests that the preferred model for development is for self-contained rather than shared accommodation, with additional communal facilities and with meals available.

  Overall, the report concludes that, whilst very sheltered housing can be an attractive alternative to hospital and residential care for most elderly people, it is an expensive resource which should be provided only after careful appraisal of all the factors involved including the wishes of elderly people, stress on carers, and costs. It should also be provided only where there is an adequate level of care and consultation with all the relevant agencies in assessing nominations for places. However, enabling frail elderly people to remain at home must continue to be the first option for those who need and want it.

  The Government's White Paper on care in the community, published last month, recognises that suitable housing is an important component of community care, and that social services authorities will need to work closely with providers of housing of all types in developing plans for a full and flexible range of accommodation. Very sheltered housing will form part of the spectrum of care provision which local authorities will be able to call on as they plan services in their areas to cater for a variety of individual needs.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance he has given to local authorities relating to exemptions from the community charge.
  756
  Mr. Chope
  Yes. Arrangements have been put in hand to do so. A copy of practice note No. 19 "Exemptions from the Personal Community Charge (2)" has already been placed in the Library.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to achieve reductions in United Kingdom levels of emissions of sulphur dioxide.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department issued a consultation paper on 31 August this year explaining in detail our proposals for implementing the large combustion plants directive. Such plants are responsible for 85 per cent. of United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide. A copy of the paper is in the Library of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the letter written to the hon. Member for Carmarthen on 5 December by the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: The text of the letter is as follows:
  "I promised to write to you in response to the series of questions you tabled recently on aspects of hazardous waste management. It may be helpful if I respond to them topic by topic.
  There are currently four incinerators licensed to deal commercially with special wastes in Britain. I do not, however, have detailed information on the number of large chemical incinerators in the European Community or elsewhere which treat special wastes. I am unable either to provide the information you seek on the design of their furnace door.
  Regarding incineration at sea, the disposal of wastes from the UK is licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My Department does not keep records of the amount of special wastes incinerated in the North Sea or in other European waters.
  Information on the import of wastes for incineration has been held by my Department only since October 1988 when the relevant provisions of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations came into force. Since then some 8,700 tonnes of imported special waste has been dealt with at the four commercially available incinerators.
  Turning to your questions concerning the incinerator operated by ReChem International Ltd. at Ponteg, Pontypool, information on the amount of waste dealt with is not held by my Department. That is a matter for the local waste disposal authority, Torfaen borough council.
  The results of the PCB sampling in soils and herbage around the plant undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution are as follows (all figures in microgrames per kilogram):

  mg/kg

  PCBs in herbage:

  Range

  3·0–19·7

  Mean

  8·4

  Median

  6·6

  PCBs in soil:

  Range

  9·0–19·0

  Mean

  13·5

  Median

  14·8

  757
  I understand that the Inspectorate has also taken samples of soil and herbage for Dioxin analysis. These samples are currently being analysed and I will write again as soon as the results are available.
  The latest figures (August 1989) indicate levels of PCB in the flue gas of the incinerator to be considerably less than 0·01 milligrams per cubic metre. The latest figures for Dioxins and Furans are as follows (all in nanograms per cubic metre):

  Nanograms

  per cu. m.

  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran

  0·05

  Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  0·12

  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

  <0·025

  Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  <0·025

  Pentachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  <0·025

  Pentachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  <0·025

  Hexachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  <0·025

  Hexachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  <0·025

  Heptachlorodibenzofurans (total)

  <0·05

  Heptachlorodibenzodioxins (total)

  0·05

  Octachlorodibenzofuran

  <0·025

  Octachlorodibenzodioxin

  0·05

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution inform me that the emission figures for both PCBs and Dioxins/Furans compare very favourably with those published for similar incinerators in Europe.
  I am also informed by the Inspectorate that no equipment is currently available to give instantaneous readings of PCB or Dioxin in flue gas. However continuous sampling is undertaken and samples of flue gas are analysed on a routine basis for PCB and on a more random basis for Dioxin.
  Regarding alternative methods to incineration of PCBs, a number of possible processes are under investigation. The most promising appear to be those involving exchange of the chlorine atom or microbiological systems. Neither is, however, likely to prove effective for high concentrations of PCBs for which high temperature incineration is likely to remain the only satisfactory form of disposal.
  Figures with respect to the cumulative totals of PCBs manufactured over the last 30 years are not available in the form you asked for them. But from the start of commercial production in 1929 to 1980 some 1,055,000 tonnes of PCBs were produced worldwide, of which 66,800 tonnes were produced in the United Kingdom by Monsanto, Newport. Other major producing countries were the USA (648,000 tonnes), Japan (60,000 tonnes), Spain (25,000 tonnes) and Italy (24,000 tonnes). During 1980–84 only France, West Germany, Italy and Spain within the community continued to manufacture PCBs and after 1984 production continued only in France and Spain. My Department does not hold figures for PCB production after 1980.
  My Department does not hold information on the amount of special waste treated by Leigh Environmental using their Sealosafe process, or its current state. That is a matter for the local waste disposal authority, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.
  Information on the import of flyash through Swansea Docks is also not held centrally. That is a matter for the local waste disposal authority, Swansea District Council. I have no information on the analysis of this flyash for dioxins.'
  I hope this is helpful."

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the competitiveness of Property Services Agency design costs.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: Until the PSA has commercial accounting systems, any general estimates of the cost competitiveness of its services would be of doubtful value. In any event, with the introduction of competition it would not be appropriate to publish any
  758
  estimated comparison between PSA's costs and competitors' fees as this would give competitors information which might harm the PSA's market position.

  Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which authorities have responsibility for checking the exhaust fumes from buses and other heavy vehicles what powers are available to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The annual tests for buses and heavy goods vehicles conducted by the Department's vehicle inspectorate include a visual check on smoke density. Over the past two years the inspectorate has increased substantially its programme of roadside checks on the condition of goods vehicles. This also includes a check on smoke emissions. Vehicles can be banned or owners required to rectify defects within a specified period.

  In addition, the police are responsible for day-to-day enforcement of requirements set by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations which include controls on vehicle emissions. They can require defects to be rectified within a specified period.

  Radioactivity (Sellafield)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been(a) the average level and (b) the greatest reported level of worker exposure to radioactivity at the B-30 pond at Sellafield; and whether the worker exposure levels have ever exceeded legal limits.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am informed that average annual external doses to the most exposed group of B30 workers have reduced from 28·3 millisieverts in 1984 to 18·5 millisieverts in 1988. Following the introducton of the Ionising Radiation Regulations in 1986, internal doses have also been assessed. The addition of internal doses in 1988 had the effect of adding 2·5 millisieverts, to give a total average whole body dose of 21 millisieverts in that year.

  I have asked the chairman of BNFL to write to the hon. Member on the question of average doses prior to 1984.

  Since 1971, the annual statutory limit of 50 millisieverts external dose has been exceeded by two B30 personnel in 1978; one in 1980; and two in 1985. The highest dose received was an annual dose of 86·1 millisieverts in 1980.

  War Veterans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities in England and Wales allow a discretionary award for veterans disabled during the second world war or for their widows in the assessment of housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local schemes for disregarding war widow's and war disablement pensions in excess of the statutory disregard are entirely at the discretion of the local authority.

  The list has been compiled from the best information available to the Department and shows those local authorities that operate a local scheme of this kind. I regret that the information available is insufficiently detailed to

  759
  restrict the answer only to those schemes aimed particularly at people receiving war pensions arising from the second world war.

  Local Authorities in England and Wales operating a discretionary scheme for War Widow's and War Disablement

  Pensions

  Adur

  Amber Valley

  Ashfield

  Aylesbury Vale

  Barking

  Barnet

  Basingstoke

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Blaby

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Breckland

  Brent

  Brentwood

  Brighton

  Bromley

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridge

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Castle Point

  Ceredigion

  Charnwood

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  Congleton

  Corby

  Coventry

  Craven

  Crawley

  Crawley New Town

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Dacorum

  Darlington

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Delyn

  Derby

  Derbyshire Dales

  Doncaster

  Dover

  Dudley

  Durham

  Dwyfor

  Eating

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hampshire

  East Hertfordshire

  East Staffordshire

  Eastleigh

  Ellesmere Port

  Elmbridge

  Enfield

  Epsom and Ewell

  760

  Exeter

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Forest of Dean

  Gedling

  Glanford

  Gloucester

  Gosport

  Great Yarmouth

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Hambleton

  Hammersmith

  Harborough

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrow

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Havant

  Havering

  Hereford

  Hertsmere

  High Peak

  Hillingdon

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Huntingdon

  Islington

  Kennet

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Kingswood

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Langbaurgh

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Lliw Valley

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Medina

  Meirionnydd

  Mendip

  Merton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  Montgomery

  Neath

  New Forest

  Newark

  Newbury

  Newham

  Newport

  North Bedfordshire

  North Cornwall

  North Dorset

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Shropshire

  North Tyneside

  North West Leicester

  North Wiltshire

  Northampton

  Nottingham

  Oadby and Wigston

  Ogwr

  Oldham

  761

  Penwith

  Peterborough

  Peterborough DC

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Port Talbot

  Portsmouth

  Radnor

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Rhondda

  Rhuddlan

  Ribble Valley

  Richmond upon Thames

  Richmondshire

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Ryedale

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Scarborough

  Sedgefield

  Sefton

  Selby

  Shepway

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Bedfordshire

  South Buckinghamshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Holland

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  South Northampton

  South Ribble

  South Staffordshire

  South Tyneside

  South Wight

  Southampton

  Southend on sea

  Southwark

  Spelthorne

  St. Helens

  Staffs. Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stockton On Tees

  Stratford On Avon

  Stroud

  Surrey Heath

  Sutton

  Swale

  Swansea

  Tameside

  Tandridge

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge & Mailing

  Tower Hamlets

  Tunbridge Wells

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Vale of White Horse

  Vale Royal

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Watford

  Waverley

  Wealden

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Norfolk

  West Somerset

  West Wiltshire

  Westminster

  762

  Weymouth & Portland

  Wigan

  Winchester

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Woodspring

  Worthing

  Wycombe

  York

  Total England and Wales—242

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many St. Helenians are at present working in the United Kingdom; and what is the nature of their work.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are 104 St. Helenians in Britain on work permits, who are employed in semi-skilled and unskilled jobs, mainly in the hotel and domestic service sectors. In addition, it is estimated that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 people of St. Helenian extraction currently in the United Kingdom, many of whom are second or third generation residents.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present number of unemployed on St. Helena; and what it was(a) one year ago and (b) five years ago.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Seventy-one people are presently receiving unemployment benefit in St. Helena. In addition, 105 are working three days per week as part of a community scheme for the unemployed. In 1988 a total of 125 people were working in the latter category. No other figures are available.

  NATO
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's current proposals for measures of information exchange at the conventional forces in Europe talks required each party to provide information on the types of each of the main categories of weapon equipment holdings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. A copy of the proposals of 21 September is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Vietnamese Government concerning the political prisoners detained without trial in prison in Vietnam.

  Mr Sainsbury
  We have, with our partners in the European Community, raised the question of political prisoners with the Vietnamese authorities. The Twelve have also raised at the United Nations continuing reports of abuses of human rights in Vietnam, and have called on the Vietnamese to release, without delay, those prisoners detained without a fair trial.

  Tibet
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Government Ministers last met the Dalai Lama; and what plans they have to meet him to discuss the position in Tibet.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 16 November to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, (Mr. Parry), at column 498.

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to the establishment of a United Nations observer force in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A United Nations observer force in the Occupied Territories might well have a useful role to play if it were acceptable to the parties directly concerned.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tibet
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what type and amount of aid the United Kingdom is currently providing to Tibet.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom is currently providing no aid to Tibet.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what changes Her Majesty's Government have made to their plans to send a representative to Phnom Penh in view of representations from the United States Government;

  (2) what representations have been received from the United States Government regarding Her Majesty's Government's intention to send a delegation to Phnom Penh; and what has been Her Majesty's Government's response;

  (3) when the recently announced diplomatic mission to Phnom Penh will take place.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government regularly exchange views with the Government of the United States. As indicated by my answer on 23 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) two officials, one from the British embassy in Bangkok and the other from the Overseas Development Administration are currently in Cambodia. The dates of their visit are 8 to 17 December.

THE ARTS

  Recording Britain Collection
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following the decision of the Victoria and Albert museum to call in and store(a) the Recording Britain collection of paintings commissioned in 1939 and (b) the 67 paintings from that collection on public display in Wiltshire; and what will be his response.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: I have received no such representations, but understand that the
  764
  Victoria and Albert museum has recalled the watercolours currently out on loan in order to ensure their long-term preservation. The paintings will be available for anyone to see on request and the museum will look favourably on requests for loans for specific displays provided the environmental and security conditions are satisfactory.

TRANSPORT

  Thornaby Bypass
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce(a) the current year's transport supplementary grant determination and (b) his conclusions on the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Stockton, South about the Thornaby bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  We plan to announce details of the 1990–91 transport supplementary grant settlement for England within the next few days. All hon. Members will be informed individually of decisions relating to their constituency.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Atkins
  The number of contracts awarded by the Department of Transport and covered by the provisions of the EC supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000, was 35 in the calendar year 1988, and 45 so far in this calendar year. Of these 31 were awarded following advertisement in the EC Journal, and 49 were considered to be exempt from advertising.

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

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department is currently taking advice from five accountancy firms on various subjects including financial and management consultancy, audit and information technology. In appointing firms the Department follows Treasury guidelines and consults the Treasury on each individual case, before a commission is awarded. No separate consultation is generally undertaken with the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Roads
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department consulted the European Commission regarding the special protection area in the Lee Valley which could be affected by the road proposals in the east London assessment studies; and if he will make a statement.
  765
  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the extent of contamination of the exchange land in Wanstead for common land proposed to be taken for the MI1 link road; when the assessment was made and with what result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The only exchange land on offer in Wanstead in connection with this scheme is for land which would be taken from Epping forest. An assessment of part of the site was made in 1982 for an earlier road scheme. It showed that the land was suitable for use as public open space.

  In response to representations at the current public inquiry the Department's consultants made investigations of the remainder of the site on 22 November last. Their preliminary findings are expected in the next few days. I shall put a copy in the Library.

  Berkshire County Council
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts of borrowing approval have been granted to Berkshire county council for highways purposes on each of the last five financial years; and how much was used by the council in each of those years for highways purposes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The highways capital allocation issued to Berkshire county council in each of the last five financial years represents both borrowing approval and spending

  £ million

  Accepted expenditure on major schemes

  Equivalent outturn expenditure

  Accepted expenditure on minor works

  Equivalent outturn expenditure

  1985–86

  5·570

  14·176

  0·332

  10

  1986–87

  6·269

  12·868

  0·339

  10·230

  1987–88

  6·704

  15·753

  0·300

  10·046

  1988–89

  7·226

  26·119

  0·300

  20·845

  1989–90

  3911

  33·629

  0·479

  31·285

  1 Actual.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Budgeted.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will approach Governments of technically advanced countries with proposals to provide sophisticated airport security equipment to developing countries, free of charge or at reduced charge.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The provision of sophisticated equipment can be ineffective and wasteful unless the necessary supporting administrative framework is in place. We are assisting developing countries to introduce the organisation, legislation and training to support their own aviation security programmes. We are paying the salaries of two security specialists within the International Civil Aviation Organisation who have the specific task of helping states to do this.

  Diesel Multiple Units
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Yorkshire transport authorities concerning the problems 766
  power. The latter can be supplemented by the use of capital receipts. Details of actual borrowing are not available; the table compares highways capital allocation with total highways expenditure.

  £ million

  Highways capital allocation

  Total highways expenditure

  1985–86

  10·280

  16·003

  1986–87

  11·060

  14·773

  1987–88

  9·110

  110·978

  1988–89

  10·540

  211·021

  1989–90

  4·880

  39·068

  1 Actual.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Budgeted.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts of transport supplementary grant have been allocated to Berkshire county council in each of the last five years; and how much of the allocation was used by Berkshire county council in each of those years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Transport supplementary grant is paid at a flat rate of 50 per cent. on an accepted programme of named major (over £1 million) schemes and on an undifferentiated block of minor (under £1 million) works. The table compares Berkshire county council's expenditure accepted for grant in each of these categories with the equivalent outturn information.

  caused by shortages of diesel multiple units and maintenance staff; what action is being taken by British Rail to rectify these problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  As it happens, I am meeting the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority today. I understand that BR has taken action including pre-planned cancellations, short formations of some trains and operating some loco-hauled trains. BR is keeping the local passenger transport authorities fully in the picture regarding its problems, plans and solutions.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the British Railway Board's proposals for passenger and freight services through the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The British Railways board has today published the plan which it is required to prepare under
  767
  section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. This plan sets out the board's current proposals for commercially viable passenger, freight and parcels services through the Channel tunnel serving various parts of the United Kingdom.

  In addition to the board's proposals for passenger services between London and Paris and between London and Brussels, the plan includes proposals for a number of direct through services between destinations beyond London and mainland Europe providing over 3 million seats a year. The amount of traffic that will be attracted to such services is difficult to judge exactly before the Channel tunnel opens, and the board's proposals are intended to test the market for them. The initial service level may be expanded if the actual traffic exceeds expectations. If on the other hand the actual traffic level is insufficient to justify some of the services proposed, the board will need to reconsider the case for continuing to provide them. I am, however, optimistic that passengers will be keen to take advantage of this exciting new opportunity to travel directly between the regions and mainland Europe without having to change trains in London.

  The plan also sets out the board's current proposals for freight and parcels services. I have asked the board to consider how they might improve the financial performance of their non-bulk freight sector to maximise the involvement of the private sector, and to reshape the business to seize the new opportunities presented by the Channel tunnel. I expect the board's proposals to develop, as their non-bulk strategy develops. Over 70 per cent. of the forecast rail freight traffic through the Channel tunnel will begin or end its journey beyond London, and the board's freight proposals reflect this emphasis. The detailed pattern of services is still under discussion with the board's freight customers and with potential private sector partners, but it is clear that the board's plans are based on the operation of fast through freight services between the United Kingdom regions and mainland Europe. These services will transform the opportunities available to United Kingdom manufacturers and traders for sending their goods through to the rest of Europe. Goods from Scotland and the north of England will be able to reach some continental destinations within 24 hours, and more distant places such as Munich and Milan within 48 hours, compared with the current transit time by road and ferry of at least 72 hours.

  British Rail announced on 3 November that it had selected Eurorail, comprising Trafalgar House and BICC, as its preferred partner in a joint venture for Channel tunnel rail services. In addition to operation of the initial pattern of rail services through the tunnel, the joint venture will be responsible for constructing a new rail link between London and the tunnel; there is already a very high standard of rail infrastructure on the lines beyond London. Through services between the United Kingdom regions and mainland Europe are not, however, dependent on the construction of the new link. The proposals set out by British Rail in its plans are intended to come into effect as soon as the tunnel opens, and British Rail is confident that its existing network will have sufficient capacity for the additional Channel tunnel traffic for a number of years before the new link is needed.

  I welcome the publication of this plan, which sets out clearly British Rail's proposals for making the most of the opportunities offered by the tunnel. Others will now want to express their views on the proposals put forward. The
  768
  plan can do no more than set out British Rail's current view of the opportunities, and I have no doubt that British Rail will continue to develop its plans, both during the period up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter, as the pattern of demand and the associated commercial opportunities become clearer.

  Market Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many market research and sample surveys were carried out by or for his Department in the last 12 months; what was the cost of each; what was the total cost; how many were carried out in house; how many were carried out for his Department by outside organisations; and what percentage of the total expenditure was paid to outside organisations.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: In the 12 months ended November 1989, a total of 79 market research and/or sample surveys were carried out by or for the Department of Transport. The total cost of this work was £2·7 million.

  Of the 79 surveys, 12 were carried out in house and 67 were undertaken by outside organisations. The total cost of surveys contracted out was £2·5 million, or 93 per cent. of the cost of all such work.

PRIME MINISTER

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to visit the Soviet Union next June for talks with Mr. Gorbachev and to support the `Britain in Kiev' exhibition.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Andrew Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on recent developments in eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  We greatly welcome current developments in Poland, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia which are moving towards democracy and freedom. We are also closely watching developments in Bulgaria and hope that they will lead in the same direction. We are taking many practical steps to help this process and are prepared to do more.

  European Council
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the President of the European Council; and what matters she proposes to raise.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to meet President Mitterrand again before the end of the French presidency of the EC.

  Field Sports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will co-ordinate Government action to introduce legislation to make hare-coursing, stag and deer hunting, fox hunting and beagling illegal.
  769
  The Prime Minister
  No. Field sports are a matter for the decision of the individual.

  North Sea
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to stop industrial waste dumping in the North sea, by 31 December, in line with its written declaration at the second ministerial conference on the protection of the North sea in 1987; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom is fully meeting international agreements reached unanimously by the North sea countries. Ministers at the second North sea conference agreed that disposal at sea of industrial wastes should not be prohibited if there were no practical alternative means of disposal on land and if it could be shown to the Oslo commission that the materials caused no harm in the marine environment. The Oslo commission in 1989 agreed the procedure by which a country would show that a waste met these criteria.

  No deadline has been set internationally for termination of sea disposal. However, the Government are seeking to end sea disposal of these wastes at the earliest possible time. Of the 20 licences issued in 1987 for disposal of liquid industrial waste at sea more than half will not be renewed next year. The remainder will be terminated as soon as environmentally acceptable alternative means of disposal have been identified and implemented. The Oslo commission agreed earlier this year that even when an alternative disposal option is identified a transitional period will be needed before sea disposal can end, to give time for introduction of the alternative arrangements.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if, over Christmas, she will visit those sleeping rough in the parks and streets of London.

  The Prime Minister
  Homelessness is a major concern to us all. The Government's hostel initiative has produced 21,000 hostel bedspaces since 1981; and some of the special £250 million homelessness package announced on 15 November will directly help vulnerable single people at risk of becoming roofless.

  Clydesdale
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Clydesdale; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list, for each of the countries of the Warsaw pact what technical and administrative assistance Her Majesty's Government are making available or can offer to assist the conduct of free general elections.

  The Prime Minister
  Help to prepare for fully democratic elections is a central objective of the know-how Funds for Poland and Hungary. Hungarian and Polish parliamentarians have visited Britain to study democratic procedures. We are also helping with local government training. We hope that other eastern European countries will qualify for such help in due course.

  British Aerospace (Rover Deal)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date and at what time she was made aware of the sweeteners being offered to British Aerospace on the Rover deal.

  The Prime Minister
  I was kept aware throughout of the progress of the negotiations with British Aerospace and was of course aware of the basic terms and conditions of the agreements reached with British Aerospace. This major privatisation has provided an excellent return for the United Kingdom taxpayer, for the Rover work force and dealer network and for the company's customers.

  Korea
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Prime Minister what representation she made to the President of Korea on his recent visit about the level of duties and taxes on Scotch whisky in Korea; and what further steps Her Majesty's Government plan to take in this matter.

  The Prime Minister
  I made representations to the Korean President during his visit at the end of November about the discriminatory features of Korea's tax and tariff treatment of Scotch whisky and other imported spirits, as well as other restrictions on the import and distribution of these products. There has been some liberalisation which has benefited Scotch whisky but discriminatory treatment continues to hold back sales in Korea. The Government will continue to take every opportunity, both bilaterally and through the European Community, to persuade Korea to take the necessary actions.

  Angola
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the subject of Angolan unity came up in her recent conversations with President Bush; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I did not discuss Angolan unity with President Bush. The Government have consistently stressed the need for a political settlement in Angola. We support President Mobutu's work as mediator and trust that this will lead to an early end to the fighting and to negotiations without pre-conditions between the MPLA Government of Angola and UNITA.

  Friends of the Earth
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last met the director of Friends of the Earth (UK); for how long they met; what issues were discussed; and what plans she has to meet other non-governmental organisation environmentalists.

  The Prime Minister
  I met Mr. Jonathon Porritt, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, on 1 December when we discussed a number of environmental issues of mutual concern. I meet representatives of other environmental groups from time to time.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister why Mr. Dennis Griffiths, of 25 Grant road, Stoke, Coventry, has not yet received a substantive reply to his letter of 24 June, following her acknowledgement of its receipt; and if she will make a statement.
  771
  The Prime Minister
  I receive an enormous number of letters each week from Members of Parliament and members of the public. It is not possible for me to deal with all these letters personally and I must accordingly refer most of them to the Minister and the Department with the responsibility for the policy in question.

  Mr. Griffiths' letter of 26 June was sent an acknowledgement on 20 July and the letter was passed that day to the Department of Social Security for further action. I understand that a response was sent by the Department of Social Security on 13 December 1989. I very much regret the long delay.

  Environmental Co-operation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the need for Europwide environmental co-operation.

  The Prime Minister
  I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are in regular contact with our European counterparts and play an active part in developing constructive Europewide co-operation on a broad range of environmental matters.

  At the Environment Council on 28 November we supported the creation of a European Environment Agency to improve the quality of environmental information across Europe. The agency will be established initially on a European Community basis, but will subsequently be open to wider European participation.

  The United Kingdom is playing an active role in preparations for the ministerial conference on sustainable development to be held in Bergen in May 1990 under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for Europe and we hosted an international preparatory workshop in 24 to 26 September.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport chaired the special session of the European conference of Ministers of Transport on 23 November, at which Ministers agreed on the need for environmentally sustainable transport policies.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening a reception will be held at No. 10 Downing street on behalf of the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what position the London stock exchange held in the international league of trading volumes in 1987 and 1988.
  772
  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  On the basis of total turnover in equities and fixed interest stocks the International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Limited ranked third in 1987 and second in 1988. It was also the third largest exchange in terms of market capitalisation of domestic equities in both 1987 and 1988.

WALES

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet ambulance workers based at the Queensferry station to discuss their views concerning their salary levels and their claims for arbitration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I had the opportunity to meet trade union representatives of Clwyd ambulance workers at Colwyn Bay on Friday 8 December and their views were fully put to me. The only sensible way forward in the current pay dispute is for the unions to call off their action and resume talks with the management side of the Whitley council.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his reply of 5 December, he will list the names and locations of the 89 of Dwr Cymru's water treatment works for which a relaxation of standards under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 has been granted relating to the level of permissible aluminium.

  Mr. Grist
  The information in respect of the 34 relaxations granted under sections 4(1)(c) and 4(2) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 for Dwr Cymru treatment works/sources is shown in the table.

  Clwyd

  Llanbedr

  Afon Ddu

  Penmaenmawr Mountain Stream

  Dolwen Reservoir

  Afon Clywedog

  Ffynnon Asaph

  Gwynedd

  Mynydd Llandegai

  Cwmystradllyn

  Garndolbenmaen

  Afon Cwm Llan

  Beddgelert

  Bettws y Coed

  Rhyd

  Corris

  Cwmygof

  Drws y Coed

  Nant Braich y Rhiw

  Abergynolwen

  Bontddu Stream

  Cwm y Gof Stream

  Llyn Fedw

  Dyfed

  Pendine

  Llyn-y-Fan

  Rhos I

  Faedre Fawr

  Llanybydder

  Llygadllwchar

  Treffynon

  Cilgerran

  Mynydd Crwn Bach

  773

  LLanfrynach

  Ffynnon Gaseg

  Wern Ddu

  Rhos 2

  New Inn

  Newcastle Emlyn

  Faldybrenin

  Ffynnon Rhys

  Tregarron

  Pontygotty

  Powys

  Cray Reservoir (1)

  Garwleisian

  Cray Reservoir(2)

  West Glamorgan

  Cwm Kenfig

  Glyncorrwg

  Upper Lliw Reservoir

  Mid Glamorgan

  Blaengarw High Level

  Blaengarw Low Level

  Garw Nanthir

  Tyn y Waun

  Perthcelyn

  Penderyn

  Blanencaerau

  Dimbath

  Caerau

  In respect of the information regarding the undertakings accepted under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 16 November to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Welsh Development Agency concerning the implementation of his new rural initiative programme in those rural areas of Wales which lie outside the jurisdiction of Mid-Wales Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department and the agency regularly discuss matters of mutual interest including rural affairs.

  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total for local authority capital expenditure in 1990–91 and for 1989–90; what is that increase as a percentage in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As I announced on 29 November, my proposals assume gross spending in 1990–91 of £475 million. This represents an increase of 6·9 per cent. over the 1989–90 equivalent (£444 million). The relevant GDP deflator is 5 per cent. Further resources will be provided if expenditure on mandatory home renovation grants exceeds the £75 million I have allowed for it.

  Development Bodies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to realise the property assets of(a) the Mid-Wales Development Board and (b) the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.
  774
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since their inception, property assets have been sold by the two development agencies the proceeds of which have contributed to the massive increase in their gross expenditure in recent years. This will continue.

  Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the details of his award of finance to support the A548 Dee crossing for which funding has been set; what are the amounts per year; what is the starting date and the proposed completion date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on Thursday 7 December. Support for the years beyond 1990–91 will be considered in future annual transport grant settlements and in the light of progress on the scheme. The timing of construction is a matter for Clwyd county council.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) primary and (b) high school teachers in Clwyd, in numbers and as a percentage, receive incentive allowances; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the percentage in each of the local education authorities of Wales of teachers receiving incentive allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest information relates to March 1988 and is shown in the table.

  Teachers receiving incentive allowances

  Number

  Percentage

  Clwyd—

  Primary/Nursery

  243

  25·6

  Secondary

  932

  53·5

  All Teachers1

  Clwyd

  —

  45·3

  Dyfed

  —

  36·0

  Gwent

  —

  37·3

  Gwynedd

  —

  34·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  29·9

  Powys

  —

  33·1

  South Glamorgan

  —

  38·1

  West Glamorgan

  —

  38·4

  1 All teachers includes teachers in Special schools, and excludes Headteachers and Deputy Headteachers.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to take to eliminate the shortage of primary school teachers in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government's role is to ensure that sufficient qualified teachers are available to meet employers' needs. It is the responsibility of local education authorities to ensure that teachers are recruited to meet the needs of schools in their areas. In responding to the survey of teaching vacancies in September this year, Clwyd did not indicate that there was a shortage of primary teachers in the county.

  This year the intake of students to primary courses in initial teacher training institutions was over 15 per cent. higher than in 1988. In Welsh institutions the increase was 22 per cent. above the 1988 figure and 28 per cent. above the targets for those institutions. We have also invited bids

  775
  from LEAs in Wales for education support grant to assist with the cost of developing schemes of recruitment directed at meeting local shortages. No bid has been received from Clwyd.

  Schools (First Aid)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross in Wales to discuss the place of first aid instruction in schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) which local education authorities in Wales have arranged for first aid instruction in their schools; what type of instruction is provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Any discussions about the place of first aid instruction in schools should most appropriately be conducted between the first aid organisations and local education authorities.

  All local education authorities make provision for first aid instruction. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with detailed information on the extent of provision and type of instruction in schools and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  "Trade Routes to the Future"
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is planning to take with reference to the recent Confederation of British Industry report, "Trade Routes to the Future", as it affects Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Family Practitioner Committee

  Practitioners born outside Great Britain1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  48

  24·7

  46

  23·4

  45

  22·5

  47

  22·3

  49

  22·9

  Dyfed

  11

  6·0

  12

  6·4

  13

  6·7

  15

  7·6

  14

  6·8

  Gwent

  77

  34·7

  79

  35·0

  83

  35·0

  78

  33·1

  78

  32·5

  Gwynedd

  10

  7·3

  8

  5·8

  11

  7·9

  9

  6·5

  9

  6·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  123

  45·4

  126

  46·0

  125

  45·3

  133

  47·5

  138

  47·4

  Powys

  9

  12·9

  10

  13·9

  10

  13·9

  11

  14·5

  10

  13·3

  South Glamorgan

  21

  10·0

  21

  9·7

  25

  11·4

  25

  11·3

  25

  11·1

  West Glamorgan

  26

  14·6

  27

  15·0

  29

  15·6

  29

  15·4

  28

  14·4

  Wales

  325

  22·2

  329

  22·1

  341

  22·4

  347

  22·4

  351

  22·1

  1 Unrestricted principals as at 1 October·

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many doctors whose training and basic medical qualification were received outside the United Kingdom are employed in hospitals in Wales in 1989; and what was the comparable figure for each of the past five years;

  (2) what percentage of hospital doctors in each health authority area in Wales received their basic medical training and qualification outside the United Kingdom; and what was the comparable percentage for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on where hospital doctors received basic medical training is not held centrally. However available information on country of birth is shown in the table:
  776
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I wrote to the CBI on 4 December. A copy of my letter has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Since then I have announced plans to dualling the A5 across Anglesey, one of the routes identified in the report as in need of improvement.

  Doctors
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many doctors whose basic medical training and qualifications were received abroad are employed as general practitioners in Wales in 1989; and what was the comparable figure for each of the past five years;

  (2) how many doctors whose training and basic medical qualifications were received outside the United Kingdom are employed as general practitioners in each family practitioner committee area in Wales; and what was the comparable figure for each of the past five years;

  (3) what percentage of general practitioners in each family practitioner committee area in Wales received their basic training and qualifications outside the United Kingdom; and what was the equivalent percentage for each of the past five years;

  (4) what percentage of general practitioners in Wales received their basic medical training and qualifications outside the United Kingdom; and what was the comparable figure for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on where general practitioners received basic medical training is not held centrally. However the latest available information on country of birth is shown in the table which will show the hon. Gentleman that the position for Wales in 1989 was almost identical to that in 1983.

  Hospital doctors born outside the United Kingdom1

  Year

  Number

  Per cent.

  19842

  833

  32·5

  19852

  854

  32·6

  19862

  863

  32·1

  1987

  850

  31·2

  1988

  841

  30·2

  1 Staff in post as at 30 September.

  2Excludes doctors born in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the hours worked by junior hospital doctors in Wales;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level of morale among junior hospital doctors in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not held centrally about hours worked by junior hospital doctors. Information held relates to the number of units of medical time (UMT) for
  777
  which doctors are contracted. Earlier this year the Department undertook a review. The Department has since requested health authorities to submit proposals to reduce further the hours worked by junior doctors. No assessment of the level of morale among junior doctors as such has been undertaken.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the number of individuals who have received their medical training and qualification outside the United Kingdom and who will have to be recruited by hospitals in Wales in each of the coming five years;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the problems of recruiting and retaining the services of junior hospital doctors to posts at hospitals in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not possible reliably to assess the demand for overseas qualified doctors in each of the next five years. Consideration is still being given to the distribution by specialty of those doctors eligible to pursue a career in the United Kingdom and those overseas doctors who are seeking to undertake training for a limited period in the United Kingdom. The implementation of the package of proposals in "Achieving a Balance" for the reform of the hospital medical staffing structure will alleviate recruitment problems and the Department, with the assistance of the recently established Welsh Council for Postgraduates in Medical and Dental Education, is developing plans for a training package specifically for overseas doctors employed in Wales. This scheme and other initiatives under consideration are designed to attract junior doctors to the National Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what examination he has undertaken of the effectiveness of induction and supplementary training given immediately on appointment to any doctor whose medical training and qualifications have been received outside the United Kingdom;

  (2) what examination he has undertaken of the effectiveness of inquiries made prior to the employment in any hospital in Wales of a doctor whose medical training and qualifications have been received outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has issued firm guidance to health authorities in Wales on the procedures to be followed in employing overseas qualified doctors and in particular emphasised the importance of checking that doctors are properly registered for the work they are to do before taking up employment.

  Overseas qualified doctors applying for registration must satisfy the General Medical Council about their professional experience, clinical knowledge/skills and their command and understanding of the English language. The Department is satisfied with the criteria employed by the General Medical Council to assess the suitability of overseas qualified doctors. All such doctors work under the direct supervision of a consultant who provides further training as appropriate.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what percentage of hospital doctors in Wales received their basic medical training and qualification outside the United Kingdom; and what was the comparable percentage for each of the past five years;
  778
  (2) how many doctors whose training and basic medical qualifications were received outside the United Kingdom are employed in hospitals in each health authority in Wales; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on where hospital doctors received basic medical training is not held centrally. However, information is available on place of birth and I will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the information by health authority can be extracted.

ENERGY

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the long-term safety reviews of the Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is an ongoing programme of long-term safety reviews of Magnox stations. This will be continued by Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the maximum operating life of Magnox reactors; if he will take steps to require the Central Electricity Generating Board to set a maximum operational period for the reactors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The maximum operating life of a Magnox station is a matter for the owner of the station subject to the requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the decommissioning costs for the Magnox reactors pertains to(a) phase one, (b) phase two and (c) phase three.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Magnox operators.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress being made to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the 4,000 MW coal-fired power station at Drax in Yorkshire is proceeding satisfactorily. The electricity industry is identifying subsequent stations for retrofits.

  CEGB (Safety Breaches)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received over the amount of fines imposed on the Central Electricity Generating Board after pleading guilty to charges of nuclear safety breaches brought by the nuclear installations inspectorate whether this was the first such prosecution and conviction of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received no such representations. This is the first occasion on which the
  779
  Central Electricity Generating Board has been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive in respect of breaches of their licence conditions.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list (1) the statutory requirements governing the publication of reports of the constituent bodies of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales (ii) the dates on which such reports have been published in each year since nationalisation, either for existing or predecessor corporations and (iii) indicate, where appropriate, when the reports for 1988–89 will be published.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The statutory requirement governing the publication of reports of the constituent bodies of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales are: the Electricity Act 1947, as amended by the Electricity Act 1957, section 46; and the Electricity Act 1957, sections 10 and 11. These reports have been published each year and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  All area boards have published their reports and accounts for 1988–89 and I understand that the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Electricity Council intend to publish their reports and accounts before the end of December.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy under the regulations for the forthcoming privatisation of electricity, what plans he has to give powers to a regulatory body to ensure that the electricity board must legally give customers every opportunity to pay according to their means.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Under their licences, public electricity suppliers will implement approved procedures for dealing with customers facing difficulties with their bills which will include taking particular account of the consumer's ability to pay. These procedures can be enforced by the director under section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what regulations are in force in relation to secondary means of evacuation from offshore oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations 1974 (SI 1974/289), the Offshore Installations (Emergency Procedures) Regulations 1976 (SI 1976/1542) and the Offshore Installations (Life-saving Appliances) Regulations 1977 (SI 1977/486).

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what tests are undertaken by his Department, independent of the oil industry, in assessing the safety, quality and effectiveness of all means of evacuation from offshore oil and gas installations generally, and in relation to individual installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department utilises the experience of the marine surveyors of the Department of 780
  Transport to ensure that all life-saving appliances are of an approved type, are suitably located, properly maintained and in good working order. Certifying authorities also carry out independent surveys of offshore installations and their equipment, including escape routes. In addition, independent contractors undertake research and development projects sponsored by my Department.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals to introduce regulations or guidance in relation to the provision of smoke hoods on offshore oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A research and development programme has been commissioned jointly by my Department and the oil and gas industry to establish performance specifications for smoke hoods to be used offshore and for a test procedure for assessment purposes. Subject to the outcome of this programme, consideration will be given to the introduction of a statutory requirement for the provision of smoke hoods or other devices capable of performing the same or a similar function.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the sources of information underlying the figures in his departmental press release No. 180, issued on 5 December, on imports and exports to the nearest kilogramme of separated and unseparated plutonium.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The figures on imports and exports of plutonium were compiled from data supplied by British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why, in note 4 to paragraph 1(A) of his departmental press release number 180 on plutonium figures the percentages cited have been rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.; and whether his Department possesses data to a greater degree of accuracy than this.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The estimates of fissile content are shown to the same precision as in the estimates given by the electricity boards to my Department.

  Nuclear Plants
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has had any recent communications from the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc concerning its plans to make a planning application for the construction of new commercial scale nuclear plants at its sites at Sellafield and Chapelcross.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc on 16 November when their discussion touched upon the feasibility study that the company is carrying out into the options for replacing its stations at Calder Hall and Chapelcross.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to require British Nuclear Fuels plc to inform customers what percentage of the price charged for services relates to the need to reduce environmental impact.
  781
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. This is a commercial matter between BNFL and its customers.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he is taking to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from energy sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department's current policies include encouragement of cost-effective energy efficiency, the development of renewable energy resources and support for diversified and efficient electricity supply options provide a firm basis for any future action. The need for further measures will be considered in the light of the report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), due in autumn 1990.

  Onshore Licensing
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make an announcement on the results of the third onshore licensing round.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have today announced the conditional award of 22 landward exploration licences for blocks in England, Scotland and Wales. The licences allow companies to search and drill for petroleum, subject to the procedures of the planning system and the technical approval of my Department. Where the licences extend into coastal waters stringent conditions will be set to ensure that local interests will be fully taken into account before operations are undertaken.

  Details of the awards have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he has any proposals to introduce regulations or guidance relating to the installation of free-fall lifeboats on offshore oil and gas installations;

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court for illegal sales of tobacco and alcohol to children by police force area from 1984–88 England and Wales

  Numbers proceeded against

  Tobacco

  Alcohol

  Police force area

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  16

  26

  13

  12

  17

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  3

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  4

  9

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  8

  10

  15

  10

  30

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  4

  2

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  8

  16

  10

  5

  20

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  7

  8

  7

  9

  19

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  15

  19

  11

  17

  14

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  11

  16

  5

  4

  Durham

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  4

  12

  14

  Essex

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  7

  Greater Manchester

  7

  7

  4

  3

  —

  17

  20

  20

  40

  92

  Hampshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  7

  10

  13

  14

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  4

  5

  5

  11

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  7

  14

  2

  3

  2

  Kent

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  3

  4

  Lancashire

  3

  2

  —

  3

  1

  8

  12

  12

  47

  50

  Leicestershire

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  4

  —

  1

  8

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  4

  10

  12

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  —

  1

  10

  15

  2

  8

  6

  9

  782
  (2) whether he has any proposals to introduce regulations or guidance in relation to the provision of the secondary evacuation equipment known as skyscape on offshore oil and gas installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In August 1989 my Department issued a statement of intent which included proposals to amend the Offshore Installations (Life-saving Appliances) Regulations 1976 to allow for the use of any approved method of launching lifeboats, including free-fall lifeboats.

  The skyscape system has been accepted by the Department of Transport as a suitable means of escape to the sea and is being considered by a number of operators for use on new installations. The statement of intent proposes that there should be more specific guidance on means and location of descent to the sea.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions there are on the award of(a) entry visas and (b) residence permits for citizens of the German Democratic Republic wishing to settle in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All citizens of the German Democratic Republic require visas to enter the United Kingdom for any purpose. Visas are issued in accordance with the immigration rules set out in House of Commons paper 388.

  Tobacco and Alcohol
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply on 4 December to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), if he will give a regional breakdown of the figures for prosecutions for illegal sales of tobacco and alcohol, respectively, to children.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information held centrally on the number of prosecutions against the illegal sale of tobacco and alcohol to children by police force area in England and Wales for 1984 to 1988 is given in the table.
  783

  Numbers proceeded against

  Tobacco

  Alcohol

  Police force area

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Metropolitan police district1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  4

  11

  4

  17

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  4

  8

  2

  11

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  8

  1

  7

  4

  15

  North Yorkshire

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  15

  10

  26

  3

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  7

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  9

  8

  73

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  11

  13

  15

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Surrey

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  6

  6

  7

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  12

  7

  15

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  1

  2

  15

  Warwickshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  6

  4

  6

  3

  1

  West Mercia

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  23

  13

  15

  4

  10

  West Midlands

  11

  5

  1

  —

  3

  31

  21

  3

  7

  27

  West Yorkshire

  2

  4

  2

  1

  4

  18

  12

  11

  15

  13

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  6

  4

  1

  4

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  6

  22

  35

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  3

  5

  3

  13

  South Wales

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  8

  9

  7

  15

  20

  England and Wales

  45

  28

  17

  18

  29

  314

  274

  296

  333

  673

  1 Includes the City of London.

  Pornography
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 192, what are (a) the terms of reference of the review, (b) the names of those he will charge with conducting the review, (c) the expected commencement and finishing dates of the review into the possible link between pornography and sexual violence towards women and children; and whether he will allow public representations to be made to the review.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Home Office research and planning unit is at present drawing up the specification for a review of research reports on possible links between pornography and sexual violence. Broadly, the terms of reference will be to review the available research in this country, the United States of America and in other European countries on the effects of pornography, including any link with violence or sexual aggression, and effects on attitudes to women.

  We are considering who is best qualified to carry out the review. We plan that it should begin in January and be completed in April. The report would be published in the usual way.

  It would not be right to ask the researchers to accept public representations, which would fall outside their terms of reference. We are always ready to consider representations ourselves.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 automatically renewed or advertised throughout the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Waddington
  This information is readily available only by calendar year. The number of contracts awarded by my Department covered by the provisions of the EC supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000 was 71 in 1988 and 56 to date in 1989. Of these,784
  112 were awarded following advertisement in the EC Journal and 15 were considered to be exempt from advertising and may have been awarded to the previous supplier.

  Immigration Service (Vacancies)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employee vacancies there are currently at(a) Lunar house, Croydon and (b) the nationality department at Liverpool.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At 7 December there was an overall total of 85 vacancies in the immigration and nationality department in Croydon, and four in the Immigration arid Nationality Department's Liverpool nationality office.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate an inquiry into levels of stress on police now engaged in ambulance work and its effects on their future efficiency as police officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost in police time and resources, for each police authority area, of the ambulance dispute since September.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is that up to 8 December police forces had provided about the number of man hours shown in the table in assisting the ambulance service in their areas.

  Approximate number of man hours

  Number

  West Midlands

  8,200

  Bedfordshire

  5,900

  Lincolnshire

  1,500

  Dorset

  650

  Derbyshire

  6,800

  Hampshire

  3,500

  785

  Number

  Hertfordshire

  12,200

  South Yorkshire

  4,400

  West Yorkshire

  570

  Warwickshire

  460

  Surrey

  450

  For the Metropolitan police district I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given him today in reply to another question.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of police, per day, by Metropolitan police division, employed on ambulance duties since September.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that in the Metropolitan police district from 8 November to 12 December the approximate number of police officers by area employed on duties assisting the ambulance service in each 24-hour period has been as follows:

  Approximate number of officers

  Area

  Number

  1

  72

  2

  44

  3

  64

  4

  40

  5

  60

  6

  72

  7

  74

  8

  34

  TOTAL

  460

  On each of 23 and 24 October the total was about 670 and on 7 November the total was about 830.

  IRA Prisoners
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convicted members of the Irish Republican Army currently held in British prisons enjoy category B status apart from the six men convicted after the Birmingham pub bombings;

  (2) how many Irish Republican Army members currently serving sentences of life imprisonment enjoy category B status apart from the six men convicted after the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are at present in prisons in England and Wales 37 prisoners convicted of terrorist offences believed to have been carried out by the IRA. Twenty-four are serving life sentences, one (excluding the Birmingham Six) not being in category A.

  Remission
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect on the prison population for(a) those with prison sentences and (b) those on parole in England and Wales, as a result of his proposals for the removal of remission in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The removal of remission is one of a number of changes which we have in mind. Any estimates of the effect on the prison population should take account of all the proposed changes and will be announced in due course.

  Emergency Services (Pay)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list at 1989 prices the pay of(a) a leading fireman and (b) a police constable for each year since 1974.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not held in the form requested. The annual rates of pay at historic prices are as follows:

  £

  Leading Firemen/Women

  7 November 1974

  2,913

  1 February 1975

  3,123

  7 November 1975

  3,435

  7 November 1976

  3,606

  7 November 1977

  4,040

  7 November 1978

  4,935

  7 November 1979

  5,943

  7 November 1980

  6,715

  1 April 1981

  7,060

  7 November 1981

  7,773

  7 November 1982

  8,355

  7 November 1983

  9,006

  7 November 1984

  9,654

  7 November 1985

  10,350

  7 November 1986

  11,106

  7 November 1987

  11,916

  7 November 1988

  12,942

  7 November 1989

  14,055

  Police Constables

  1 September 1974

  1,632– 2,636

  1 September 1975

  2,400– 3,476

  1 September 1976

  2,609– 3,685

  1 September 1977

  2,775– 3,918

  1 September 1978

  3,189– 4,809

  1 September 1979

  4,086– 6,471

  1 September 1980

  4,956– 7,848

  1 September 1981

  5,610– 8,883

  1 September 1982

  6,189– 9,798

  1 September 1983

  6,708–10,620

  1 September 1984

  6,809–11,193

  1 September 1985

  7,212–12,033

  1 September 1986

  7,752–12,936

  1 September 1987

  8,352–13,938

  1 September 1988

  8,352–15,123

  1 September 1989

  9,900–16,521

  Between October 1974 and October 1989 the retail prices index increased by 309·4 per cent.

  Emergency Centres
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify those home defence sub-regions currently without a Government wartime emergency centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  Such centres are not available in regions 8.1 and 10.1.

  Nuclear Blast Simulation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify those nuclear blast simulations in the United States of America since 1980 with which his Department's scientific research and development branch has been associated; and what was the cost in each case and what arrangements are being made for future collaboration.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested is as follows:
  787

  Year and Name of trial

  Cost of United Kingdom involvement (excluding staff)

  Staff costs

  £

  £

  1981 Mill Race

  20,000

  1—

  1983 Direct Course

  176,648

  57,021

  1985 Minor Scale

  421,152

  63,069

  1987 Misty Picture

  470,510

  68,649

  1989 Misers Gold

  2390,000

  78,780

  1 Staff costs not separately available.

  2 Estimate.

  No decision has been taken on participation in further such simulations.

  Emergency Communications Network
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about(a) the susceptibility to nuclear electromagnetic pulse and (b) any softwear problems of the solid-state message switch devices currently being introduced into the wartime Government emergency communications network.

  Mr. John Patten
  The equipment underwent satisfactory susceptibility tests prior to purchase. The need for software improvements was identified following initial operational experience of the equipment, and revisions were introduced in 1988. Consideration is being given to the need for any additional refinements in the light of further experience.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the proposed criteria for suitability of civil defence volunteers drawn up by the London fire and civil defence authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  This is entirely a matter for the London fire and civil defence authority.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the all-hazards approach to planning will involve civil defence community volunteers in civil emergencies.

  Mr. John Patten
  The use of civil defence community volunteers is a matter for individual local authorities to determine. We are aware that some local authorities have involved such volunteers in their response to recent civil emergencies.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the London fire and civil defence authority has co-operated in providing his Department with information about London boroughs' civil defence expenditure.

  Mr. John Patten
  Yes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what national voluntary organisations are being considered for the recruitment of civil defence volunteers; and if he will make a statement:

  (2) which national voluntary organisations have been contacted by his Department during the past 12 months on the matter of civil defence community volunteers.

  Mr. Waddington
  The involvement of national voluntary organisations in assisting local authorities with 788
  their community volunteer schemes is one of the options we are considering as part of a wider review of the role and organisation of civil defence community volunteers. No decisions on future policy have yet been taken. A discussion paper examining the options was circulated to interested parties earlier this year. The national voluntary organisations formally consulted were the Women's Royal Voluntary Service; British Red Cross; St. John Ambulance Brigade; and Civil Aid.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether details of advances of civil defence grant aid for the London boroughs have been contained in returns made by the London fire and civil defence authority for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  No such details are required in returns made to the Home Office by the London fire and civil defence authority. Advance payments in connection with civil defence grant are decided in the light of estimates of qualifying expenditure submitted by local authorities. Such advances are made to county councils and fire and civil defence authorities rather than to individual boroughs and districts.

  Bruntington Airport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the decision was made to transfer the bulk of the emergency fire service vehicles to Bruntington airport; and to which company any maintenance contract for the vehicles has been awarded.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is Government policy that appropriate services which have hitherto been undertaken in-house should be market-tested. In the light of considerations of effectiveness, efficiency and cost, and subject to satisfactory contracts, it is intended to transfer the storage and maintenance of the emergency fire service equipment to the private sector. Such contracts are still under negotiation, but a limited instruction has been given to TNT Express (UK) Limited to maintain a proportion of the equipment as an interim arrangement.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the chief constable of the West Midlands for a report on what date and in what circumstances Detective Inspector Paul Matthews left the force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that Inspector Matthews was required to resign from the force on 23 September 1986 following formal discipline proceedings. The officer had been found guilty of failing to obey lawful orders.

  Prison Visitors' Centres
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the provision of prison visitors' centres.

  Mr. Mellor
  We believe that visitors' centres can be of considerable benefit to visitors, prisoners and staff. They are now a standard feature in the design of new establishments. Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide
  789
  funds to erect purpose-built centres at those existing establishments which do not already have a centre. We are keen, however, to encourage establishments to make suitable provision wherever this is possible—for example, by making use of existing accommodation. I am placing in the Library a copy of a note, "Visitors' Centres: Some Guidelines for Establishments and Voluntary Organisations", which is being issued to the governors of all establishments.

  We already make a regular contribution towards the running costs of five visitors' centres and emergency grants have also been made to a further four centres in this financial year. From April next year additional funds will be available to offer similar support to new centres.

  Football Safety
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to ask for a report on crowd safety at the Middlesbrough v. Leeds United game on Saturday 9 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am aware of this incident which led to a number of spectators sustaining minor injuries and the chief constable has been asked for a report. We have also sought information from the Cleveland county council which is responsible for the ground's safety certificate. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

EMPLOYMENT

  Interview Expenses
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will extend the arrangements for interview expenses to be claimed for travel to local interviews.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have currently no plans to make further changes in the rules of the scheme.

  Disabled Adults
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish his Department's internal review on employment assistance to disabled adults.

  Mr. Eggar
  The review is at an advanced stage. The consultative document which will follow the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to raise the grant ceilings available to sheltered placement scheme sponsors.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall be informing sponsors as soon as possible about arrangements for the sheltered placement scheme grant ceiling levels for 1990–91.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how much of the European social fund grants for 1990 in Great Britain is being allocated to the Training Agency; and for what purposes;
  790
  (2) what is the sum of European social fund grants for 1990; and what percentage is going to the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission has not yet informed us how much support it is going to make available for any programmes in 1990.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the European social fund for projects in Great Britain has gone to the voluntary sector programme in the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European social fund allocations to voluntary sector applicants for years 1987 to 1989 inclusive are listed in the following table. These figures relate to organisations registered as charities or as companies limited by guarantees; and are expressed as a percentage of the total allocation to Great Britain rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Year

  Percentage

  1987

  4·11

  1988

  5·76

  1989

  6·11

  The figures for the earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement of the Government's policy towards fighting AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As we made clear in our response to the seventh report of the Social Services Committee on AIDS, published on 24 November (Cm. 925), the Government remain committed to encouraging effective and responsible action among statutory and voluntary bodies and individuals to stem the spread of HIV; foster research to improve our understanding of AIDS and HIV infection: provide appropriate services for those affected by HIV and encourage a climate of understanding and compassion towards them; and to contribute to the international effort to control HIV and AIDS.

  Dental Fillings
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out on the possible toxic effect of mercury amalgam fillings currently used on dental patients in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1986, the Committee on Toxicity examined the available evidence on the risks and benefits of using dental amalgam. It found that there was some evidence that mercury is released from dental amalgam during the period following insertion and on removal of the restorations. However, it also found that long-term clinical evidence would seem to suggest the view that substantial amounts of mercury are not released from amalgam fillings. The committee stated that in its opinion the use of dental amalgam is free from risk of systematic toxicity and only a very few cases of hypersensitivity occur. In its view further research in this area would not merit priority.

  Miscarriages
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnant mothers suffered miscarriages in the last year for which figures available; and how many of these had received the amniocentesis test during pregnancy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask Secretary of State for Health which hospitals and services in the northern region have expressed a wish to become self-governing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 29 November at columns 297–300.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the outstanding applications for a licence before the Medicines Control Agency; and how long each application has been awaiting approval.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are unable to list the outstanding licence applications held by the Medicines Control Agency because this information is, in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968, treated as confidential.

  We can however say that the number of applications for new licences awaiting a decision as at 30 November 1989 was:

  Number

  Product licences

  1,766

  Product licences (parallel imports)

  1,006

  Manufacturers licences

  21

  Wholesale dealers licences

  32

  Non orthodox practitioner licences

  3

  The average time taken* to grant product licences and product licences (parallel imports) as at 30 June 1989 (latest available figure) was:

  Months

  for new active substances

  24

  for abridged applications referred to Committees under the Medicines Act

  32

  for other abridged applications

  16

  for parallel imports

  19

  The estimated time taken to grant the following licences is currently:

  Days

  for manufacturers licences

  80–90

  for wholesale dealers licences

  80–90

  for non orthodox practitioner licences

  40

  Note:

  It should be noted that all times quoted are gross processing times and take no account of delays while companies prepare their replies to queries raised on applications.

  Drug Tariff Committee
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the products at present before the drug tariff committee; and how long each product has been awaiting approval.
  792
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no drug tariff committee. Drugs and medicines are automatically included in the drug tariff, subject to any licensing requirements, unless they are specifically excluded from NHS prescription by general practitioners by virtue of the selected list scheme. The inclusion in the drug tariff of appliances, dressings and chemical reagents is subject to their approval by the Secretary of State.

  Currently there are about 50 products on which suppliers are awaiting a response from the Department. The earliest application on which a response is still outstanding was received on 3 May 1989. Details of the products under consideration are commercially confidential.

  NHS Patients (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients admitted to Leeds Western and Eastern area health authorities for National Health Service treatment had previously received(a) diagnosis and (b) treatment privately for the same or allied ailments.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the health authorities to see if they can provide the information he requires.

  Eye Test Charges
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has had any representations from opticians concerning the introduction of eye test charges since 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations from opticians since the introduction of charges for sight tests on 1 April this year.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants are(a) currently available or (b) proposed for the future to extend or refurbish general practitioners' surgeries and waiting rooms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The two main types of grant which are currently available to general practitioners who improve their practice premises are cost rents and improvement grants. Both schemes are set to continue in future with certain improvements, in particular to enable family practitioner committees to target new investment on areas of greatest need.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the pay levels for nurses and other health staff returning to the National Health Service after a period of employment in the private health sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The pay of NHS staff generally is determined either following the advice of the pay review bodies, or through direct negotiation in the Whitley councils. Arrangements for determining the starting pay for health staff returning to the NHS after service elsewhere, including the private sector, are a matter for those councils or, in the case of the review body groups, for the appropriate negotiating council or committee.
  793
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the arrangements for negotiating pay and conditions of service in hospitals wishing to opt out of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hospitals and other units granted NHS trust status will remain fully part of the NHS. Staff who transfer from health authority to NHS trust employment on establishment of a NHS trust will retain their existing contracts and all rights arising from them, subject to the substitution of the new employer for the old and any consequential technical changes. Once established, it will be for NHS trust management boards to determine the arrangements for negotiating pay and conditions of service of their staff.

  Yellow Card System
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce payments to general practitioners for reporting adverse reactions through the yellow card system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to do so.

  Vaccination
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any reports of damage, either temporary or permanent, to children receiving the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 555 yellow card reports of suspected adverse reactions, both serious and non-serious, to measles, mumps and rubella vaccination (MMR) have been received since its introduction in October 1988. More than 2·5 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed.

  Monitoring of the safety of all vaccines by the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, public health laboratories communicable disease surveillance centre, the Department and the manufacturers continues.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that parents who do not wish to have their children vaccinated are not subject to undue pressure from general practitioners.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to issue specific guidance in this respect. It is for GPs—who are professionally trained in this matter—to discuss vaccination with parents. All parents have the right to refuse vaccination for their children but we hope that they will not do so.

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to fund Leeds as a heart transplant centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no immediate plans to announce the designation of further heart transplant centres. Earlier this year we announced that two additional centres would receive supraregional designation and funding from 1 April 1990. The new centres are at St. George's hospital in Tooting and the Northern general hospital in Sheffield. The supraregional services advisory group keeps the service under review and advises Ministers accordingly.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the range and nature of each extended skill qualification available to the personnel of the ambulance service together with the current incremental payment per annum for each.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Extended ambulance training to the NHS Training Authority standard is designed to save life and reduce morbidity and mortality by extending the skills of selected ambulance staff in endotracheal intubation, intravenous infusion and cardiac care. Some ambulance staff have received training to meet all or part of the NHS Training Authority package or to local standards but currently do not receive additional payment for this. The management side's final pay offer includes an additional £500 a year backdated to 1 April 1989 for staff with extended training to NHS Training Authority standards and required to use paramedical skills. There is also an undertaking to agree, by 28 February 1990, a national framework for the recognition of staff trained to intermediate standards with payments also backdated to 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers of personnel of the London ambulance service currently trained to NHSTA certificate standards who would qualify for the advertised additional £500 pay; and what increase in such numbers is planned by the London Ambulance Board.

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

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the pay, at 1989 prices, of a qualified ambulance person for each year since 1974.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about national basic pay rates for qualified ambulance men/women since 1974 at 1989 prices is in the table.

  Ambulancemen basic pay 1974–1988 at 1989 prices

  Date of settlement

  Basic pay

  Basic pay at 1989 prices

  £

  £

  1 January 1974

  1,981

  9,632

  1 January 19751

  1,981

  8,227

  1 January 19761

  2,607

  8,576

  1 January 19771

  2,503

  7,296

  1 January 19781

  2,701

  6,721

  1 January 1979

  2,912

  6,697

  1 April 19802

  3,994

  7,943

  1 January 1981

  4,304

  7,320

  1 April 1982

  4,579

  6,459

  1 April 1983

  4,797

  6,495

  1 April 1984

  5,014

  6,499

  1 April 19853

  8,604

  10,434

  1 April 1986

  9,120

  10,801

  1 April 1987

  9,576

  10,864

  1 April 1988

  10,093

  10,925

  1 April 19894

  11,001

  —

  1 Period of Pay Restraint.

  2 Following Final Clegg Award Payment. Interim payments were made on 1 August 1979 and 1 January 1980.

  3 New Pay Structure includes Special Duty payments and an element for overtime.

  4 Final Pay Offer.

  795
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from police forces and the Police Federation concerning the ambulance dispute;

  (2) what representations he has received from regional and district health authorities concerning the conduct of the ambulance dispute.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A few representations have been received from district health authorities and none from the police or Police Federation.

  Blood
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to the answer in the Official Report, 7 December, column 369, he will list private sector organisations which have received blood from National Health Service sources; and what costs were recovered for collection, processing, handling and transporting blood.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on individual non-National Health Service hospitals which have received blood from the National Health Service is not held centrally. Charges made to the private sector to recover the costs to the national blood transfusion service of collection, processing, handling and transport of blood amounted to £1,846,123 for the financial year 1987–88, and a provisional figure of £1,980,647 for 1988–89.

  Resource Management
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer on 28 November,Official Report, column 228, he will name the 20 hospitals who will move into full resource management in this financial year; if he will give details of the programme for the remaining sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am able to announce the names of 20 hospitals which will proceed further with the implementation of resource management. This involves the purchase of computerised databases and nurse information systems in this financial year. All these hospitals have been preparing for resource management since my announcement in March 1989 that we were extending the programme. I am pleased we have made such rapid progress. This is a tribute to the hard work of the Health Service and augurs well for the future. The hospitals are:

  Region and hospital

  Northern

  Darlington Memorial

  Royal Infirmary, Sunderland

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle

  North Tyneside General

  Yorkshire

  Airedale General Hospital

  York District General Hospital

  St. James's University Hospital, Leeds

  Pontefract General Infirmary

  Trent

  Sheffield Children's Hospital

  Northern General, Sheffield

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary

  Leicester Glenfield

  796
  East Anglian

  Addenbrookes

  South East Thames

  Greenwich District Hospital

  St. Thomas' Hospital

  Oxford

  Radcliffe Infirmary

  Mersey

  Southport District General Hospital

  Whiston St. Helens Hospital

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe

  Of the remaining sites I expect that the 30 sites of the original 50 announced in March 1989 will themselves move to full resource management during 1990–91. I expect others to join them and the National Health Service management executive is finalising details of a further 50 hospitals which will commence their preparation for resource management as soon as possible. This preparatory phase is crucial in determining how to involve doctors in the management of hospital resources with the aim of improving patient care; the management executive is discussing with the JCC what guidance can be given on this.

  Abortion Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the RU486 abortion pill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the past 12 months we have received some 30 representations about the drug RU486 expressing views for and against its introduction.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been done into the possible link between artifically softened water and cot deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware of no such research. As we indicated in the Government's reply to the Social Services Committee report on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality (Cm 741), the Medical Research Council is currently undertaking a major review of literature on research into the causes of sudden infant death. I will arrange for this question to be brought to its attention.

  Community Care
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects the report on the development of community care services under section 11 of the Disabled Persons Act to be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Freeman
  The first report will be laid before Parliament before the end of this year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Pension Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that all parliamentary contributory pension fund moneys are invested in ethically acceptable investments and that investments in South African companies are disposed of.
  797
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Determination of the investment policy relating to parliamentary contributory pension fund moneys is a matter for the trustees of that fund. I understand that they have laid down broad investment policy guidelines which are designed to preserve the asset base of the fund and to ensure that the liabilities of present and future pensioners are met.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Zoonoses Order
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will repeal the Zoonoses Order.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to repeal the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Foot and Mouth Disease

  Federal Republic of Germany

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  Italy

  131

  150

  167

  7

  74

  Spain

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Classical Swine Fever

  Belgium

  67

  80

  83

  2

  8

  France

  2

  20

  5

  15

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  351

  46

  41

  3

  62

  United Kingdom

  —

  10

  1

  —

  —

  Greece

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  26

  29

  13

  12

  10

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  36

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Spain

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  African Swine Fever

  Belgium

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  33

  21

  22

  20

  28

  Netherlands

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  51

  672

  645

  698

  279

  Spain

  390

  393

  793

  618

  164

  Rabies (number of cases in domestic and wild animals)

  Belgium

  446

  342

  242

  514

  398

  Denmark

  10

  105

  48

  —

  1

  France

  2,013

  2,465

  2,068

  2,223

  2,192

  Federal Republic of Germany

  6,865

  5,259

  3,791

  2,628

  1,744

  Greece

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Italy

  122

  29

  —

  21

  47

  Luxembourg

  67

  137

  23

  4

  13

  Netherlands

  16

  1

  86

  52

  8

  Spain (Mainland)

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1 Part year only.

  Meat (Humane Slaughter Labelling)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce a scheme of humane slaughter labelling of meat.

  Mr. Maclean
  The slaughter of any livestock whose meat is intended for sale must be carried out in accordance with statutory welfare conditions. The food advisory committee is to undertake a review of food labelling and will be considering very carefully the question of additional labelling to indicate farming practices and methods of slaughter.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many veterinary investigation officers have been checked to see if they are carriers of salmonella; and what were the results;

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any decisions have been taken by the Council of Ministers in the post-1992 control of foot and mouth disease, classical and African swine fever and rabies; and if he will list the incidence of each of these diseases in each member state.

  Mr. Maclean
  Community measures, agreed by the Council, are already in place for the control or eradication of these diseases but no decisions have been taken on measures to apply after 1992.

  The number of outbreaks reported in member states in the last five years are as follows:

  (2) whether veterinary investigation officers who are used to investigate salmonella outbreaks in poultry flocks are required to be confirmed non-carriers of salmonella.

  Mr. Maclean
  My veterinary officers, who carry out investigations into cases of possible salmonella infection in poultry flocks, are not routinely checked to see if they are carriers of the disease nor are they required to be confirmed non-carriers of salmonella. Strict measures are taken to ensure proper hygiene and disinfection when veterinary officers visit farms.

  North Sea (Industrial Waste)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what applications have been made by Her Majesty's Government for any derogation from the terms of the North sea conference agreement of 1987 prohibiting the deposit of industrial waste in the North sea
  799
  after 31 December; and if he will state the quantities of material concerned, the amount of toxic content, and the periods for which application has been made.

  Mr. Gummer
  The ministerial declaration from the 1987 North sea conference provides for a country to show to the competent international organisation that a waste to be disposed of causes no harm in the marine environment. It has been agreed that the Oslo commission is the competent international organisation for this purpose, and the Oslo commission has agreed an appropriate procedure to be followed. Submissions have been made to the Oslo commission in respect of three wastes comprising an annual volume of 51,000 tonnes. Under the conditions of disposal the wastes are not toxic in the marine environment. The Oslo commission procedure requires that licences be reviewed every three years.

  EC Sugar Regime
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will meet representatives of United Kingdom industrial sugar associations before deciding upon his attitude to the reform of the European Community sugar regime;

  (2) when he expects the Commission to publish its proposals for the reform of the European Community sugar regime.

  Mr. Gummer
  Consultations with organisations interested in the review of the sugar regime are already under way. I will take all views put to me into account when deciding upon my approach to the review.

  EC Food
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make urgent arrangements to ensure European Community meats and butter are distributed in future by Bradford council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Bradford council did not register an interest in operating this scheme and consequently I was, and am, unable to make any allocation of produce to the council under the current arrangements.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received from Bradford about inconvenience experienced by pensioners and others eligible to receive European Community butter and meats when collecting such butter and meats.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received two letters enclosing some press cuttings concerning the inconvenience of queuing experienced by those seeking to obtain butter and beef in the Bradford area under the EC surplus food scheme.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the precise guidelines on the administrative arrangements for the distribution of surplus EEC butter and in particular who should collect the 5p for each pack and the intended use of the money so collected.

  Mr. Gummer
  The administration arrangements for the application of the surplus food scheme are set out in the intervention board's leaflet LP 39, a copy of which is being 800
  sent to my hon. Friend. To cover their administrative costs, designated organisations may levy a charge upon recipients of the food not exceeding 20p per kilogramme.

  Wastes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 11 December to the hon. Member for South Shields, which countries he is in touch with in connection with the relevant wastes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Comments on our submissions have now been received from Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and Norway.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the future of the national fruit collection and further changes at Agricultural Development and Advisory Service centres.

  Mr. Maclean
  The national fruit collection, originally established at Wisley and currently situated at Brogdale experimental horticulture station in Kent, is a unique and internationally renowned source of genetic material and part of the nation's heritage. We have consistently made clear that we shall continue to provide financial support for the collection so as to safeguard its long-term future, although we would not necessarily retain it at the Brogdale site. After very careful consideration we have concluded that Wye college, part of the university of London, should become the collection's permanent home since this offers the best prospects for its future security and stability.

  We announced in March that we propose to close Brogdale EHS unless alternative industry funding was forthcoming. Extensive inquiries have failed to identify sufficient industry support to sustain its R and D programme which is intended primarily for commercial growers. In the circumstances we have decided that Brogdale EHS should close as an ADAS experimental station on 31 March 1990.

  Against this background we examined carefully the options for the future management of the collection. We would have liked the collection to have remained at Brogdale, but this was, unfortunately, not possible. In particular we were concerned that it would have been isolated there from wider horticultural, academic and scientific expertise and that in the long run the additional overhead inherent in a small, separate unit would have proved too great. We were attracted by Swale borough council's offer to take on the management of the collection at the Brogdale site. But we had to conclude that a borough council could not offer the perpetuity of commitment or scientific strength which is needed for the collection. This led us to the view that it was not in the best interests of the collection to stay at Brogdale after its closure as an ADAS station.

  Two organizations—Wye college and the East Mailing Trust—offered to manage the collection on their own sites. We carefully studied the detailed information they provided and concluded that there was a clear case in favour of Wye college. As part of the university of London, Wye college will be able to ensure the collection's long-term security and continued independence from other fruit research and breeding activites, in particular for

  801
  plant variety rights (PVR) testing, a point to which much importance is attached internationally. Moreover, the college is well placed to develop the collection's use for scientific and educational purposes. We naturally gave very careful consideration to the impressive bid put forward by the East Mailing Trust. We were, however, forced to the conclusion that it would be preferable to continue to keep the national fruit collection separate from other Government and industry funded activities on the East Mailing site. It is in keeping with the collection's health status and current usage that it remains independent from the research and breeding at East Malling.

  We have therefore decided that the collection should be transferred to Wye college. The transition will take about five years, during which the integrity of the genetic material will be properly safeguarded. In particular, the existing trees will not be removed until we are satisfied that transfer to the new site has been fully and satisfactorily accomplished.

  Finally, as a further step towards the rationalisation of ADAS R and D facilities, Trawsgoed experimental husbandry farm, near Aberystwyth, Dyfed, will cease to operate as an ADAS experimental centre as from 31 March 1991. An announcement today by the Agricultural and Food Research Council outlines the council's future plans for grassland and environmental research, and makes reference to the Trawsgoed farm facilities and the part of the regional laboratory complex now surplus to ADAS reqirements. The latter was foreshadowed in the answer of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture of 21 March and represents a successful outcome to the search of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for alternative uses for the laboratory. Negotiations are in train to transfer to AFRC the farm and laboratory facilities which the council will require in order to implement its plans.

  The Pwllpeiran site of the present combined Trawsgoed/Pwllpeiran EHF will not itself be affected by the changes at Trawsgoed. However, discussions on its future are taking place, in order to complete the programme of rationalisation in ADAS following the Government's withdrawal from funding of near-market R and D.

  Conservation of Flora
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities for the genetic conservation of flora.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: My Department makes a grant in aid to the royal botanic gardens for the purposes set out in the National Heritage Act 1983 which includes the keeping of its national reference collections. In addition my Department provides funding for the collection of vegetables at the Institute of Horticultural Research, Wellesbourne and maintains the national fruit collection at its experimental horticultural station at Brogdale. As I announced today in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), we are safeguarding the collection's future by transferring it to Wye college, part of the university of London.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there are any plans to update the guidance given in the "Handbook for Delegated Medical Practitioners" as it relates to myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that there are no plans to update the section of the handbook for delegated medical practitioners relating to myalgic encephalomyelitis. This handbook is prepared by the Attendance Allowance Board which is independent of the Department and Ministers.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people currently eligible for rate relief under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 will be eligible for equivalent rebates under the poll tax when it is introduced in England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Relief under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, which is designed to avoid imposing higher rates on disabled people if they have to make alterations to their home, will no longer be required when domestic rates are abolished and the community charge introduced. Disabled people on lower incomes will be entitled to community charge benefit, which will reduce their bill: they will receive higher amounts of benefit than other people on a similar income whose personal circumstances are otherwise the same.

  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he intends to increase publicity for the vaccine damage payments scheme;

  (2) in what ways the existence of the vaccine damage payments scheme has been made known to parents since the inception of the scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department of Health and Social Security issued health notice HN(79)7 and local authority social services letter LASSL(79)1 in January 1979 informing heath and local authorities of the introduction of the scheme and asking them to bring it to the notice of staff and others working with possible beneficiaries. The notice and letter are still current. The Department tries to ensure that its leaflet on the scheme is widely available in places where potential claimants are likely to seek help, including social services departments, citizens advice bureaux and voluntary organisations. There is general information on the scheme in our leaflet for sick or disabled people which is freely available in the Department's local offices and post offices. We have no plans at present for further publicity.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to allow children damaged by the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine to receive payments from the vaccine damage payments scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The list of diseases to which the Vaccine Damage Payments Act applies includes measles and rubella. We are considering whether to add mumps to the list and I shall let the right hon. Member have our decision as soon as possible.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific addition to the retirement pension has been or is to be made to ensure that pensioners not qualifying for income support do not suffer any reduction in living standard as a result of the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The community charge will be included in the retail prices index which is used to calculate increases to the state retirement pension.

  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

  £

  RPI1 £

  ROSSI2 £

  £

  £

  Pensioners

  Age 80+ single

  42·85

  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

  47·55

  1·30

  51·10

  Age 75–79 couple

  63·25

  77·48

  74·07

  2·30

  79·20

  Age 60+ disabled single

  42·85

  52·49

  50·19

  1·30

  53·75

  Age 60+ disabled couple

  65·45

  80·18

  76·65

  2·30

  81·85

  Age 60–74 single

  40·60

  49·73

  47·55

  1·30

  48·50

  Age 60–74 couple

  63·25

  77·48

  74·07

  2·30

  75·55

  Sick and Disabled4

  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

  Age 25+ couple

  65·45

  80·18

  76·65

  2·30

  79·70

  Lone Parent

  With 2 children5

  65·00

  79·62

  76·12

  1·30

  78·75

  Unemployed

  Age 18–24 single

  24·00

  29·40

  28·11

  1·15

  28·80

  Age 25+ single

  30·60

  37·48

  35·84

  l·30

  36·70

  Couple no children

  48·00

  58·80

  56·21

  2·30

  57·60

  Couple 2 children5

  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 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.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the netting stations, whether or not in current use, to which district boards have granted exemptions from fishery assessments.

  Mr. Lang
  A district salmon fishery board has power to impose a fishery assessment in its district at such uniform rate or rates as it determines. There is no power for district boards to grant exemptions from the fishery assessment.

  Tobacco and Alcohol
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have taken place in respect of illegal sales to children of(a) tobacco and (b)

  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 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
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 December 1989, c. 669–70]: I regret that the information given for disabled pensioners aged 60 or over was incorrect. The corrected information is in the table.

  alcohol in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and what steps he proposes to improve enforcement of the law.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table. It is not possible to identify offences of selling tobacco to children separately in the Scottish Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Measures are under consideration to facilitate law enforcement on the sale of alcohol to children and to improve controls on off-sales, but it is not yet possible to say what form any relevant provision will take. The problem of access by children to tobacco products is also under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say what may be the outcome.
  805

  Persons proceeded against for sale of drink to persons aged under 18

  Year

  Number

  1984

  194

  1985

  175

  1986

  212

  1987

  231

  19881

  270

  1 Provisional.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the present rate of unemployment is in Scotland; and what the European average is.

  Mr. Lang
  In November 1989 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Scotland was 8·6 per cent. of the work force

  The latest available estimate of the seasonally adjusted standardised European Community unemployment rate was 9·1 per cent. of the labour force in September 1989.

  National Heritage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department consulted the Forestry Commission prior to publication of the consultation paper on Scotland's national heritage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council consulted him over the Nature Conservancy Council's own proposals for a federal structure prior to his announcement of 11 July.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend in December 1988 to advise him that a study into a federal model was being conducted by NCC.

  Health Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1959(a) the total amount spent on health and (b) the capital expenditure, giving the figures at constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is readily available only from 1974—75 and this is set out in the following tables:

  (a) Total National Health Service Expenditure in Scotland

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1988–89 prices

  1974–75

  458

  1,809

  1975–76

  603

  1,894

  1976–77

  685

  1,898

  1977–78

  777

  1,891

  1978–79

  893

  1,964

  1979–80

  1,064

  2,003

  1980–81

  1,343

  2,137

  1981–82

  1,531

  2,219

  1982–83

  1,660

  2,244

  806

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1988–89 prices

  1983–84

  1,773

  2,289

  1984–85

  1,901

  2,339

  1985–86

  2,015

  2,352

  1986–87

  2,144

  2,421

  1987–88

  2,328

  2,497

  1988–89

  2,591

  2,591

  (b) Total Capital Expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland

  £ million cash

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1988–89 prices

  1974–75

  33

  130

  1975–76

  42

  132

  1976–77

  41

  114

  1977–78

  42

  102

  1978–79

  52

  114

  1979–80

  64

  121

  1980–81

  69

  110

  1981–82

  89

  129

  1982–83

  103

  139

  1983–84

  108

  140

  1984–85

  118

  145

  1985–86

  132

  1S4

  1986–87

  116

  131

  1987–88

  120

  129

  1988–89

  131

  131

  Teachers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much he expects the level of vacancies for teachers to rise in the next 10 years.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to table 15 of the Scottish Education Department's statistical bulletin No. 12/B7/1989 entitled "Teachers—Key Statistics on Demand and Supply", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Action to respond to the increased demand for teachers by increasing the intake of colleges of education is already well in hand.

  School Boards and Children's Panels
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of recruitment of new children's panel members that has been achieved, with particular reference to the Strathclyde, Lothian and Central regions.

  Mr. Lang
  Recruitment of members of children's panels is a matter for each regional and island authority. Information is still being gathered centrally about the level of recruitment this year. Normally there are more applicants than vacancies. There is always a problem attracting sufficient suitable male applicants, and Lothian and Strathclyde regions are undertaking a second local recruiting exercise with a view to attracting more men. Central Region has, I understand, been able to meet its requirements this year from the applications received following the initial campaign.
  807
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the respective sums spent upon the recruitment of school board and children's panel members;

  (2) what sum has been spent over the last year on the recruitment of members for school boards.

  Mr. Lang
  School board members are elected. The organisation of school board elections is a matter for education authorities. Figures on expenditure by central Government on information about school boards were set out in my reply of 27 October to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).

  On the question of expenditure on recruitment for children's panel members, I refer the hon. Member to my separate reply today.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum was spent on advertising for the recruitment of new children's panel members in Scotland in the current autumn.

  Mr. Lang
  The costs incurred centrally in the recent national advertising campaign for applicants to be considered for membership of children's panels amounted to £45,000. It is understood some regions have undertaken further local advertising, but details of these costs are not available centrally.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's new staffing formula for secondary schools, giving explanations for the multiplier of 0·059 and the additional factor of 10·24 which is applied to school rolls in that formula.

  Mr. Lang
  I will write to the hon. Member to provide him with information about the conclusions of the staffing review.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much money will be spent on student loans in Scotland in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (2) how much money will be spent on student grants in Scotland in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (3) by how much his education budget will increase in cash and percentage terms in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, excluding the costs of student maintenance.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My detailed expenditure plans within the totals I announced on 6 December(Official Report, columns 328–33) will be set out in the Scottish Commentary on Public Expenditure to 1992–93, which will be published in the new year.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been found by the Training Agency of agencies or managers claiming money for trainees who did not attend their schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  The Training Agency's investigations have not revealed cases in Scotland where false claims were made in respect of trainees who did not participate in Employment Training, nor has it been offered substantive evidence of such cases.
  808
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inspectors the Training Agency has for employment training schemes in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Training Agency has 115 staff in Scotland monitoring training agents and training managers, and six training standards inspectors. Financial checks on all employment training providers are carried out by the Training Agency's professional accountant. The Training Agency also employs independent consultants to undertake a range of quality development tasks.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many experts have been dispensed with since employment training schemes started.

  Mr. Lang
  Since employment training started the Training Agency in Scotland has not found it necessary to dispense with the services of any training agent for employment training.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many training managers have been dispensed with since employment schemes started.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland the contract of one training manager for employment training has been terminated since employment training first started.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much will be spent in Scotland on the employment training scheme in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The total planned expenditure on employment training in Great Britain in 1989–90 is £1,271 million. No separate detailed figure is provided for Scotland. However, the Scottish share is estimated at approximately £153 million. An equivalent figure for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what action has been taken by the Training Agency to ensure that the traineeships offered by training agencies and training managers match Scotland's employment needs;

  (2) what analysis has taken place of the skill deficiencies which employment training is remedying.

  Mr. Lang
  Training proposals from prospective training agents and training managers are agreed with the Training Agency and form part of the final contract. Before agreeing to seek proposals the Training Agency must first be satisfied that they are in line with local labour market needs.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is taken by the Training Agency where the misappropriation or misapplication of public funds is suspected on employment training schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  If misappropriation or misapplication of public funds is identified the Training Agency will undertake a full and thorough investigation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is taken to ensure that all trainees on the employment training schemes receive the appropriate off-the-job training.

  Mr. Lang
  Off-the-job training provision is examined as part of the ongoing programme monitoring carried out by Training Agency staff under the approved training organisation process.
  809
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what checks are undertaken by the Training Agency to ensure that those said to be on employment training schemes are actually attending.

  Mr. Lang
  The ongoing programme monitoring by Training Agency staff under the approved training organisation process includes examination of records of attendance. The Training Agency has recently introduced a revised stringent system of checks.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines the Training Agency gives its staff on the frequency and volume of the monitoring of employment training schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  Frequent visits to training agents and training managers are undertaken by Training Agency staff in accordance with a sampling framework. The appropriate sample size for both training agents and training managers will depend on the size of the individual organisation and number of locations at which it operates. The frequency of visits will vary and will be governed by the agency's confidence in the organisation visited.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what independent research he has commissioned into the working of the employment training scheme in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have not commissioned any independent research into the working of employment training in Scotland. However, the Government are aware of a study of employment training in Scotland, commissioned by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the standing forum on special employment measures and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which found that"despite the undoubted difficulties and drawbacks of current Employment Training, there are positive and constructive options developing which would, if taken further, lead to an improvement in the quality of Employment Training and in the longer term, to the development of an integrated policy on adult training operated through local enterprise companies".

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the nature of firms, voluntary organisations or other bodies offering placements on the employment training schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  It is in the first instance for training managers to build up and maintain a database on appropriate placements for employment training; the Training Agency monitors this as part of its ongoing monitoring process.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of trainees on employment training schemes enter permanent full-time jobs as a result of their training.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available in the form requested. The result of the first regular 100 per cent. follow-up survey shows that in Great Britain 59 per cent. of leavers who had completed their training went into jobs, self-employment or further full-time training.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any agents or managers have been warned or dismissed for not providing the appropriate off-the-job training on employment training schemes.
  810
  Mr. Lang
  I cannot provide details of training agents and training managers who have been warned for not providing the appropriate off-the-job training because the terms of contract with training agents and training managers require such communications to be treated as commercial in confidence. No contracts have been terminated for reasons connected with the provision of off-the-job training.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there are any controls placed on the methods used by training agents to obtain employment training scheme placements from employers.

  Mr. Lang
  It is the responsibility of the training managers (not training agents) to negotiate placements with employers as part of their contractual responsibilities. The suitability of such placements is monitored by the Training Agency as part of its ongoing monitoring process.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to clarify the ownership situation with regard to the proposed merger of the Scottish Bus Group and Highland Scottish; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Highland Scottish Omnibuses Limited is a subsidiary of the Scottish Bus Group and will in due course be advertised for sale as part of the programme of privatisation of the group. It is not possible at this stage to say when Highland Scottish Omnibuses Limited will be offered for sale but it is expected that the first companies will be advertised early in 1990 and that the whole programme will be complete in early 1991.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in considering the possibility of opening in Scotland a new centre using conductive education.

  Mr. Lang
  I am glad to announce that, subject to approval of detailed proposals, we plan to go ahead with the establishment of a new centre in Scotland for the education of children with motor disorders, such as cerebral palsy. We are making provision within the Scottish education programme for £2·5 million spread over the next three years as the Government's contribution to setting up and running the centre.

  The work of the centre will be based on conductive education as practised at the Peto institute in Hungary. It will have a multi-disciplinary staff and will cater initially for about 40 children in the age range two to seven years. The centre will be available to children from all parts of Scotland and we intend that residential accommodation should be provided for children and accompanying parents who live outwith daily travelling distance.

  The new centre will represent a valuable new resource for Scotland. It will extend options for parents of handicapped children and provide training facilities for staff from other special schools where elements of conductive education are used. It is hoped, also, that the centre will be able to give practical support to children who are home between visits to the Peto institute itself.
  811
  A site has not yet been chosen but an important consideration is that the centre should be within daily travelling distance for as large a number of potential pupils as possible. We hope to open the centre before the end of 1991.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Unemployment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The unemployment figures released this morning are encouraging. They show that the number of people in the Province claiming unemployment benefit has fallen to 99,223.

  Chief Constable
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary regularly. Our meetings are confidential and it would not be right to disclose their content.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is currently planned that the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will take place in January. I have no plans at present to meet the Taoiseach. I paid him a courtesy call in Dublin before the last Intergovernmental Conference on 30 November.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his most recent meetings with political representatives in the Province regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have met the leaders of all the main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland in the months following my appointment, and the agreement was one of many subjects discussed at those meetings. The offer originally made by my predecessor to brief party leaders following meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference stands, and when requested I have given such briefings.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is prepared to consider any alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government are of course committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and to the principles it embodies. I am always ready to consider constructive proposals particularly where they enjoy a wide measure of support.
  812
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussion he has had regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The last Intergovernmental Conference took place on 30 November. I have met the party leaders of all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland in the months following my appointment and the agreement was one of many subjects discussed at those meetings.

  Conway Mill
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's reasons for refusing to fund the activities at Conway Mill in Belfast.

  Mr. Brooke
  As indicated in my predecessor's written reply of 9 February 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) the Government's policy on the payment of public funds to community groups, where there is evidence that such payments could directly or indirectly further the aims of a paramilitary organisation, has been applied to groups operating in or out of Conway Mill because of the nature and extent of paramilitary influence within the mill.

  Security
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of small businesses.

  Mr. Needham
  While there are no firm dates at present, both my right hon. Friend and I regularly meet representatives of small businesses and small business owners in the course of our duties in Northern Ireland.

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often the Anglo-Irish Ministerial Council will meet during the first six months of 1990.

  Mr. Brooke
  I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. We are planning to have around five meetings of the conference between 1 January and the end of July 1990.

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last met; and what subject was discussed.
  813
  Mr. Brooke
  The Intergovernmental Conference last met on 30 November. The joint statement issued afterwards was placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Youth Training Workshop
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of how many youth training workshops in Northern Ireland are likely to remain solvent under the proposed block funding arrangements to be introduced in 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  I am satisfied that workshops should be able to remain solvent under the proposed block funding arrangements as long as their management committees take action to adjust their operations to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. They are currently being assisted by management consultants engaged by the Department of Economic Development to prepare business plans for the future including assessing costs against likely revenue. It will be up to the management committees to decide what action to take in light of the outcome of this process.

  Cardinal O'Fiaich
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet Cardinal Thomas O'Fiaich to discuss terrorism in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to ban hare coursing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received to his proposals for integrated schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A wide range of helpful responses has been made to the Government's proposals for integrated schools, as a result of which a number of detailed changes have been made in the draft order.

  Planning Enforcement Notices
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning enforcement orders have been issued in the constituency of South Antrim in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham

  Year

  1987

  2

  1988

  4

  1989 (to date)

  5

  De Lorean
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been recovered from the investment in the De Lorean car company; and if he will make a statement.
  814
  Mr. Needham
  As my predecessor informed my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 7 June 1988 and 28 July 1988 Official Report columns 463 and 529, some £12·6 million has been recovered. A dividend is expected from the trustee of the De Lorean Motor Company, the United States company in bankruptcy. The recovery of further amounts will depend on the outcome of legal actions and inquiries in the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland.

  Parade
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the life sentence review board and the upcoming Christmas paroles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Representations on various aspects of the life sentence review process, including the constitution and functioning of the life sentence review board, have been received from time to time. We shall be considering these representations in the light of the Government's response to the recently published report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment which included recommendations about the review system in Great Britain.

  As regards this year's Christmas home leave schemes for life and determinate sentence prisoners, we have received several representations about the eligibility criteria and a few on behalf of individuals.

  Roadworks (Belfast)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvements to traffic flow he expects to result from the work currently taking place on the main road in Andersonstown, West Belfast.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A central lane is being inserted for right-turning vehicles leaving one free-flowing lane in each direction. This should significantly reduce traffic congestion.

  Economy
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the economic future of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, and consequently its economic prospects are part of those set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement on 15 November 1989. In recognition of Northern Ireland's particular economic and social problems the Government continue to place a high priority on the wide range of enterprise, training and industrial development programmes which seek to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.

  Downe Hospital, Downpatrick
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when capital funds will be released for the third stage of the Downe hospital, Downpatrick on the Downshire hospital site; and if he will make a statement.
  815
  Mr. Needham
  Further development at the Downe hospital is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board in the first instance. The board has made no firm proposals on this matter.

  Terrorism
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he plans to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  We will ensure that the security forces have all necessary moral and physical support to interdict terrorist operations, pursue the perpetrators, and bring them to justice in the courts. We have taken measures to cut off terrorist funds and supplies. These measures aimed directly at terrorism will be enhanced and supported by wider measures of political, economic and social policy, which aim to create a fair, just and prosperous society in which local people from all sides of the community play a major part in administering the Province through widely accepted local institutions.

  South Down (Jobs)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase job creation and industrial promotion in South Down in the next six months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government will continue to give high priority to economic development throughout Northern Ireland including South Down. Substantial resources have been made available to the Industrial Development Board and to the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Both these organisations will continue to be active in encouraging the establishment of new industry and the growth of existing businesses so as to secure viable long-term jobs for all areas of the Province.

  Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act; and whether he is in a position to announce dates for the implementation of those sections of the Act which have been implemented in the equivalent legislation in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Sections 9, 10, 11 (except paragraph (4)) and 12 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 came into operation on 7 December 1989. Section 4 (except paragraph (b) 5, 6, 8(1) and 11(4) will be brought into operation as early as possible in 1990, thus bringing into effect in Northern Ireland all those provisions which have to date been implemented under the equivalent legislation in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to strengthen the law on food safety and consumer protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  A Food Safety Bill, which proposes substantial changes to strengthen and update existing law on food safety and the protection of the consumer's816
  interest in the food area, was introduced in Parliament on 22 November. In accordance with normal practice in the field of transferred legislation, comparable provision will be made for Northern Ireland by Order-in-Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

  Coal Premises, East Antrim
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give early consideration to the need to introduce additional measures to limit the development of coal-handling premises in residential areas of east Antrim.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The present measures under planning legislation are adequate.

  Governance
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received any representations from any of the Northern Ireland political party leaders on the best way forward for the governance of the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  The leaders of all the main constitutional political parties have given me their views about how political progress might best be made, and I hope to have further meetings with them.

  Shorts Base
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date or dates the Department of the Environment roads service carried out inspections at the site of the new entrance and car park at the Shorts base at Lough Mann on the Downpatrick/Ballynahinch road in South Down.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: On 8 December 1988.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inspections were carried out by the Department of the Environment roads service into the new car park and entrance to the building under construction at the Shorts base on the Downpatrick-Ballynahinch road in South Down.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: An inspection was carried out on 8 December 1988 examining visibility splays, sight distances, approach gradients and drainage.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recommendations the Department of Environment roads service made to the town and country planning service in respect of the new entrance and new car park to the building currently under construction at the Shorts base at Lough Mann situated on the Downpatrick-Ballynahinch road in South Down.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: It was recommended that temporary approval be given to the car park for a period of 12 months and that the new entrance gates should be sited a sufficient distance from the edge of the carriageway to permit the largest vehicles which use the access to stop clear of the carriageway when the gates are closed.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what traffic surveys were carried out by
  817
  the Department of the Environment roads service and RUC traffic branch adjacent to the new entrance at the Shorts base situated on the Downpatrick-Ballynahinch road in South Down.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: No surveys have been carried out at this site. It is not normal practice to carry out a detailed traffic survey for an application of a temporary nature on to a class B road. The RUC traffic division was not previously consulted on this matter and is, therefore, not aware of any surveys being carried out.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of the Environment roads service will furnish the town and country planning service with its report and decision on the new entrance and new car park at the Shorts base at Lough Mann situated on the Downpatrick-Ballynahinch road in South Down.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: Recommendations were supplied to the town and country planning service for temporary approval on 22 December 1988. The roads service will deal with any further applications as and when they are received.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Submarines (Disposal)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on any implications for the disposal of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines arising from the conclusion of the recent meeting of the London dumping convention.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The meeting agreed that the principles of the LDC should be applied to the disposal at sea of all vessels whether or not they are entitled to sovereign immunity. Britain stated that, were decommissioned nuclear submarines to be disposed of at sea, the Government would apply requirements no less stringent than those which they would apply to comparable waste of other origin. I must emphasise that sea disposal is only one of the options that the Government are considering for the disposal of such submarines and no decisions have yet been taken.

  Trident
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of Government spending on the Trident programme for each of the next three years; and on what date it is anticipated that this programme will be reviewed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to make available long-term forecasts of year-by-year expenditure on projects. However, I can say that expenditure on the Trident programme is expected to be approximately £1,000 million in 1990–91, and approximately £4,000 million over the period 1990–91 to 1994–95. It is intended to announce a revised estimate for the Trident programme early next year.

  Tornado (Toxic Emission)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the amount and type of toxic emission(a) per mile and (b) per minute of a Tornado jet.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The emissions from a Tornado aircraft's RB 199 engine include carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, unburnt fuel and partially burnt fuel products, and smoke. The amount and mix of these products will depend upon a number of variable factors including the use of the after burner and the power setting of the engine. I understand there is no evidence to indicate that they present any hazard to the public during normal flying or ground operations.

  Seaham Harbour Sea Cadets
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the relocation of the Seaham Harbour sea cadets; and if he will pay a visit to the Seaham Harbour cadet corps.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The sea cadet corps is constitutionally not part of the Royal Navy but an independent voluntary civilian youth organisation with charitable status to which the Ministry of Defence makes an annual grant. I understand that the Seaham Harbour sea cadets are currently negotiating locally for a plot of land on which to erect new premises to replace their present temporary accommodation. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit Seaham.

  Bomb Disposal (Training)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it costs to train (1) an arms technician sergeant in bomb disposal, (2) a typical sergeant in the Royal Signals, and (3) a typical sergeant in bomb disposal of the RAF.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is as follows: (1) £45,750, (2) £34,250 and (3) £57,500. In all cases these figures represent the accumulated costs of initial and subsequent training of a typical sergeant in the categories concerned, but they do not include the trainee's pay.

  Royal Navy (Home Purchase Scheme)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Royal Naval home purchase scheme costs; and how much it will cost to increase it from £3,500 to £12,000.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of the long service advance of pay scheme, used by married RN personnel to assist in house purchase, is £2·7 million for the current financial year. The extra net cost of raising the maximum advance available to £12,000 is estimated to be about £31 million over 10 years, of which the majority would be required in the first three years. This estimate takes no account of the effect of fluctuations in the housing market on demands for advances. The scheme is self-financing over the long term.

  European Co-operative Long-Term Initiative
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money Her Majesty's Government have committed to the European co-operative long-term
  819
  initiative for defence; for what purpose; whether it will be reviewed before any binding financial commitment is made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  In common with other IEPG nations, the Government have not yet committed money to the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence (EUCLID) programme and will not do so until details of the collaborative programmes have been fully identified. It is expected that money should start to be committed during the course of 1990, as the collaboration programmes are agreed. I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 24 July 1989 at column 553.

  Research Agency
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards establishing a defence research agency under the Government's next steps initiative; and whether any decision has yet been taken on its status within the public sector.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since my predecessor's statement to the House on 16 March 1989 on the intention to establish a defence research agency (DRA), Mr. Nigel Hughes has been appointed chief executive (designate) following open competition; an MOD implementation team is taking work forward, with the chief executive (designate), to develop the organisation, procedures and infrastructure that will be needed within both the MOD and DRA; and we have been consulting the trades unions.

  My Department has been considering the status of the DRA and how best to secure the necessary change. For the new and sharper relationship required, between the customers for and suppliers of defence research and project support, the DRA will need to be clearly distinct from the rest of the MOD, run on businesslike lines and with a trading relationship with its customers in MOD and elsewhere. At the same time, it must continue to make its key contribution as an independent and objective source of scientific and technical advice, in support of defence equipment procurement and related matters.

  I believe that the best way forward is to establish the DRA as a Government trading fund within the Civil Service as quickly as possible. This would take the form of a distinct organisation answerable to the Secretary of State for Defence. Work will now be concentrated on putting this into effect.

  As my predecessor told the House, a final decision on the move to agency status will depend upon successful completion of this work. Our target date remains April 1991.

  Nuclear Warhead Test (Nevada)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the nuclear warhead test conducted jointly with the United States of America in Nevada on 8 December; what was the yield of the test; whether any radiation was released above ground from the test; whether any military operational staff were radiologically contaminated; and what was the cost to the United Kingdom of this nuclear test.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Beyond confirming that the yield of the test was within the planned range of 20–150 kilotons, and 820
  assuring the hon. Member that there was no release of radiation (and hence no contamination of any personnel whatsoever), it is not our practice to answer questions of this nature.

  WE177 Bomb
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the weapon systems being considered by Her Majesty's Government as a replacement for the WE177 bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Discussions are taking place with both the United States and French Governments on options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions under the terms of the Anglo-United States agreement on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes of 1958, Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Government concerning the Anglo-French co-production of nuclear air-to-surface missiles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Officials are discussing options for the delivery vehicle for the United Kingdom's future theatre nuclear weapon with both the United States and France. There are no plans for an Anglo-French collaborative programme which would fall within the scope of the United States/United Kingdom 1958 agreement.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to whether British Aerospace is currently conducting any feasibility studies into the possible development of a nuclear air-to-surface missile; and what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with British Aerospace in respect of the possible development of such a missile.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  British Aerospace is one of the contractors involved in the assessment of options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb. No decisions on development can be taken until the current assessment studies are completed.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, under the terms of the Anglo-United States agreement on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes of 1958, the United Kingdom can conduct any collaborative programme, involving the development and production of nuclear weapon systems, with any country other than the United States of America without the prior agreement of the United States Government.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom is constrained by the terms of the non-proliferation treaty in collaboration with other countries on nuclear weapons. Additionally, under the terms of the 1958 United Kingdom-United States agreement, United States approval would be necessary if the information to be exchanged originated from the United States. The United States is subject to similar constraints with regard to United Kingdom information.

  Equipment
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make available details of(a) main battle tanks, (b) artillery pieces, (c) armoured troop carriers, (d) combat aircraft and (e) combat helicopters in the United Kingdom's armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the NATO publication "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  General Dynamics
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part the Defence Exports Services Organisation has played in offset banking arrangements involving the American company General Dynamics; and what is the nature of the arrangements.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Defence Exports Services Organisation has negotiated an industrial participation (offset banking) memorandum of understanding with General Dynamics. The purpose of the MOU is to encourage General Dynamics to offer British defence industry opportunities to bid for a share of the work on all its major defence programmes. The value of orders placed will be "banked" by General Dynamics for subsequent use, in part, to satisfy future offset obligation, imposed by the MOD when making any future purchases from the United States company.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the involvement of the Defence Exports Services Organisation in the tour of Britain by the American company General Dynamics; and what support and assistance has been given in this venture by his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Defence Export Services Organisation in association with the DTI, various regional development authorities and local chambers of commerce organised a series of seminars and presentations given by General Dynamics as part of its marketing strategy to obtain more suppliers from the United Kingdom defence industry in support of all its major defence programmes. The DESO participated to the extent that it also briefed companies on how they could qualify to bid for work under the industrial participation (offset banking) MOU which the MOD has with General Dynamics.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of the American company General Dynamics; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend has held no formal meeting with General Dynamics and, at the present time, has no plans to do so. Officials have met the company to discuss possible future orders for tanks for the British Army.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he or his officials have held or plan to hold any meetings with General Dynamics about future orders for tanks for the British Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend has held no formal meeting with General Dynamics and, at the present 822
  time, has no plans to do so. Officials have met the company to discuss possible future orders for tanks for the British Army.

  Chieftain Tanks
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what numbers of new battle tanks he will order to replace Chieftain tanks now in service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This has yet to be decided.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies have been asked to submit proposals for battle tanks to replace Chieftain tanks currently in service; and what deadlines for submissions have been applied to each company.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Vickers Defence Systems, General Dynamics and Kraus Maffei have been invited to submit proposals. Details of these invitations are commercial in confidence, but action has been set in hand to enable us to meet our aim of making a decision by the end of 1990.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which manufacturers have been informed by his Department of the precise number of battle tanks to be ordered to replace Chieftain tanks now in service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No decision on precise numbers of main battle tanks to replace Chieftain has yet been taken. Vickers Defence Systems, General Dynamics and Kraus Maffei have been invited to quote against option quantities.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to place the orders for new tanks for the British Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected date for his decision on the order of new battle tanks to replace Chieftain tanks currently in service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is our intention to reach a decision on a tank to replace Chieftain by the end of 1990.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cost to each service of resources deployed on ambulance duties as part of the ambulance dispute since September.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is too early to provide an estimate of the extra costs to each service of resources deployed on ambulance duties, all of which will be met by the Department of Health. Costs for the first bill to the Department of Health, for the period up to 30 November, are still being collected.

  Gun Fox Vehicles
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents have occurred of CVR(W) 30mm Gun Fox vehicles currently in use in Her Majesty's armed forces; how many personnel have been killed or injured in such accidents; what remedial steps have been taken to prevent accidents from occurring; and if he will make a statement.
  823
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Garrison Stables
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel are employed in the garrison stables; how many horses are stabled there; how many of these horses are owned by his Department and how many by private individuals.
  824
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the Household Cavalry and the King's Troop. With regard to the former 187 horses are stabled at Hyde Park barracks; 180 belonging to MOD and seven to private individuals. In respect of the King's Troop, 120 horses are stabled at St. Johns Wood; 119 belonging to MOD and one to a private individual. The total strength of the Household Cavalry at Hyde Park is 401 and at King's Troop it is 189 and all personnel are involved with work associated with horses.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Lord Parmoor Lord Parmoor—Took the Oath.

Overseas Aid: Allocation
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes they propose to make in the resources allocated to overseas aid over the next three years; and what percentage of the gross national product of the United Kingdom this will represent.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the resources available for aid announced in the Autumn Statement on 15th November mean that the aid programme will continue to grow in real terms over the next three years. The Government will play their full part in helping to promote sustained and sustainable development, including support for economic reform, and will be committing more resources to meet environmental concerns, especially in relation to tropical forestry.
Our concern is to ensure that a growing aid programme is used to greatest effect, not to speculate about possible percentages of GNP over the next three years.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the Autumn Statement, and the analyses made of it, although the resources are planned to grow in monetary terms, they will grow at a lower rate than the present rate of inflation which means that there will be a cut? Does the Minister accept that? That is what was stated at the time. When the noble Lord refers to the percentage of GDP, is he aware that when the Government took office the proportion of GDP allocated to overseas aid by the previous government was 0·53 per cent. and that, despite a slight rise last year, it is still only 0·32 per cent.?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that in 1979 the aid figure was a higher percentage of the GDP than it is now, but in 1979 we inherited a very modest GDP from the other party which was in power up to that time which, if I may say so, explains that phenomenon. I am sure that the current figures will be of more interest to the noble Lord. The aid programme is now planned at £1,587 million for 1990–91, growing to £1,680 million and £1,750 million respectively, in the next two years. Those figures represent a cumulative real-terms increase of 9·3 per cent. compared with the £1,430 million originally planned for this year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that much of the overseas aid granted by this country in the last 40 years was intended not only to relieve poverty and to overcome drought problems, but to stimulate production in the third world countries? Therefore it is not realistic to think in terms of maintaining a particular percentage of our own GNP for overseas aid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I could easily be persuaded to agree with my noble friend. But the fact of the matter is that we have accepted the target to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred, but, like our predecessors, we have been unable to say when we can achieve that. As regards the central purpose of our aid programme, I can put it in a nutshell by saying that it is to help those countries to help themselves. That is why we concentrate no less than 70 per cent. of our aid programme on the poorest 50 countries of the world.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, if the GDP which the Conservative Government inherited was as modest as the noble Lord claims it to be, can he explain how it came about that it fell in 1981?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it was because of the economic difficulties that we encountered when we came into office.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the plight of the third world countries has been highlighted this week by the launch of UNICEF's annual report into the state of the world's children? The report shows that 40,000 children die each day of preventable illnesses and malnutrition and that if this trend continues in the next 10 years 100 million children will die. Therefore, will not the Minister agree that Britain's position of being 14th out of 18 in the league of aid donors is deplorable? Will the Minister give a commitment to increase the aid from 0·32 per cent. of the GDP?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should have thought that the real growth to which I referred just now of 9·3 per cent. is a very substantial figure indeed, leading as it will in a year or so to a figure of £1,750 million of which 70 per cent., as I said earlier, will go to the poorest 50 countries of the world. Fifty per cent. of that total goes to African countries—an area of the world where I know the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has a special interest.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move steadily towards the OECD target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP for overseas aid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have accepted the target in principle but, like previous administrations and many other donors, we are unable to set a date when we shall achieve it.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, as many francophone African countries are very desirous of increasing their commercial and cultural contacts with this country and do not wish to be considered a chasse

1395
gardée francais, can my noble friend say whether the aid to francophone African countries is on the increase or decrease?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have figures for the francophone countries alone in front of me, but I shall see if I can find them and then write to my noble friend. While we cannot as yet set a date when we hope to attain the 0·7 per cent. target that has been referred to, we have already met the 1 per cent. GNP target for total flows to developing countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the total resources directed to the third world last year fell by 1·9 per cent. and that it is now the case that resource flows are coming from the third world to the developed world as a result of the payment of interest and debt? When the Minister speaks about the increase in real terms, what is the figure for inflation that he is taking into account when calculating those figures? According to the analysis of the Autumn Statement, if the inflation figure remains as it is the increase will be less than that 7·3 per cent. and in fact there will be a cut in the actual value of overseas aid from this country.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I really cannot accept that. The figures I gave earlier were for the real increase we expect, which of course takes into account the relevant rate of inflation. That is not a simple calculation because it depends on whether one takes into account inflation in this country, or inflation in the recipient country, or perhaps an average of the two. Different calculations have to be made in different cases. I stand by the proposition that United Kingdom aid is growing in real terms over the period that I referred to.
The noble Lord referred to the repayment of debt by recipient countries. He may wish to recall that we have written off no less than £1,000 million of old aid loans, including some £300 million for Africa.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that for the Government Front Bench to justify their present policies so often by derogatory remarks about their predecessors reveals a certain weakness?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I am entitled to point to the shortcomings of the policy of the previous administration when they compare their performance with ours.

Passport Processing: London Office
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the average time taken by the London office of the Passport Office to renew a passport which requires renewal solely by reason of being 10 years old.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the London Passport Office is processing straightforward applications, including those for replacement passports, in a maximum of eight working days.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the remarkable improvement on the past form of the passport office which that Answer indicates due to the very considerable pressure which many of us know the noble Earl himself exerted upon it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am quite certain that all improvements in performance are as a result of increased efficiency and no doubt increased pressures from different quarters. But I should not like my noble friend to take upon himself the thought that it was his pressure alone that succeeded in making the results of the passport office as good as that.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that some time ago he demonstrated the new passport and explained that it would still be possible to obtain the old British standard passport? Will it take longer to obtain one of the old-style passports than one of the new magenta ones? I ask this question out of personal interest. My own passport expires next October.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it entirely depends on which passport office issues the passport. Some passport offices are geared up to issuing the new passport, in which case, if my noble friend applies to one of those, he will receive a new passport. If he applies to one of the offices which issues the old-style passport, he will receive one of those. In either case the procedure takes the same length of time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, tabled his Question, he did not expect the Answer which he received today? Can he confirm that it is not so much the result of pressure from on high, or from whatever level it may have come, that has produced this improvement but rather that the staffing requirements for which some of us asked have been largely fulfilled by way of an increase in staff?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so perceptive. I agree that I did not expect my noble friend to be quite as gratified as he was. The noble Lord is right to this extent. There have been problems over the speed of issue of passports, but we have taken a number of steps to deal with them. Much of the procedure has been computerised and an extra 220 permanent staff have been employed. A combination of all these factors has resulted in the better results so far.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the idea that it is sometimes quite a good thing to put down a Question which genuinely asks for information? Will he suggest to the noble Lord that he might follow that example sometimes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that it is rare that such a modest request comes through for the Government to provide information. Very often the noble Lord asking a Question has a good idea what the Answer will be. I quite understand that on this occasion my noble friend was entirely naïve and did not know what the result would be. I am happy to pass on my noble friend's suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps in future he will be kind enough to ask only Questions to which he knows what the Answers will be.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, on a matter to which I do not know the answer, does my noble friend agree that it would be a great simplification of procedures if persons over 60 whose appearance, regrettably, is subject in photographic terms only to progressive decline could receive passports for life?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I regard the premise upon which my noble friend bases his question as totally offensive. I can assure him that even he may find that after the age of 60 his appearance is an improvement on that which went before. Whether it is or not, it is an international practice that passports should last for only 10 years. In the case of the new machine-readable common format passport, it is designed so that it has to be replaced every 10 years for security reasons.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he is in very good form this afternoon?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful for that question. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord knows the answer.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have a feeling that this Question is not being treated with the gravity with which it should be treated. I welcome the noble Earl's Answer and I express the hope that one day we will not need passports to move around in the European Community. If one is waiting to obtain a new passport, what can one do if one has to travel during that period?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish to have conveyed to the noble Lord that I was answering these questions in a flippant manner. I was merely trying to respond to what I thought were serious questions. The figures I have given are for the maximum time at present. Obviously, for those who need a passport in a hurry the passport office will do all that it can to accommodate them.

Iraq: Trade Relations
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they justify their action in guaranteeing new credits to Iraq of up to £250 million in view of that country's detention of British subjects without trial, refusal to release prisoners of war following the ceasefire with Iran and its internal human rights record.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, maintaining trade relations with Iraq is not incompatible with the vigorous pursuit of the issues referred to by the noble Lord. We continue to give our full support to the United Nations Secretary General in his efforts to achieve early implementation of Security Council Resolution 598 in its entirety. This expressly calls for the release of prisoners of war. The Iraqi Government are in no doubt of our concerns over the British detainee, Mrs. Parish, and over Iraq's human rights record.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, will the Government do their very best to achieve a concerted policy with our European Community partners and in other international groupings so that there is some consistency in diplomatic representation and in trade policy not only with Iraq but also with certain other Middle Eastern countries that have a deplorable human rights record?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the difficulty is that consistency would mean the same policy in the same circumstances. The problem is that the circumstances are never the same. It is also the case that we are a major trading nation. I am afraid that we have to do business with a number of countries with whose policies we very often disagree.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that Iraq has an appalling record on human rights and that it is responsible for killing, torturing and imprisoning thousands of Kurds and members of opposition parties? It has imprisoned two British citizens and has not responded to representations made by the Government and others. Is it not further the case that the Government sell arms to this country and give it export credit? What kind of standards are the Government adhering, to in these circumstances?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do not sell arms to Iraq. As the noble Lord will be aware, the sale of such items to Iraq and Iran is subject to very close guidelines. Therefore, arms would most certainly not be supplied in present circumstances. There are in fact two British people in prison in Iraq one of whom is a Mrs. Parish. So far she has not been charged and, of course, we believe that she should either be charged or released. We have experienced some difficulty in gaining consular access to Mrs. Parish. However, access was granted on 4th December and we are now looking to the Iraqi authorities to grant continued access.
The other British person in prison in Iraq is Mr. Richter. He was convicted three or four years ago of an offence in that country. However, we believe that the time has come for his release on humanitarian grounds.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I appreciate that this country is a trading nation and that trading is essential to us in so many ways, is not the price that we are paying too high? Moreover, should we not observe the principles involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that closing off trading relations in these circumstances would in any way serve the objectives which the noble Lord and I share; namely, an improvement in the human rights situation in that country and a proper observance of all the legal procedures, for example, in respect of the people to whom I referred. I believe that maintaining trade relations helps in that direction. Indeed, during the recent Anglo-Iraqi Commission, which I chaired on behalf of the United Kingdom, I lost no opportunity in conveying our views on such matters to the Iraqi Minister who came to represent his government.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are not all nations trading nations? Further, if trade is to be put above human rights or ordinary human decencies, then, presumably, we can say goodbye to any rule of law or anything like it in international society. Therefore, do not the Government realise that there is a clear contradiction between saying that we must give credits to Iraq and then saying that we totally disapprove of their internal form of government?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords; the reverse is the case. I think that if we cut off our trading relations with these countries, as with others, we would lose many opportunities to convey our views on other matters which are, I agree, of great importance.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister secured through his contacts with Iraq any confirmation of the view held in the United States that Iraq has recently developed a very lethal long-range missile with Chinese aid, together with aid from others, and that this now constitutes a new threat to the stability of the whole region?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have heard the rumours to which my noble friend refers, but I am afraid that I cannot confirm them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that if the Government had made the release of these two prisoners conditional upon the issue of credits they would in all probability have been released and the issue of credits could still have gone ahead?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a totally unproven assertion. The fact of the matter is that I was able to make strong representations to the Iraqi Minister about, for example, Mrs. Parish. Moreover, I am not sure that it was total coincidence that consular access was granted shortly thereafter.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the persecution of the Kurdish people, including the use of poison gas, certainly constitutes genocide as defined by the United Nations? Therefore would it not be preferable for the Government to impose trade sanctions upon Iraq, instead of extending credits to that bankrupt dictatorship?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I must say that trade sanctions or economic sanctions, or, indeed, both of them together, have hardly ever in
1400
the whole of history generated the result which was expected by those who imposed them. I believe that the way in which to secure an improvement in human rights matters, not only in Iraq but also elsewhere, is by constant persuasion and example; and not by sanctions which, as I said, have never ever worked.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, the Question refers to "new credits" of £250 million. However, can the Minister tell the House what are the total credits?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the credits to Iraq, as to other countries which enjoy the benefit of ECGD facilities, are generally renewed on an annual basis and are subject to what is called a "market limit". However, I am afraid that the market limits are not normally published.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the policy which he has just been defending, whether right or wrong, is the policy consistently pursued by all British Governments of all parties for as long as I can remember?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend's memory goes back a little further than mine. However, this was certainly the policy of all the Administrations which I can remember.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister and his colleagues continue to press for the release, or the charging, of Mr. Bazoft who is a British protected journalist?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly do all we can for Mr. Bazoft. As the noble Lord said, he was a journalist working, I think, for the Observer newspaper. I believe that he was arrested with Mrs. Parish. However, Mr. Bazoft does not have a British passport. As I understand it, he is travelling on a travel document issued by the United Kingdom because his own passport cannot be renewed. We shall certainly do all we can for him, but I fear that because of his slightly unusual position there will not be a great deal that we can accomplish.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while his Government are guaranteeing these credits to Iraq, the Iraqi Administration have found the hard currency to buy into the most important British machine tool firm, through the Belgians, in order to obtain the wherewithal to supply the missiles mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Is he also aware that they are able to do so despite the fact that they are supposed to be bankrupt?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that there is any suggestion that they are bankrupt. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is sitting on oil reserves second only to those in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, I think that that makes it the second largest possessor of oil reserves in the world. Regarding their intervention in United Kingdom companies, of course they are entitled to do what is within our law; but not that which is without it.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on Traffic in London.

Easter Recess
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I know that many noble Lords will be looking forward to next week when the Christmas Recess begins. However, I believe that some noble Lords are already trying to make plans for the Easter Recess. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has anything to say on the matter.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip because I really think it probably would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to comment on the matter. The thought is that the House should rise for the Easter Recess in the week ending 6th April, rather than in the following week.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. However, does that mean that the Easter Recess will take place in the week before Easter as opposed to the week after?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords; that is correct.

British Film Institute Southbank Bill
British Railways Bill
City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the first Motion tabled in my name on the Order Paper I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to all three of the Motions standing in my name.
Your Lordships will recall that early in the present Session the House agreed to a Motion in my name to allow certain Private Bills which were introduced in this Chamber during the last Session to continue in the present Session at whatever stage they had reached. I explained to the House that such a Motion, which is known as a "Reviver Motion", required the concurrence of another place and that such concurrence had not so far been forthcoming.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that early this week those in another place concurred with your Lordships' Motion. At the same time they agreed to revive various Private Bills which were
1402
before them at the end of the last Session. However, this requires the reciprocal agreement of your Lordships and that is the purpose of the three Motions standing in my name today. If your Lordships agree to these three Motions, it will complete the necessary procedures to permit last Session's Private Bills to continue this Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do concur with the orders made by the Commons contained in their Message of yesterday relating to Private Bills (Procedure).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
Isle of Wight Bill
New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills, which were brought from the Commons in the last Session of Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent, shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to proceed with the Bills in the present Session, and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bills are brought from the Commons in the present Session, the agent for the Bills shall deposit in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bills are the same, in every respect, as the Bills which were brought from the Commons in the last Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That, if the Bills are brought from the Commons in the present Session, the Examiners shall be deemed to have reported that no Standing Order not previously inquired into was applicable thereto.—(The Chairman of Committees.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Buckingham County Council Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L.]
Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which originated in this House in the last Session of Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to introduce the said Bills in the present Session and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That every such Bill shall be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 5 o'clock on the 19th December next with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent concerned stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the last Session of Parliament;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Session of Parliament, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.
—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Alport: My Lords, as the Government have shot my bolt, it would not be right for me to ask your Lordships to proceed with the further stages of the Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill to which the House gave a first reading a fortnight ago. I therefore move that the Bill be now withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Greenwich Hospital Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Royal Hospital School at Holbrook, near Ipswich, provides a boarding secondary education for about 700 sons and grandsons of seafarers. They include both the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy. The school was set up in 1712 in accordance with the charter of 1694 given to the hospital by King William III and Queen Mary, one of the provisions of which was for the education of the children of seafarers. Greenwich Hospital pays about half the cost of running the school and for all its capital expenditure.
The Royal Hospital School has been extremely successful; but in recent years the number of applications to attend has fallen, partly because the Navy has been getting smaller and partly because of the demographic trough. It is thus necessary to take action now to ensure that the school continues to be viable.
Legislation is necessary because of the restrictive nature of the Royal Charter given in 1694, which limits the objects of financial support to purposes closely connected with naval service. That does not relate with certainty to the present proposal to admit children of no-seafarers. It is important therefore to eliminate any such uncertainty, and it is necessary to do that by Act of Parliament in accordance with previous practice under which there have been various amendments to the Greenwich Hospital Acts.
The Bill is an enabling measure to allow the governors of the school to widen the basis of entry. There is no intention to alter the school's naval ethos. The first change would be to take in daughters and granddaughters of seafarers; but a consultancy study has suggested that there might not be enough girls from that source to produce a balanced school, and that the best way ahead would be to take powers to take some children from non-seafaring families as and when the need arises.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1(1) widens the scope for entry to the Royal Hospital School in the way that I have just described. Within that overall framework, Clause 1(2) preserves the powers at present enjoyed by the Secretary of State for Defence to make detailed regulations covering the admission of children into the school. Clause 2 deals with the Bill's short title and citation. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House appreciate the clear and lucid way in which the Minister has encapsulated the history and purpose of the school and the Bill. We give the Bill a warm welcome.

1405
The Minister from his researches will have been as aghast as I was at the amount of parliamentary heat engendered when this matter was raised on previous occasions. It is amazing that the honourable function of the House and of the Bill should have been the subject of so much carping criticism. There is no carping criticism now; but the Minister will understand that the House and those outside it will welcome a little more information.
One is always concerned about finances; indeed, the Bill is needed because the school's viability would appear to need strengthening. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the school's sources of income which enable it to continue? The finance comes substantially from the Greenwich Hospital charity and the fees. Will the Minister help the House by giving some figures about, first, the amount of money raised by the charity; and, secondly, the amount of money raised by the fees? Will the Minister tell the House what the fees are? I understand and appreciate the need to widen the intake from sons and grandsons to daughters and granddaughters, and even beyond that. The Minister and his advisers have been well advised to take two bites at the cherry and not merely to widen the intake on a family basis, but to take powers to allow those unable to claim a previous seafaring link to attend what is, from all that I have seen and read, a fine school.
I have a note which says that for a pupil of a naval family the fees paid are 10 per cent. above BSI. Will the Minister help decipher those initials? I have no information—the Minister must have it—of precise figures. Will the Minister also tell us whether the powers-that-be have it in mind to differentiate in fees between those who can claim a seafaring link and those who cannot? This side of the House believes that it is eminently sensible.
The Minister told us that at the moment there are 700 sons and grandsons in the school. Can we be told the figure that he has been advised will make the school viable? Are we talking about increasing the roll from 700 to 800 or to 1,000? I can assure the Minister there is no malice in these questions. It is an interest that I have found when looking at the matter.
Will the Minister also tell us—particularly when charitable money is being used—what inquiries are made in respect of entitlement to attend the school? We know, as does the Minister, that the House is currently in the middle of a matter in respect of war widows that I believe will be resolved satisfactorily. Many of the children with whom we are dealing here will be sons and daughters of men who have given their lives. The House will be interested to hear from the Minister something about the finances that will be involved when the Bill becomes an Act.
The Minister can be assured that we believe the Bill is timely and sensible. From the thrust of what the Minister said and bearing in mind what those outside the House believe is necessary, we on this side of the House give the Bill a warm welcome.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships, but I heard my noble friend
1406
correctly say that he had read what a splendid school this was. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that two years ago I was invited to the school. I spent some time there, and stayed overnight. I confirm what has been said by the Minister and by my noble friend: it is indeed a school of which the House can be proud.
I enjoyed the companionship and the mental agility of the sixth form boys and the hospitality of the headmaster. There is one former First Lord here this afternoon, in the person of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; I do not know whether he shared with me the privilege of having been chairman of the Greenwich Hospital Committee, but at least I have left my mark on it because there is a Callaghan copse there from 30 years ago. I hate to say that it was partly destroyed by the great storm, but I understand that the committee is replanting it.
I have a feeling of slight nostalgia and regret that the step we are discussing is necessary. However, it is a great school. I attended the school ceremonies in the morning and was impressed by all that I saw. I am happy to see that steps are being taken to maintain and, I hope, to expand the school so that it will continue its great traditions.
I urge, although I am sure that it is unnecessary to do so, the Minister to think about the Navy's recruits who were drawn from this school. A former scholar of the school, Commander Pursey, who used to make so much trouble there, rose to be a commander and then entered the other place as the Labour Member for Hull. It was he who used every year to make the lives of Parliamentary Secretaries to the Admiralty a misery. The school has been under the notice of the House for many years. I commend the Bill to the House and am very glad indeed to see that these active provisions are being made.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say initially that I welcome the kindly comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the warm experiences he has had at the school in the past.
In his usual perceptive manner, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked many questions about certain aspects of the school and I hope to deal with all of them. If there are some which I cannot answer I shall write to the noble Lord or they may come up at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
First, perhaps I may take the fees that parents pay. I can tell the noble Lord that fees for the sons of a seafarer, a serving officer or rating on BSA—which by the way stands for boarding school allowance whereby the parents make a 10 per cent. contribution—are currently £1,628 per term. The average fee for assisted seafaring families is £428 per term. Non-seafarers would pay more than seafarers and the current fees at the moment are approximately £5,000 per annum.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about the current income. For the year ended March 1988 the total income was just over £3 million. The total expenditure was just under £250,000. That does not take into account the capital assets that have to

1407
be spent on refurbishing and other such capital requirements.
The assets of the hospital amount to some £88 million, in which I understand that no public money is involved. Furthermore, regarding what the money is spent on, there are a number of items. For example, there are special pensions for seamen and their widows and other projects such as sheltered housing for naval pensioners, which is under consideration at present.
Another question which the noble Lord asked us, is if the Bill is successful and passes through Parliament, what number of pupils will be envisaged. We hope and intend that the number of pupils will be in the region of 700. I hope and trust that I have been able to answer the majority of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I believe that the Bill is necessary for the future of the Royal Hospital School. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships may know, under the terms of the resolution of another place of 21st July 1987, parliamentary salaries will increase on 1st January 1990 in line with Civil Service rates for grade 6s—that is, formerly senior principals in the Civil Service. The draft order which I laid before your Lordships' House on 1st December determines the revised salaries proposed for Ministers and paid office holders from the same date.
In a Written Answer I gave to the House on Monday 4th December, I set out in detail all the changes which we envisage. The average increase in salaries in this House will be a little over 7.5 per cent. and 6 per cent. in another place. The average for the proposed package as a whole is just under 6.5 per cent.
In your Lordships' House we propose that Ministers and paid office holders should receive a cash increase of £2,594 in their official salary. This is the same cash increase as Members of Parliament will receive in their salaries.
In the Commons all Ministers and paid office holders will receive an increase of £641 which, with the increase of £ 1,953 in their reduced parliamentary salary, gives them a total increase of £2,594—also the same as Members of another place. As I have said, these increases represent an average increase for Ministers and paid office holders in both Houses of just under 6·5 per cent. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for explaining this order to us. The Government have again adopted the ingenious solution first used last year of applying as a flat rate increase the increase given to Members of Parliament and the increase in ministerial and other salaries. That has a lot to commend it but it produces the quirky result that the highest paid Minister receives the lowest percentage increase; so the Prime Minister herself receives the lowest percentage increase of all.
In other circumstances one might have some reservations about flat rate increases. I heard noble Lords yesterday afternoon talking loudly and strongly about the difficulties of flat rate increases in the refreshment department. However, these are other circumstances this afternoon and I think that the Government's decision to apply a flat rate increase to these salaries is probably right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has explained the proposals to your Lordships. On the face of it they seem reasonable and modest, setting a good example to the rest of the public sector. However, I must express a note of regret that the opportunity has not been taken to remedy a matter which I think is of significance and importance in this House; that is, the very poor level of remuneration of junior or middle grade Ministers in the House. In another place, after all, Members receive a substantial part of a parliamentary salary and allowances added to their ministerial salary, which produces a not unreasonable figure. However, in your Lordships' House these junior Ministers have no parliamentary salary with which to augment their ministerial salary, which looks a little bare.
Moreover, there is an important point which I think most of your Lordships understand. Those who take on duties as junior Ministers in the House are almost always of the younger political generation, often with families and children to educate. I do not wish to quote examples—that would be embarrassing—but there is no doubt at all that some of those who have taken on junior ministerial office in this House have done so at considerable financial sacrifice. It is also reasonably well known that some former junior Ministers have felt it impossible to continue on the present basis and have returned to more remunerative occupations. I believe that others have felt it impossible to join the administration for these reasons.
I had hoped therefore that when this review took place an effort would be made substantially to increase both in absolute and in relative terms the remuneration of middle and junior Ministers in the House. I did so for two reasons: first, the fairness to the individuals concerned and, secondly, from the practical point of view of securing for the House the service of the best possible Ministers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend proceeds, will he clarify one point? When he uses the expression "junior Ministers", can he assure us that he has particularly in mind Lords in Waiting?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not have Lords in Waiting particularly in mind as they are specifically provided for here. To be frank I had more the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in mind. However, what I have to say obviously has its applicability to Lords in Waiting. I prefer to refer to the category of junior Ministers as embracing Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and Lords in Waiting, in fact the whole of the Ministerial team below the Cabinet level.
Although nothing has been done on this occasion, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to give some encouragement to those of us who, as he knows, have for some time been urging upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability, and indeed the necessity, of making some quite substantial improvements in this direction if fairness is to be shown to individuals and if this House is to be properly served.
That is the main point I rise to speak to, but I should be grateful if in replying my noble friend the Leader of the House will explain one provision of the order, and that is the apparent disparity among Law Officers in favour of the Scottish Law Officers. It is not on the face of it obvious why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should be paid £7,000 a year more than the Attorney-General. It is still less obvious why the Solicitor General for Scotland should be paid £9,000 a year more than the Solicitor General in England. This may of course reflect the presence on the Woolsack of a Scottish Lord Chancellor, thereby ensuring that the merits and appeal of Scottish Law Officers are fully recognised. However, on the face of it, it is a little surprising because, important though the role of the Scottish Law Officers is—I am the last person to underrate that role—those of us who have seen the Attorney-General and the Solicitor General at work in another place on the immense volume of business they handle wonder why they are not treated at least on a similar basis. No doubt there is an explanation for that as there generally is for these things, but I should be very interested to hear it.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his submission that junior officers, particularly those in this House, need some increased remuneration. I believe that that probably goes for junior and middle Ministers generally. However, I should not like it to be thought that Members in another place who hold ministerial office receive an extra salary and allowances by virtue of their parliamentary seats simply as a way of augmenting their ministerial income. That is not the case because they do not even receive the full parliamentary salary. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may be a little dim as it is some time since he held the dual function of a Member of the House and a Minister, but I know that Ministers carry the additional burden of constituency duties which incur expenses that could not reasonably be met out of their ministerial salaries. They may have the additional burden, as I had whenever I was a Minister, of having a small majority.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, during my period as a Cabinet Minister I had a number of distinguished junior Ministers who were Ministers in this House. I became seized of the importance of the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made. I would not dream of mentioning names, but one particular Minister who served with great distinction and fortitude terminated his position as he felt he could no longer continue. He confessed to me that his period as a Minister in this House had cost him something in the order of £5,000; that is to say, he was that much out of pocket at the end of his period of office as compared with the beginning. He was putting his hand in his pocket in order to serve this House and the Government.
It is no secret that former Leaders of this House—I do not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to disclose what representations he may have made—have made representations again and again that this anomaly should be dealt with. It is simply not fair to the individuals concerned. It does not serve the Government well and it certainly does not serve this House well. It really is time that this unfair anomaly should be dealt with. I hope that the word may go out from this House, and from such distinguished Members as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that those with some experience of these matters feel that the situation cannot go on like this. This matter must be dealt with next time round.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I had intended to speak quite briefly, but certainly I wish to endorse what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said. I do not wish to play with words, but it always seemed to me, and still does, that the anomaly rests not necessarily with the salary but more with the expenses that junior Ministers have to cope with. I am talking of course about the London allowance. It is monstrous that junior Ministers in your Lordships' House are deemed to live in London. If one looks at the list over the past 10 years or so, one finds that they do not live in London. They have to take up a residence or an establishment of some kind and incur an expense which has to come out of taxed income. The taxed income in terms of the remuneration is not all that generous, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
When we look at the package that Ministers in the House of Lords receive, it should be borne in mind that acceptance of a position of some responsibility which is discharged honourably and properly should not mean that Ministers are so disadvantaged in terms of that particular cost. Will my noble friend the Leader of the House give more importance to that point than the salary iself?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am a former member of the Top Salaries Review Body although I served on it some years ago now. The members of that body discussed these matters. The decision was made, rightly or wrongly, to link these salaries to a Civil Service grade. Following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I should like to know whether these other matters such as the London allowance and other payments are being sufficiently considered.

1411
I well recall that we gave great attention to such matters. We found that at that time there was a great number of these relatively small expenses which in aggregate make a lot of difference to the position of junior Ministers. Perhaps linking those salaries to a Civil Service grade has led to a position where those other items do not receive sufficient consideration. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House look into that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his support for the order I have moved. I am also grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken briefly but succinctly on that order. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter regretted that the remuneration for junior and middle rank Ministers—I shall call them junior and middle rank Members of the Government, as I certainly include Lords in Waiting in this matter—had not been, as he put it, remedied. All the remarks which my noble friend made about the duties of junior and middle Members of the Government in your Lordships' House were absolutely true. I also thought the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth were important and I shall draw them to the attention of those of my right honourable friends who are concerned with this matter. I can assure the noble Baroness that all those matters are always considered at the time of a pay round.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was good enough to say at the beginning of his remarks that he felt that a total increase for members of the Government and paid office holders of just under 6·5 per cent. set a good example. I believe that it is important at a time of inflation that the pay increase should be of that kind of percentage.
I was asked one direct question which also had a bearing on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked why, looking at the list of increases, the Scottish Law Officers seem to receive a great deal more in total pay than my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General. My noble friend is quite right, as usual, in the sense that the official salaries of the Scottish Law Officers are higher than those of the English Law Officers. However, when one looks at the total, taking into account the parliamentary salary, it can be seen that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General receive a good deal more in cash than the Scottish Law Officers.
However, one has to bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said, that the parliamentary salary is only a proportion of the parliamentary salary paid to Members in another place. Nonetheless, the answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is that when one looks at the total cash which goes to those particular members of the Government one sees that the amount which goes to the English Law Officers is a good deal more than the amount which goes to their Scottish counterparts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I want to make it clear, as I failed to do earlier, that although Ministers in another place receive only part of their parliamentary allowance their constituents expect them to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities as well as, if not better than, those Members who are not Ministers. In order to avoid misunderstanding it should not be thought that Ministers in another place do not also have to be treated as living in London. I do not know whether the position has changed, but in my experience that was certainly the case. One received no allowance for that in another place as I understand no allowance is made in this House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, does he appreciate that the argument that he has just used concerning the higher payment to the Scottish Law Officers—that unlike their English counterparts they do not receive a parliamentary salary—undermines his whole argument in respect of other Ministers who are not given the same treatment? If that is right for Law Officers—and it is a fact that lawyers are sometimes quite good at looking after themselves—why is it not right for all the other Ministers in this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I gave anything away it was entirely inadvertent. I am unable to answer the last question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, as I promised, I shall draw the remarks of my noble friend as well as the remarks of all other noble Lords to the attention of those of my right honourable friends who are concerned in these matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
4.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 laid before this House on 14th November be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. This is one of a series of routine financial orders for Northern Ireland which come before the House each year. They are unique to the proceedings of this House. As we all know, under the Parliament Acts we are debarred from discussing the direct finances of the country except in very general terms.
On this occasion I am asking the House to approve extra funds for only two Votes; namely, the Department of Economic Development Vote 2 and the Department of Health and Social Services Vote 4. The Department of Economic Development

1413
Vote 2 includes expenditure on local enterprise and assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, while the Department of Health and Social Services Vote covers expenditure on those social security benefits which are not dependent on national insurance contributions. Contributory benefits such as unemployment benefits are not covered by this order.
The draft order authorises an additional £95.7 million over these two Votes. Your Lordships may wish to refer to the Northern Ireland Autumn Supplementary Estimates 1989–90 booklet, which is available from the Printed Paper Office. That gives full details of the additional expenditure sought.
I shall start with the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Economic Development. It refers to only two areas; namely, local enterprise and assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry. Fifty-eight million pounds is required to meet further costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc on 3rd October 1989. The Government agreed in the heads of agreement in June to fund the losses incurred by Shorts from 1st April 1989 until the completion of the sale at a date to be agreed. In other words we did not know how much money would be needed or when. That is why appropriation was not made earlier in the year. We now have a good idea but audited figures have still to be agreed. The Department of Economic Development has also retained the financial liabilities and obligations associated with aircraft sold in the past by Shorts, and funding is also required to cover certain of those costs within this financial year.
Your Lordships will also be aware that the privatisation of the shipbuilding business of Harland and Wolff was completed in September. Under the arrangements for the sale, the new company—Harland and Wolff Holdings plc—will receive from the Government repayable loan stock, rationalisation grants and intervention aid on new merchant orders. The old company—Harland and Wolff plc—will no longer trade but will continue to be responsible for certain pre-sale commitments, including redundancies and ship financing arrangements. Therein lies part of the reason for the appropriation of this money.
There is, in consequence, a reduction of £45·9 million in the amount of funding required for Harland and Wolff plc, the old company. Additional funding of £79·9 million is, however, needed for the new company, Harland and Wolff Holdings plc. In addition, an increase of £741,000 is needed to cover the fees of consultants appointed by the Department of Economic Development to provide specialist advice on aspects of the privatisation. The Estimate which is now before the House accordingly provides for an increase of £34 million, to just under £94 million, for assistance to shipbuilding during 1989–90. That will be offset by appropriations-in-aid of £28·5 million, representing the payment for the assets and business by Harland and Wolff Holdings and the repayment of grants to the department by the old company.
The other area of the Department of Economic Development's Vote 2 for which extra provision is
1414
required is the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. As many of your Lordships are no doubt aware, LEDU, as it is called, together with the Industrial Development Board has had considerable success in promoting new jobs in the Province. In the financial year 1988–89 LEDU promoted some 4,580 new jobs and renewed some 420 jobs. Over the same period, the IDB promoted some 5,650 new jobs, renewed 1,680 jobs and maintained 745 jobs. I am sure the House will agree that that is not a bad record. The number of new jobs promoted by the two organisations in 1988–89 represented increases of 13 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively over the previous year. The draft order seeks an additional £365,000 partly offset by savings of £265,000 from economies elsewhere within LEDU's budget, to enable LEDU to continue its work of encouraging the development of small businesses in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the additional requirements in that Vote are further offset by a reduced requirement of £3 million on capital grants. That results from a continuing decline in the number of firms seeking assistance under the capital investment grants for industrial development scheme. That scheme has been abolished, but applications for grants for expenditure up to 3rd March 1988, when it stopped, can continue to be made up to 31st March 1990.
I now turn to the other Vote requiring extra funds in the Supplementary Estimate—the Department of Health and Social Services Vote 4. An increase of £34·4 million is sought for the social security programme. Your Lordships will appreciate that expenditure under that Vote is very largely demand-led and that it is not unusual for the estimates to be adjusted during the year.
The most significant increase sought—£33·1 million—is for income support due mainly to average payments to claimants being higher than originally provided for. Also higher average payments, partly due to increases in Northern Ireland Housing Executive rents and higher payments to certain pensioners, account for an increase of £1·4 million for housing benefit. Additional provision of £3·6 million for attendance allowances and £1·7 million for child benefit is sought because of increases in the numbers of claimants.
The extra requirements that I have outlined on that Vote are partly offset by estimating adjustments of £5·9 million elsewhere in the Vote. Of that £5·6 million relates to family credit, where the uptake is lower than originally anticipated despite an on-going publicity campaign to encourage applications. The remaining £300,000 is due to a revised estimate of requirements for rates rebates, reflecting lower than anticipated take-up.
I hope that the House has found this summary of the main components of the Autumn Supplementary Estimate helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

London Traffic Flow
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport about new initiatives to relieve traffic congestion in London. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about new initiatives to relieve traffic congestion in London. My proposals are being published today, together with separate consultation papers setting out my provisional conclusions on the four London assessment studies. I am placing copies in the Library.
"The economic boom of the 1980s has had a dramatic impact on London. Population, employment and incomes have all grown and demand for transport has exploded. There is every indication that this trend will continue. We have to provide for planned commercial and residential development; and proposals for the transport systems will in turn be an essential element in the development plans which the London boroughs are preparing.
"Last month I announced our plans to transform London's public transport systems. Over the next three years London Regional Transport plans to invest a further £2·2 billion on modernising and upgrading its systems. This includes work on the extension of the Jubilee Line to Docklands. Subject to further work, I expect that a Bill for a new line to relieve congestion in central London will be deposited next year. Network SouthEast plans to spend a further £1·2 billion over the same period to improve its services for London's commuters.
"It is clear that public transport will always play the key role in moving people in and out of central London. But congestion on the roads must be tackled too. We are improving the quality and capacity of the trunk roads wherever possible. But we must make the best use of existing roads. Our aim is to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible. The discussion document I am publishing today brings forward new proposals for traffic management and parking control.
"First, I propose a 300-mile priority route system—red routes. Stopping, loading/unloading and parking will be severely restricted. A pilot scheme will start next summer to establish the best way of implementing the proposal. I shall begin the necessary discussions with local authorities and the police immediately.
"Secondly, a consistent and businesslike approach to the management of these major routes is essential. I propose legislation to establish a Traffic Director to ensure the coherent development and operation of the red routes. The Traffic Director would not replace the existing highway authorities but would have a co-ordinating role on these routes, with appropriate reserve powers.
1416
"Thirdly, I strongly believe that the fixed penalty level for illegal parking on the red routes and possibly elsewhere in London should be increased. The Government will consult representative organisations on possible legislation and the appropriate level of fine.
"Fourthly, new traffic management guidance will aim to ensure that yellow lines are strictly confined to places where they are needed. Drivers must be convinced that where there are such restrictions they are needed and will be rigorously enforced.
"Fifthly, effective enforcement of traffic and parking regulations will be a key element. The police and traffic wardens will remain responsible for enforcing parking bans. The role of the traffic wardens will be enhanced. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel-clamping. Local authorities would take on the control of parking at meters and residents' bays, allowing traffic wardens to concentrate their efforts on the red routes and the more serious offences.
"We also need to go on improving the road system. We already have a substantial programme in London. This is geared mainly to upgrading the North Circular and improving access to Docklands and East London. One of the most notorious bottlenecks is the Blackwall Tunnel, and so I am announcing today my decision to add to the programme a scheme for a third tunnel. There will also be a review to see whether another crossing is needed between the Blackwall Tunnel and Tower Bridge.
"Turning then to the four assessment studies, these have been detailed and intensive studies. They have looked at a range of public transport, traffic management and road improvement measures on a comparable basis. They show that public transport improvements are needed but cannot by themselves solve the traffic and environmental problems however much we invest in the rail systems. Road improvements are necessary to increase the efficiency of the system, to reduce accidents and to take traffic out of residential areas.
"The consultants looked at a large number of options. They have narrowed these down to two or three recommended options in each area. Most of the major new roads they considered have been eliminated. Even so, they have recommended some schemes which I do not consider should be pursued further. These have been ruled out. I am only prepared to go forward with new road schemes which will bring significant overall benefits, taking full account of the environmental effects. I have selected for consultation a number of ideas for new public transport projects and a limited number of new road schemes, mostly to improve existing roads.
"New proposals for the transport systems in London will be vital to securing environmental improvements and creating opportunities for new development. In preparing proposals my department will therefore work closely with the

1417
Department of the Environment, local authorities, transport operators and the police.
"Copies of the consultants' reports will be available at public libraries and town halls in the study areas and will be sent to representative local organisations. Free leaflets setting out the consultants' main findings and recommendations will be circulated widely, together with a statement of the department's initial views. This will set out clearly the options that have been rejected and those on which comments are invited.
"It is now nearly 18 months since the consultants first published their options. There has never before been such wide and open consultation on transport studies. But I am very conscious that it has caused great uncertainty. I am now determined to end the uncertainty, to reach early decisions and to remove the threat of blight as quickly as possible, I am therefore asking for comments by 28th February.
"Any schemes entered into the national road programme will have to go through the full statutory procedures, which provide for public inquiry. The amount and timing of any additional expenditure would be for decision in the Public Expenditure Survey in the usual way.
"Mr. Speaker, these proposals, with those for the Jubilee Line and the Central London Rail Study and the massive investment in Network SouthEast, show that this Government have a balanced approach to London's transport problems. The measures I am announcing today, together with those I have brought forward in recent weeks, will give our capital city the improved transport system it deserves, and I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. Frankly, it is almost a non-Statement. It contains many words but few positive proposals which we can grasp. Reference is made to the consultation papers and the four assessment studies. An envelope was placed in my hand about 20 minutes ago, the contents of which, frankly, I have not read. I do not therefore know what is in the consultation papers or in the assessment studies. I do not blame the noble Viscount for that, but this is the kind of procedure that we have raised on numerous occasions. By itself the Statement does not convey the full impression of what is being done. We need to read the other documents as well and to have them in good time.
On the first page of the Statement—I am sorry that I cannot refer to paragraph numbers because we do not have them—the Secretary of State says:
"Subject to further work, I expect that a Bill for a new line to relieve congestion in central London will be deposited next year".
Does that refer to the reference to the Jubilee Line in the previous sentence or is a new line being proposed in addition to the Jubilee Line extension? Exactly what proposals from the Central London Rail Study are being adopted?
1418
The next sentence refers to Network SouthEast planning to spend an additional 1·2 billion. Can the noble Viscount say whether there is any truth in the report in the press recently that the Government will reduce the public service obligation grant to Network SouthEast? If so, what will happen to fares and what effect will it have on commuters travelling into London?
It is stated that:
"Public transport will always play the key role in moving people in and out of central London".
On page 3 it is stated that public transport improvements are needed. The Statement does not indicate what improvements in public transport are proposed. All noble Lords will agree that until there is clean and efficient transport that arrives on time we shall not see much additional use.
Baroness Phillips: And comfortable transport.
Lord Underhill: And comfortable transport, as my noble friend says. I do not wish to begin a discussion on congestion in London because we have had a debate on that, but I must make those points.
There are proposals for a 300-mile red route system, which may be satisfactory when we know exactly what they will be. There is no reference to that. Presumably one has to read the various documents. We have been assured that three-quarters of the traffic in London is on local roads. That also applies to other parts of the country. Therefore the problem of local road congestion is equally as important as the red routes. I note that discussions will take place, but until we know the exact form of the red routes it is difficult to comment on them.
Legislation is proposed to establish a Traffic Director. What relationship will the Traffic Director have to the highway authorities? That proposal does not relate to a London-based strategy. We do not have such a London-based strategy organisation. Does it mean that the Department of Transport will take over as the strategic body of London Transport, appointing a director and deciding exactly what will happen? There is no positive statement on that.
The new traffic management guidance may be satisfactory if we knew exactly what was proposed. We are told that the aim will be to ensure that yellow lines are strictly confined to places where they are needed. Who will determine such places? I can speak of many places where yellow lines are not enforced because of the inadequate number of traffic wardens. If people ask for an example they can come to the area of the Epping Forest District Council where I live and see the situation. I completely agree that:
"drivers must be convinced that where there are such restrictions they are needed and will be vigorously enforced".
I believe that the reference to enforcement is possibly the most important factor.
There is no reference to buses operated by one person, and whether that system will be extended or stopped. Most people believe that we ought to cease the operation of such buses in central areas. There is no reference to bus lanes, traffic restraint, street works or the possibility of the introduction of

1419
legislation on the Horne Report—a matter about which we have been talking almost for years and which we raised recently with regard to another matter. Is it not important to deal with those issues in connection with London Transport?
I do not know what timing is proposed with regard to the additional crossing and the additional third tunnel. We were told earlier that expenditure and timing would depend on the expenditure review. Shall we have to wait for many years? What will be the cost basis? I believe that many noble Lords will be concerned as we were told on a previous occasion that the cost of these improvements will be passed on to the passengers. Once one starts to pass costs running into billions on to passengers, instead of taking cars off the road we will add more cars.
We then come to the four assessment studies. I have not been able to read them; I do not know whether they are good or bad.
I thought that the noble Lord the Chief Whip was saying that I was taking too long.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I would not have said so even if I had thought it, which I did not.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very pleased about that because this is a quite lengthy Statement, of five pages.
The cost of the assessment studies was £10 million. We are told that many of the proposals are being disregarded. That may be right because the consultants were considering far too many options. That aroused considerable public concern. In the Statement the Secretary of State says:
"I have selected for consultation a number of ideas for new public transport projects"—
it would be interesting to know exactly what those are; they are not mentioned in the Statement—
"and a limited number of new road schemes".
Again except for reference to the North Circular road scheme and one other there is no reference to what the new road schemes will be.
Will copies of the consultation papers and the consultants' reports be available for noble Lords in the Printed Paper Office? The Statement refers to them being available in the Library, but that refers to the House of Commons.
The Statement says that,
"It is now nearly 18 months since the consultants first published their options".
Since then about 180 local groups in London have become extremely worried about the various proposals. Until we read the consultant's final reports and the parts which the Secretary of State has adopted, we will have no idea whether he has adopted the good parts or those about which there is considerable concern. Both the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities were extremely concerned about the general tenor of the first report of the consultants which laid down their possible options. In the penultimate paragraph it states:
"The amount and timing of any additional expenditure would be for decision in the public expenditure survey in the usual way".
1420
I have referred to that issue already. We should like to know exactly what the time factor may be. We are also told that the consultation documents are being circulated for replies by 28th February. Knowing the concerns of the London boroughs, and in view of the Christmas break for local authorities, is that not asking too much of local authorities? While we want speedy action, I am certain that the local authorities require time for proper consultation. If we are to consider red routes and various ideas for traffic management, there must be opportunity for detailed consideration. I recognise that the final decision should be taken in time for the local government elections.
Although there may be some encouraging words in the document, it looks as though each area has studied the position in isolation. There is no general base for a strategy for London because there is no strategic traffic authority in London. That is obviously a considerable liability. What consideration is being given in these proposals to combining traffic management, traffic development and road development with land use? It seems that such issues are excluded from the document. While the Statement may contain useful, encouraging words, until we have had consultation on the details and until we are able to consult on the proposals, we remain very concerned.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I also thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement in this House. I find it a somewhat mind-boggling task to address myself to a complex Statement at such short notice. I shall not repeat the points that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made. However, I am a little worried about some of the language in the Statement, which appears to suggest that there are plans to transform public transport in London.
Admittedly a fair amount of money is being spent on modernising and upgrading. However, that includes extensions to the Jubilee Line which will mop up a large amount. That line is the least cost-effective that could have been chosen. So far as we know, it has been chosen because it goes to Canary Wharf and will receive private funding and not because it is the most useful line to relieve congestion in inner London.
Reference is made to public transport playing a key role in moving people in and out of London. Again, one asks the question: if good public transport is necessary to solve the problem where is the money which will pay for that and will people be able to get away from the squalor which now exists on the Underground and the buses?
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the passage in the Statement about a new Bill providing for a new line to relieve congestion in central London being deposited next year. I wondered whether that referred to the crosslink line, which I understood had been put on the back burner. If this is an indication that the line is to be brought forward that is greatly to be welcomed. The east-west and north-south lines would make a great contribution towards relieving congestion and getting people out of their cars and on to public transport.

1421
One gives a qualified nod of approval to the suggested red route on a short-term basis while public transport is improved. To what extent will the disabled be exempt from the provisions of the red route if the penalties and controls are to be stricter on double yellow lines? Will disabled people be able to park in the red route areas, and if not what will happen to them? Although not a large number of disabled people will be in difficulty as a result, it is important on an individual basis if they are being forced away from places in which they need to park.
I noticed that there will be a significant change in the role of traffic wardens. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel clamping. I do not object to that, provided that they are properly trained to do so and that their standards are brought into line with those of the Metorpolitan Police. In those circumstances I believe that no one will complain. However, I then see that local authorities will take over the control of parking at meters and residents' bays. What provision is being made for local authorities to obtain the necessary finance in order to take on that onerous task while the traffic wardens concentrate their efforts on the red routes?
As regards the third Blackwall Tunnel, I should like to know whether it is to be publicly or privately funded. Obviously, it is too soon to comment on the assessment studies, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am sure that 28th February is too early a date on which to expect serious comments to be placed in the hands of the Department of Transport. Friends of the Earth has said that people will need five months to consider the studies, but that may be at the other extreme.
We all recognise the dangers of planning blight in this situation. But, on the other hand, people who are likely to have their homes removed because of the contents of the assessment studies which we have not yet seen are likely to want a period of time beyond 28th February in order to make proper representations. I also understand that the studies cost £40 each. Therefore, individuals who may feel that their homes are in danger may be reluctant to spend that amount of money but may be forced to do so.
I understand that the Traffic Director will be confined to the red route. That appears to me to be a curious appointment. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it is, important that we have overall traffic direction in London and overall traffic management. It is time that the Government reconsidered the setting up of an overall highway authority for the London area so that these extremely complicated matters can be co-ordinated on a sensible basis.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for their qualified reception of what I consider to be a first-class Statement. Documents referred to in a Statement are not always available at the same time as the Statement. I apologise for the fact that they may be a little later than normal, but perhaps it was not fully understood that the Statement would be repeated in this House.
1422
The discussion document on initiatives to tackle the problems, together with the consultants' reports and the Department of Transport's initial views and requests for comments on the four assessment studies, are now available in the Library and will be in the Printed Paper Office. Most of the answers to the questions which have been asked are to be found in those documents. I do not propose to comment on questions about matters which were not contained in the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the question of the cost of the reports. In the Statement my right honourable friend said that copies of the consultants' reports will be available at public libraries and town halls in the study areas and will be sent to representative local organisations. Free leaflets setting out the consultants' main findings and recemmendations will be circulated widely, together with a statement about the department's initial views.
The assessment studies involved a very high cost. They were extremely detailed and looked at a wide range of options. Some were rejected for further consideration and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has rejected a few more. However, the department's view of the assessment studies is that the documents now contain only half the original number of proposals for further consideration. Therefore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State considers that the two months until 28th February will be a sufficient period of time for these matters to be considered. Schemes for consultation are identified in freely available leaflets.
As regards the red routes, my right honourable friend sees the need for a coherent set of controls over the main routes. Controls need a unique identification in order to make drivers aware that special conditions apply. We wish to see traffic on those routes flowing more easily. That will improve safety, efficiency and the environment. Again, that is a matter for further consultation with local authorities and the police. The Government's strategic approach to transport in London is as set out in the Secretary of State's Statement about transport in London made in January 1989.
The new line referred to in the Statement is in addition to the Jubilee Line. It arises from the central London rail study. Further work will show which line, in addition to the Jubilee Line, should be pursued.
As regards the Traffic Director, we do not see the need to create a strategic transport authority. Therefore, the responsibilities of local authorities, transport operators and others are clearly understood. The Traffic Director will be appointed by the Secretary of State, working to his objectives. It is proposed that his main function will be to ensure that local authorities introduce priority routes on their roads in a timely and orderly way. Once the network is established it is proposed that he will ensure that it is managed in accordance with my right honourable friend's objectives and maintained to an appropriate standard. It is also proposed that he should encourage better co-ordination of parking controls off the main routes.

1423
The third tunnel at Blackwall will replace the existing substandard northern tunnel. It will help the development of Greenwich peninsula and reduce long peak-hour queues. The aim is to start work in the mid 1990s but that depends on detailed engineering and the availability of funds. It will cost about £130 million at current prices.
As I said earlier, I believe that it would be well worthwhile all of your Lordships studying the documents which I have with me now. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I only received them shortly before I repeated the Statement and have not yet had time to study them. However, from what I have seen of them, I believe that they will provide answers to most of the questions raised.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I give a general welcome to the Statement which my noble friend repeated to your Lordships. Let me say at the outset that it is a limited Statement. It is the expression of a new initiative. I believe that that is what we have been looking for, particularly in terms of road congestion in London. That is to be welcomed.
I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, described it as a non-Statement because it cannot be that. If we are to make progress towards improving the movement of road traffic, whether goods or passenger traffic, then we must regard the roads as the highways for movement and not for parking, stopping and so on. It is the initiative and provisional conclusion—and I think that those were the words used by the Minister when repeating the Statement—of the four assessment studies that some 300 miles of priority routeing should be designated for the movement of road traffic. I very much welcome that and that the fact that a Traffic Director for that specific scheme is to be appointed as a liaison officer.
I should like to raise with my noble friend the question as to what exactly are the reserve powers which are to be dedicated to that director, but I am not asking him for an answer this afternoon. I should be quite happy if he would write to me about that.
I want to touch very quickly on two other points. As regards the consultation period, we have been talking about confusion and congestion in London for years and years. All kinds of ideas have been put forward and those who have taken part in those discussions will recognise that the period until the end of February is quite adequate to give confirmation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's provisional conclusion or to make changes. Therefore I do not quarrel with that.
I ask my noble friend whether or not he agrees that he has today announced a number of measures which, in the short term and some in the longer term, are initiatives to alleviate—and not totally to conquer—the chronic congestion in London caused laregly by parked vehicles impeding free flow? Will he also say that these measures are not to be the only measures for consideration by his department in the future to make an even more significant impact on the problem in central London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his warmer reception to the Statement. This is a strategic approach to improving traffic and transport conditions in London. The feature of the approach is to make the best use of existing roads and cause the least demolition of housing and so on. The priority routes also aim to make the best use of capacity. We are continuing works programmes to eliminate stress points and bottlenecks on trunk roads and to use new technologies to improve London's traffic-light systems to reduce delays. What we have said about parking, wheel-clamping and towing away will be necessary on those routes in order to keep the traffic flowing well. Therefore, there must be a strong deterrent to stop people parking on those 300 miles of red routes.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, many of us who live in South London or in South-West London have felt anxious about the Statement today. Our houses have been blighted for 18 months or more. We hoped to learn today which houses are permanently blighted and which houses can now be relieved from blight. However, I am afraid that only from a study of the documents will it be possible to get some knowledge of that.
The Ministry has always had in mind for many years the idea of a south circular road to match the North Circular Road. Three of the four assessment studies dealt with the south circular road. I ask the noble Viscount whether the Government have entirely dropped the idea of a south circular road. Can we breathe again on that?
I should also like to ask the Minister what is the scope of the improvement to the new roads? Will the enormous road widening schemes entail the knocking down of thousands of houses which line those routes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, I have not had time to read the documents but I can tell your Lordships that in principle the purpose of my right honourable friend making the Statement today is to reduce uncertainty and the effect of blight. My understanding is that knocking down houses is the last thing that we wish to do. Existing roads will be used and improved as much as possible, but the details are in the document and the document is still there for discussion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who is sometimes a passenger on public transport and the rest of the time a motorist in London, this is an extremely welcome Statement and seems, on consideration, to contain a great deal of meat. Given that the recommendations of the consultants have apparently been published for 18 months, I do not believe that there is a great deal of hesitation in calling for early consultation. However, your Lordships might be somewhat reassured if my noble friend could tell us whether the routes eventually chosen, where they are new routes, will be subject to any planning procedures or whether they will simply result as an edict from the Department of Transport.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as regards trunk roads, procedures will be under the Highways Act which will of course include public inquiries where necessary. For local roads, the ordinary planning procedures will be followed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that that is reassuring.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, to the extent that the Statement which we have just heard and the supporting documents recognise that there is a serious traffic problem in London, it is undoubtedly to be welcomed. To the extent that it summarises proposals which have already been made and adds a number of new ones, it gives us a good deal of food for thought. However, what perplexes me, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tordoff and others who have spoken, is the problem of how this will all be co-ordinated.
When we debated the wider issues of transport last Monday—and the noble Viscount responded to that debate—he said that he agreed with the views of Sub-Committee B that in Britain we should have a positive and concerted transport policy. I do not quite understand why there should be a director-general for the priority routes and I cannot understand what happens to the other routes. Is it not conceivable that if we have traffic flowing freely through the priority routes, that will merely add to the congestion on other routes? Who will take care of that?
Therefore, while I welcome the document as recognising the problem and for mentioning a number of matters which have been brought to our attention—some previously brought to our attention and some new ones—I ask how this will effectively be brought together?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend wants the authorities with existing responsibilities to work together for the common good. He will provide the strategic framework within which the local authorities and organisations can work. As I have already said, the proposal is to appoint not a director-general but a Traffic Director for these red routes, with a small staff to help with the necessary co-ordination. So far as the local authorities are concerned, there is a proposal that they should review yellow lines so that they are normally provided only where parking would cause an obstruction or hazard to safety. Again, as I said, these matters are still open for consultation and discussion.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Cromwell Road will be a red route, thereby preventing the ice cream vans from parking on double white lines for long periods without anybody seeming to care about them? With any luck, they will not be able to do so in the future.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend about the Cromwell Road. I have the map in front of me, but I cannot at this moment say whether it will be one of the red routes. If it is
1426
one of the red routes, I can assure him that the ice cream vans will not be there.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether I may just indulge myself for a second and ask for clarification on the answer the noble Viscount gave on the additional rail link. Will it be an underground link and part of the Underground system or will it be a British Rail link?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that question. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
4.51 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have been waiting patiently for over half an hour for this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his summary of the Supplementary Estimate which this order will approve. We have been told by him that the substantial part of the special funding requested of Parliament by the Department of Economic Development is committed to two very important privatisation programmes completed earlier in the year. And it is agreed that it is vital for the economy of Belfast and the economy of Northern Ireland generally that Short Brothers plc and Harland and Wolff Holdings plc should be trading successfully and at least maintaining their present labour force.
I should say from this side of the House that we condemn the bomb outrages at the Short premises recently. I hear that there may be grounds—and I put it no higher than that—for some concern about Harland and Wolff Holdings, or rather about one or two of its subsidiaries. I should therefore welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that there are no grounds for anxiety.
We welcome very much the additional expenditure on industrial research and development. This must surely be right. The comparative studies reveal continuing low average productivity in Northern Ireland. I believe it is around 80 per cent. of that of Britain and not more than just over half that of West Germany. I read somewhere that this is due in part to the low value that has been attached in the past to research and development and in part to the low education of the labour force and training. This is obviously a point for the Department of Education and we will come to that department later on this evening.
Turning to the additional funding requested by the Department of Health and Social Services, high unemployment is an outstanding characteristic of Northern Ireland and it is therefore not surprising that we see an inheritance of poverty in many parts of the Province. As the noble Lord is the Minister in charge of this department, there are just two matters that I should like to draw to his attention this evening.

1427
First, it must be worrying that up to £5·6 million of family credit may not have been taken up, notwithstanding the publicity campaign to which the Minister referred. Manifestly something is wrong somewhere. Is the department investigating in detail why there should be this apparent low take-up? Do the overall statistics on uptake conceal wide variations between urban and rural areas and between office and office within the same district? Perhaps the Minister can assure the House that the department is asking the right questions and seeking the correct answers.
Secondly, I want to refer to the home help service. There is no need to emphasise the important role that this service plays in community care. However, I become anxious when I hear many voices proclaiming the inadequacies of the service in parts of Northern Ireland because it is under-resourced. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether it is accepted that it is under-resourced in parts of the Province.
I am also wondering whether the Minister knows why the Eastern Health Board recently refused to receive a deputation from the home helpers whom it employs. It seems to me that the board is acting rather insensitively. Unless the Minister is able to give a satisfactory explanation for the board's action in refusing to receive this deputation, we urge him to take steps to find out in some detail what is happening in the eastern board and, if the complaints have substance, the department should spare no effort in correcting them.
Clearly there is no shortage of problems and no absence of challenges, but I do not propose to trouble the Minister further this evening as the House needs to go on to the discussion of the education reform order, which is the next business on the Order Paper.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to start by warmly welcoming the fairly modest amount of good news that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was able to give us about economic development and job creation. Beyond that, I wish to raise two points of which the Minister has already had notice. I am sure that he will be just as helpful as his predecessors in office were in answering points of that kind.
The first concerns afforestation in the poorer farming areas of the western counties of Northern Ireland. The noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, raised this matter in your Lordships' House in a debate on 3rd February 1988. He then suggested that European Community Directive No. 1820 should be applied to these counties. This is all the more reasonable as it already applies in the adjoining counties of the Irish Republic. When the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, came to reply for the Government, he spoke for 30 minutes but devoted only two sentences to the directive and indeed brushed it completely aside. Surely it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry to make sure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of whatever EC grants may be available.
I should like to ask what progress has been made since early last year. Will the directive, known as
1428
the Western Package, soon be applied in Northern Ireland? What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that this matter is worked upon in a proper regional manner and is not hidebound by national boundaries? This is all the more important because of the continuing high unemployment and limited industrial opportunities in the western counties of Northern Ireland.
My next point is totally different. Politically motivated violence and terrorism have continued, alas, for 20 years in Northern Ireland. The present right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State recently made a somewhat controversial reference to this. He aroused so much comment that I need not quote his words. Suffice it to say that the total eradication of terrorists from within a democratic state is a very difficult matter. This is why recent proposals to restrain the worst excesses of internal conflict may be so important. The Geneva and Hague Conventions have since 1864 done much to restrain the barbarity of war between states. A similar approach to internal strife has been taken by Dr. Hans Peter Gasser of the International Committee of the Red Cross and by Professor Theodore Meron of New York University. They separately published a code of conduct and a draft model declaration on internal strife.
These documents apply existing principles of international and national laws and human rights treaties to situations of insurgency or terrorist struggle. They apply equally to governments and armed oppositions. They stipulate, for example: first, civilians, and especially women and children, must be spared; secondly, hostages must not be taken and opponents must not be made to disappear by killing; thirdly, the wounded and sick must receive prompt medical help even if they are enemies; fourthly, prisoners must be treated humanely; fifthly, the use of force must be limited to the minimum strictly necessary.
Have Her Majesty's Government made a study of these rather new documents? If not, will they do so? Do they think that they may be applicable and indeed helpful in the Northern Ireland situation? I entirely accept that principles of the sort I have outlined have in general, and usually, governed the operations of the security forces. Nevertheless, it could well be of benefit to adopt such codes of conduct in a formal way.
It would further expose the barbarity of many recent terrorist attacks to the full force of world public opinion. It could help the Government with their sometimes difficult relations with Irish Americans and other members of the Irish diaspora throughout the world. Lastly, it could strengthen the hands of the doves as opposed to the hawks within individual terrorist groups. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's reply.
5 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has introduced this draft appropriation order. Of the only two Votes that we are considering this afternoon I have one point to make on the first, it being

1429
under the heading of the Department of Economic Development. At the risk of wearying your Lordships perhaps I might be permitted to return to the subject of the European monetary system and the exchange rate mechanism.
These are points about which I understand there are in some areas certain divergences of opinion. I have raised the matter three or perhaps four times before in your Lordships' House. On those occasions I was referring to the disadvantage that we suffer in Northern Ireland due to the imbalance brought about by monetary compensatory amounts. Of course there is no Vote on agriculture this afternoon, but perhaps I could mention briefly the effect that this has on business.
Quite a few of my friends and colleagues are engaged in businesses in Northern Ireland that export to quite a large extent to the Republic of Ireland. The varying disparities between the pound and the punt make it extremely difficult for them to do advanced planning and to price a contract in such a way that they can be sure of getting a reasonable profit margin on it. When one considers that for quite a period of time one punt was equivalent to between 68 and 72 pence and now it is worth about 92 to 93 pence, that is a substantial difference. I can make the difference between whether a contract turns out to be profitable or unprofitable.
I would urge Her Majesty's Government under this heading of economic development to give careful consideration to that point. Perhaps we in Northern Ireland are more vulnerable to this varying disparity than other industries in the rest of the United Kingdom because of our proximity to the Republic of Ireland. Of course we suffer from the same difficulties as businesses in Great Britain when exporting to Europe.
Whenever I have asked about this before I have been told from the Government Front Bench that we will join the European monetary system when the time is right. That somehow rings a bell. It sounds familiar. I have heard it elsewhere. When is the time going to be right? I respectfully suggest that perhaps it was right the first time that I raised this two to three years ago, when our inflation rate was commendably low and our currency standing was perhaps more favourable than it may be now or may be in the future.
Turning now to the other Vote, we are considering this afternoon on the Department of Health and Social Services, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I return briefly to the subject of the hospice movement. First, I should like to thank him sincerely for the encouraging statement that he made last week over the general budget for health and social services. I think that he has done a good job for Northern Ireland in bringing about that particular budget in the face of all the competition that exists from other spending departments.
To the best of my knowledge he did not say anything specific about the hospice movement. Certainly I have heard nothing since I left home yesterday morning. If the noble Lord has any information that he can give us this afternoon I shall most gladly convey it to my friends and colleagues
1430
when I go home tomorrow. Maybe it is too soon for him to be able to say anything. If in fact he and his department and his colleagues are not yet in a position to make up their minds, perhaps I should mention briefly that when I was speaking in the debate on the hospice movement inititated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 31st October I may not have made it clear that the hospices are not looking for unlimited financial aid. They are not looking for open-ended financial aid. Indeed, that could possibly be counterproductive because it might militate against the very good public support from voluntary fund raising that they have already.
Rather I think I quoted Scotland, where the Secretary of State agreed in that instance to subvent the hospices pound for pound up to 50 per cent. and 50 per cent. was the limit. This may not be the ideal formula for Northern Ireland. I thank that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, when he was speaking in that same debate felt that it might not be ideal. However, something equivalent would be needed, because the important thing is that the hospice movement should be able to get away from crisis management.
Like any business it ought to be in a position to make a realistic cash flow projection and therefore draw up its plans not just on a month-to-month basis, watching how far the bank account has gone into the red, but rather be able to plan ahead as to progress and development. I feel that would not discourage voluntary public effort, but encourage it. If it felt that the hospice movement was firmly founded and had a base level that made it financially secure, then the public would know that any funds raised by voluntary effort would be going to an organisation that was in a viable state rather than just trying to tide over from one crisis to another.
What is needed is a two-pronged effort with the Government and voluntary workers operating in partnership—in double harness, so to speak. That would encourage the movement and give it security. I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind. If he is not yet ready to make a statement on the subject, then, when preparing his decision on that matter, I shall be grateful if he will bear in mind this feeling of partnership and working together because I believe that is something to which the general public in Northern Ireland would respond.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is extremely anxious that irrelevant topics are not introduced into this debate on the appropriation order. I believe what I have to say is not wholly irrelevant, but, should the noble Lord think otherwise, I hope he will forgive me as I shall be extremely brief and I seek only a brief answer from him. In passing, I hope that this matter was not touched on when I had briefly to leave to make a telephone call.
I hope noble Lords will have noticed reports in yesterday's press which reveal that Northern Ireland has a lower overall crime rate than any of the 42 police force areas in England and Wales. The rate for theft is particularly commendable; the murder rate is of course high as a result of terrorism.

1431
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the murder rate in Northern Ireland, despite terrorism, is lower than in the United States of America.
There are many people abroad, mainly in the United States, who take every opportunity to blacken the name of Ulster, although in my experience continental Europeans are much more understanding and sympathetic. Unhappily, there is a great and growing number of people in this country who also jump at every opportunity to run down Ulster, the better to justify their secret yearning to sell the Province down the river. Will the noble Lord and the Northern Ireland Office go all out to frustrate their knavish tricks by giving the maximum publicity both at home and abroad to the commendably low crime rate in Northern Ireland, upon which the people of Ulster must be congratulated?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I was taken by surprise as much as other noble Lords by the fact that we had a little interregnum in the middle of the debate. On behalf of the Front Bench on this side of the House I apologise for it and I assure the House that I had absolutely no bearing on the matter.
In introducing his remarks, I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies agreed that Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff should be put firmly on a suitable financial footing. This apppropriation order seeks to do that. However, it is only fair to warn the House that in this connection there may be one or two more appropriation orders, though probably not this year. Almost certainly they will refer to Harland and Wolff and Shorts.
Harland and Wolff has a proud history and has occupied an important position in the Northern Ireland economy. Its transfer to the private sector offers a genuine and real chance for a new beginning for those who work there. The workforce is particularly important, and I agree with the noble Lord opposite on that point. The Government have promised a significant amount of support, and the future of the company and its subsidiaries is now firmly in the hands of the management and workforce, which is where it should be.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the recent reports of low average productivity in Northern Ireland. I agree. The Government were not unduly surprised at that situation. I welcome the fact that the local chapter of the Confederation of British Industry has taken note of the problem and is currently investigating ways to encourage firms to do something about it. The Government will do all they can to help in this very necessary endeavour.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me what steps were being taken to ascertain the reasons for the much lower than expected take-up rate of family credit. When I first arrived at the department I was very conscious of the low level of take-up of this particular benefit. I discovered that at the beginning
1432
of this year a personal letter was sent to every family on the child benefit register. That did not do particularly well. Therefore, in order to encourage more claims I was concerned to have a second campaign. This took place shortly after I arrived. It involved television and press advertising; there was also special publicity provided to employers. I am glad to say that claims received as a result of this campaign—at least I assume that is the reason—have risen by 43 per cent. a week; that is from 700 to 1,000.
The reasons why some families do not claim family credit are not known, but using such publicity measures will encourage claims from those who think they may be entitled. I am intending to have another publicity campaign early in the New Year. We do not have an answer to the question of whether family credit is dependent on the area in which the claimants live and work, because it is a centralised benefit. It would need an enormous amount of research to reach an answer. Having listened to the comments of noble Lords I shall look into the question of whether such research would be productive.
I am sure the House will know that I had the privilege only last week of announcing an extra £84 million for the health and social services in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for welcoming that additional sum. In making that announcement, I made it quite clear that I should like to see some of this extra money going to the social services and to the provision of home helps in particular. That is about as much as I can do to by way of encouragement. I have no means of enforcing such desires. The level of resources devoted to the home help services is a matter for each health and social services board to determine.
The demand is increasing. None the less resources are finite and some boards have had to review the level of provision. There has been no cut in the level of provision in any board area compared with last year. The Eastern Board—in particular in the South Down and Ards unit of management—has found it necessary to reassess who is getting home help and the number of hours for which such help is given. The Eastern Board refused to receive a deputation from the home helpers in its employment. That is a matter not for me but for the board to answer. I shall endeavour to find out and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised again, as he pointed out, the matter of afforestation. The United Kingdom has recently requested approval by the European Commission under the forestry action programme of both the woodland planting grants scheme and the farm woodlands scheme. These grants, which are of course applicable in Northern Ireland, are in several respects more generous than those provided under the programme and should, if they receive approval, bring planting on either side of the Border into much the same financial regime. We have no plans to extend our forestry grants further either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland.

1433
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also referred to internal strife and terrorism. In this connection I welcome the condemnation by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, of the recent bomb outrage at the Harbour Airport in Belfast, which belongs to Short Brothers. The United Kingdom has a tradition of protecting and advancing human rights by means of specific laws and commitments. I note that those laws and commitments are not always totally approved of either by the European Court of Justice or by organisations such as Amnesty International. That is why we continue to look both at the operation of such laws and at the formulation of new laws. It is important to make the point when we are dealing with terrorism that, if we as a government and our agencies such as the RUC or indeed the Army do not abide by the laws in force at any moment, we descend to the level of the terrorists themselves. That must be wrong and it is something which the Government are determined to avoid.
While tackling a major terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland, the Government have always been ready to investigate matters of public concern and to take independent advice on measures necessary to safeguard the individual's rights. There is a proven record of removing justifiable grievances, extending civil rights and reconciling emergency measures with respect for individual liberties. We shall look most carefully at any studies that have a bearing on these important issues.
The note that I have in front of me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, on the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS says, as he suspected, that the Government have undertaken to join the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right. I could put a tiny gloss on that because of the way the noble Lord spoke about this arrangement. We have been waiting for the removal of credit controls in Europe, which I understand will take place within the next 18 months. In the meantime, as the noble Lord mentioned, we have a different level of inflation—although I am glad to say that it is coming down—from that which pertained when he first raised the point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that these two matters will have to be taken into account in deciding when the time is right. Much as I regret it, I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and put a date on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also mentioned funding arrrangements for hospices. There are 1⅛ hospices, because, as the noble Lord will know, the construction of a new one in Londonderry is due to start soon. I am convinced of the need to change the funding arrangements for hospices in Northern Ireland to put them on a sound financial basis. This needs a tripartite discussion between the department, the boards themselves and the hospice movement. This is currently going on. I hope to make an announcement about the Northern Ireland position before the end of the year. I should not like to be any more definite at this stage because there are still agreements to be entered into.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to the calendar year or the financial year?
Lord Skelmersdale: The financial year, my Lords.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we must take note of the many good and exciting things happening in Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that crime rates in Northern Ireland are lower than those in Great Britain and the United States. The Government look for every opportunity to publicise the good points in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently making a special study so that whenever we go out and about in the course of our business, whether in either House of Parliament or abroad, we can use these points to prove that the negative side of Northern Ireland, which I must freely admit exists, is not nearly as negative as is sometimes portrayed in the media generally.
I think that I have answered most of the points raised. If I have missed any I shall be only too pleased to write to the noble Lord concerned. In the meantime, although the order is slightly complicated and although two different areas of expenditure need to be looked at, I believe that noble Lords consider it to be in order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
5.27 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for very many years the education service in Northern Ireland has maintained, through the dedication of its teachers, high standards of academic achievement. It has initiated curriculum development of national significance. In a society sometimes afflicted by unrest and mistrust schools have provided the caring context in which children from both communities can be brought closer together both physically and in terms of greater mutual understanding. Education in Northern Ireland has not simply kept going; it has achieved, it has innovated and most importantly it has recognised and accepted the difficult challenge of being part of the process of reconciliation.
Despite the difficulties of the past 20 years, Northern Ireland is no Cinderella in educational achievement. For example, a greater proportion of its young people go into higher education than would be the case for Great Britain as a whole—21·5 per cent. compared with 15·6 per cent. for Great Britain. It also has a higher proportion of school-leavers with A-level qualifications—26 per cent. compared with 19 per cent. in England and Wales.
Where the abilities of its young people and the strength of its educational system are among the Province's greatest assets, we should not seek change for change's sake. Equally we cannot afford to be complacent or to let our justified pride in the high standards achieved by some obscure the need to help all pupils, whatever their background and abilities, to achieve their maximum potential. In an increasingly

1435
competitive world education must change if it is to equip our young people with the knowledge and skills they need for the future.
The draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order which I bring before your Lordships today will enhance the educational opportunities available to the children of Northern Ireland and give parents the same degree of choice and influence in their children's education as has been provided by the 1988 Education Reform Act for England and Wales.
However, let me state at the outset that this order is not simply the imposition of a national pattern on a distinctive regional system. The provisions which it contains are the product of an extensive process of consultation and discussion conducted by my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary with special responsibility for education over a period of some 21 months. As a result of that consultation, significant changes have been made, Moreover, I should like to point out that at each and every stage when it was possible to alter the arrangements they were indeed altered. New provisions have been introduced and others have been adapted more fully to meet the needs and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that the order represents a genuine matching of the strengths and the values of the education system in Northern Ireland with a general thrust of national education policy. The order also reflects the Government's commitment to two guiding principles: first, to raise educational standards for all pupils and particularly for those of lesser ability who may at present leave school with little tangible evidence of the time which they have spent there; secondly, to secure greater choice and involvement for parents in the education of their children.
The order will enable these aims to be realised in a number of ways. It introduces new arrangements for the curriculum to be followed by all pupils aged between five and 16 so that every pupil is guaranteed access to a curriculum which is broad balanced and coherent. The order lays down that the curriculum must include six broad areas of study within which pupils will follow a number of compulsory subjects. In addition, noble Lords will note the inclusion of six important educational themes which will be interwoven with the compulsory subjects. These themes are information technology, education for mutual understanding, cultural heritage, health education, economic awareness and careers education.
The order also provides for the assessment of each child's progress at certain stages of their school career. It will give parents more information about their children's progress. It provides parents with access to a wider choice of school by linking admissions to the physical capacity of the school rather than to arbitrary administrative quotas; and as for school governors, the order will also give parents more influence on and responsibility for the conduct of the school and its financial management through the introduction of delegated budgets.
I know that the House will welcome in particular the new arrangements which the order contains for
1436
integrated education. It is a theme which has been running through your Lordships' debates on the subject for several years. The new arrangements will make it easier for parents who wish their children to be educated with children of both traditions in Northern Ireland to have those aspirations met. This part of the order has attracted considerable attention and widespread support.
During the consultative process there was overwhelming support for the Government's proposal to introduce grant-maintained integrated schools and many respondents encouraged the Government to extend the provisions further. This we have done by means of three main measures. First, the grant-maintained integrated school remains central to the Government's policy for integrated education but the legislation will now enable these schools to be set up from new as well as by means of transitional procedures.
Secondly, we have retained and strengthened the provisions in the present education law which enable existing schools to acquire controlled integrated status. The existing legislation for controlled integrated schools was introduced in 1978 by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I should like to pay tribute to him at this point for having taken that action. These provisions were in a sense ahead of their time, but the noble Lord will have noted that we have retained them in the order. In keeping with the general principle that parents should have greater involvement in their children's education, the new provisions will make controlled integrated status more accessible by introducing parent-led procedures identical to those for grant-maintained integrated status.
Thirdly, to underpin these initiatives the legislation will also introduce a statutory duty whereby the Department of Education will be required to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated Education. It would be optimistic to suggest that integrated education is the panacea for all Northern Ireland's ills, though most would accept that it has a part to play in overcoming the divisions in Northern Ireland society. But there is no question of government imposing integrated education on anyone. On the contrary, the Government continue to recognise and respect the equal right of parents to choose the form of education for their children and there is no implication that integrated schools are regarded as intrinsically superior.
The order is a major piece of legislation. Indeed, one has only to look at the thickness of the document to appreciate that fact. However, your Lordships will find that three other important features are noteworthy. First, the order provides for the establishment of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools as a statutory body. The creation of the council arises out of consultation with the Roman Catholic Church authorities and will benefit the management of schools in the Catholic-maintained sector.
Secondly, the education and library boards will be given important additional responsibilities for curriculum support and in-service training which recognise their central role in helping all schools to deliver the new curriculum requirements. Thirdly,

1437
the order provides for changes to the management and funding of institutions of further education which will enable colleges to meet more effectively the needs of the communities and the businesses which they serve.
The order we are considering today will have far-reaching effects on the education system in Northern Ireland. Its influence on the quality and variety of education provision in Northern Ireland will extend well into the next century. It is not an exercise that the Government entered upon lightly or conducted without the most painstaking care and attention. Those who contributed to the debate were listened to and, as I said, substantial changes were made. The draft legislation which has emerged is better and stronger for the input from all those with a stake in the future of education. I am honoured to commend the order to the House for approval in the firm conviction that it will make a major contribution to the future wellbeing and prosperity of the young people of Northern Ireland.
I am well aware that there has been extensive discussion since the draft order was published in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I have no doubt that the debate this afternoon will reflect some of the concerns which have been expressed. I must say that I look forward enormously to the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
5.38 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for explaining the contents of the order which is before the House. It is a long order containing about 167 articles and nine schedules. Indeed, the Minister correctly described it as a "major piece of legislation". I agree that there have been many changes since the first proposals were published. But I must say to the Minister that there is in general much criticism of what has been described as the "inadequacy" of the consultation which attended the preparation of the draft order, although I appreciate that he has described the consultations as having been exhaustive. That criticism is not simply confined to the Ulster Teachers' Union; it is a pretty general criticism.
There is another general point that I should like to make. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others, I think that it is necessary to protest that legislation of this magnitude cannot be scrutinised and cannot be amended by Parliament. This point has often been raised during discussions on draft orders. However, it is particularly relevant in the context of this debate.
On 12th October the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education and Science said that final decisions on education reform were, of course, for Parliament. To the extent that that statement implies—as I think it does—that Parliament would have powers to amend the order, it is a misleading statement. I say that because we know in fact that Parliament can only take one decision; that is, to accept or reject the order in toto.
1438
Therefore we have this situation: Parliament is told by Ministers that there have been meaningful and exhaustive consultations with all concerned; but, at the same time, the impression is given within the Province—and, it came widely to be believed—that the decision would eventually be for Parliament. That is an unsatisfactory position.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently that the young people of Northern Ireland are the Province's greatest natural asset. He had good reasons for saying that because Northern Ireland has the highest birth rate in the European Community. Therefore there is and there will remain in the Province a large pool of children and young people seeking improved education and eventually further education and employment.
The Minister made the point that in comparison with England and Wales the Northern Ireland education system serves the gifted child very well indeed. That is welcome of course, but when we study the figures relating to those who leave school with no graded results we find that there is a substantially greater degree of under-achievement in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. Moreover, while 19 per cent. of those leaving Protestant schools do so without qualifications, the number leaving Catholic schools without qualifications increases to 25 per cent.
The first question to be asked is whether and to what extent the order addresses the problem of under-achievement. The Minister described that as the department's first objective. I understand from those who advise me that it is not clear that the order, which relies so heavily on open enrolment, will achieve that objective. There is an urgent need to remedy the position not only on social and humanitarian grounds, but to ensure that the Province, which is on the periphery of Europe, is properly equipped with a highly educated labour force to enable it to compete successfully with foreign rivals in attracting inward investment on the scale required.
The draft order contains a section dealing with further and higher education. I have looked in this connection at Article 100 in particular. That is a new article which is obviously welcome. It provides that each education board shall ensure, in accordance with arrangements approved by the department, the provision of adequate facilities for further education. I am not certain what is the significance of this reference to the arrangements to be approved by the department, but the position should become clearer when we know something about the criteria which the department will apply. Will the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicate this evening what the criteria will be?
I turn briefly to the other end of the spectrum; namely, nursery education upon which the order is silent. Already in Northern Ireland there is an immense gap in this sector. Will the Minister give us an explanation of why nursery education has been omitted from the order? Is it intended to deal with it in a children's order or Bill in due course? If that is so, when will that legislation come along?

1439
There are three matters on which I should like to congratulate the Government. Like most Members of your Lordships' House, I fully support the position taken in relation to integrated schools, which is spelled out in Article 64(1). However, the Minister will know that the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and the Belfast Charitable Trust for Integrated Education are still troubled about a number of issues. There is concern about the definition, which we cannot amend. Only time will tell whether the department has the definition right.
I should be grateful if the Minister, in his reply to the debate, would confirm three specific points. First, will he confirm that the school governors will not be prohibited from giving preference in the schools enrolment programme to under-represented minorities in order to achieve what is described by my correspondents as a "balanced enrolment", though the department may not be entirely happy with that term.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the membership of the board of governors will reflect in equal proportion the two main traditions so that the board of governors will have a genuine commitment to the objectives of integrated education? Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that the Government are satisfied that there is no potential overlap or potential conflict between the theory and practice of an integrated school as embedded in the order and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973? I am sure that assurance will be forthcoming, but there is some concern in some quarters. I should be grateful for confirmation of those three specific matters.
The inclusion of education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage in the common curriculum of all schools deserves full praise. The implications of that legislative change could over time be very great indeed. I note the comments of the Ulster teachers, but I urge them to rise to the challenge and look to the future.
Finally, it gives me considerable pleasure to see the place which has been given to the Irish language in the core curriculum. I am happy to acknowledge that on that issue the department listened to the criticism levelled at the omission of the Irish language from the original proposals. That is an immense step forward. It is a pity that there is no reference to the Irish language as such in Article 5(5); one has to read the small print of column 2 of Schedule 1 before one stumbles across the Irish language.
I have had a careful look at the definition of an Irish-speaking school. It is similar to that of a Welsh-speaking school, which was a definition acceptable to your Lordships' House when the Education Reform Bill was before it. However, it would be helpful, for those concerned with the well being of the Irish language if the Minister would explain the significance of the phrase,
"taught wholly or partly in Irish".
I hope that there will be no shortage of suitable teaching material so that the Province can take full
1440
advantage of this important legislative change. I am reliably advised that there is one field where the department needs urgently to look closely at what can be done by way of improving the position. I am told that there is a considerable shortage of in-service training courses for teachers of Irish in primary schools. There is a need for such courses and it would be appreciated if the department would have another look at the position and make a positive proposal.
Other Members of your Lordships' House are anxious to take part in the debate, and I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. Earlier on I should have joined with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in paying tribute to the teachers and to their contribution over the years in the Province. I am far from convinced that the order has done all that it could for the needs of the less able students, children of Northern Ireland. But it introduces a number of legislative changes which we welcome. They will be a challenge to the education and library boards which will still have a continuing role to play in Northern Ireland.
Our hope must be that the order will achieve a dual purpose: greater fulfilment for the individual child, while ensuring that he is well equipped for the task of earning his living in a highly competitive world. With those observations, we are pleased to welcome the order.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I am amazed to find that a document of this size should be a regulation which we cannot amend or, by convention in this House, reject. I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, whether there is any precedent for a document of this kind being presented as a regulation. It is in fact a Bill. There is no question about that. The fact that a great deal of it—though by no means all—is similar to the Education Act passed for England and Wales is no excuse for not having a proper parliamentary debate. It cannot be described as anything other than a Bill.
It is not only in this particular case that one feels it is not possible for Parliament to do its proper job in relation to this important piece of legislation because it comes to us as a regulation. But if it is to be a precedent for the way in which new laws are to be introduced, then it is an extremely important challenge to the rights and responsiblities of Parliament to deal with legislation properly.
As we have understood them in the past, regulations have been relatively minor matters of considerable detail arising out of legislation which has been thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. But this has not. I should be glad, if only for the sake of the record, if the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would comment on this from a constitutional point of view.
That said, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in some respects I wish to welcome this legislation. I am tempted to say that it is not the first time that the legislation proposed for Northern Ireland has been a considerable improvement on similar

1441
legislation for England and Wales. Further, it seems to me that the curriculum requirements are a great deal more acceptable than the curriculum requirements, from my point of view at any rate, in the legislation for England and Wales. It appears to me not only that there has been the introduction into the essential curriculum first studies of the environment and society, secondly creative and expressive studies, and thirdly, language studies. The latter is not related to one language, as it is for England and Wales. But there is also the very interesting Schedule I in which the "contributory"—I think that is the word used—subjects are included.
I thought that when I looked at the 28 contributory subjects this provided what I had always asked for in relation to the English and Welsh legislation. It provided an opportunity for much greater choice and variation according to the interests and needs of the different children being taught. Reading it again, I was not quite sure—and I cannot believe it—that the contributory subjects are not all to be regarded as compulsory. I really cannot believe that under the heading of "Science and Technology", every child is to take science, biology, chemistry, physics, technology and design, craft design and technology, and home economics. If that list is to be compulsory for science and technology subjects, to put it mildly I think that the students will be pretty busy, considering all the other subjects included. The ones listed add up to a total of 28.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that there is an element of flexibility. That is what many of us asked for in relation to the 1988 Act and we did not get it. If it is incorporated in this legislation for the Northern Irish programme, it is a very good idea indeed. I congratulate whomever was responsible for it. Perhaps in due course we on this side of the Irish Channel may be able to benefit from it.
I remember acutely some of the arguments we had for example about the arts side. The list in this order under the general heading of "Creative and Expressive Studies" seems to me a far better approach than the more rigid and limited approach reflected in the Act for England and Wales. To that extent, if my interpretation is right, the position for Northern Ireland will be an improvement.
I also wish to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said about nursery education, particularly in an area where there is a great deal of social disturbance and deprivation. Nursery education is of the greatest importance. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be improved and increased provision for nursery education throughout the Province.
I wish particularly to concentrate on a subject to which the noble Lord also made reference. It seems to me to be of the greatest importance and I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House agrees with that. It is the development of integrated schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, nobody really believes that integrated schools by themselves will cure all the ills of the Province. But it is common sense surely that if boys and girls from early childhood are educated together, there is a much better chance that when they grow up they will not
1442
be at daggers drawn between the two communities in the way that they are to a great extent at present. If children from the age of five—if they start school at five in the Province as well as in England and Wales—have been together as school children from that age that must ease the tensions later on when they grow to adulthood. At present the integration happens at the university stage, but that is surely too late to overcome the built-in antagonism about which we know all too much.
I give a great welcome to the Government's support for integrated schools. However there are one or two important questions. As has already been said, a definition would be welcome. Again, whether that can be incorporated in the legislation, I do not know. We cannot put forward any amendments, so there is nothing we can do about it. However, we can press the Government to make sure that it is clearly understood what the term "integrated schools" really means.
There is then the question of the governors and the balanced representation for governors of integrated schools. Is that a statutory right and not just a general wish? Is there a statutory right for balanced representation of the two communities in integrated schools? Surely this makes sense and is a necessary requirement if integrated schools are to be anything other than a pious hope. Under the conditions of Northern Ireland there will be—we know this is so—a great many people who will not wish to see the development and extension of integrated schools. Those schools will need special support. This is a quite different situation to that pertaining anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must lean over backwards to ensure that there is no way in which the intention behind integrated schooling can be frustrated by the minority or majority of people—I do not know which it is—who will not wish to see this development go ahead.
There is a further difficult question for the Government connected with this matter which is the right of governors to turn down a child who wants to attend a school if that seriously upsets the balance between the two communities within the school. I can see why that is a difficult problem for the Government. I know that under normal circumstances there are two strong arguments against doing what I am now asking the Government to do, which is to give governors the right to turn down a youngster simply because he or she does not belong to the right religious community in order to maintain balanced representation. However, in Northern Ireland we are dealing with an exceptional set of circumstances.
One could say that the right of governors to refuse a child in order to maintain a balanced representation of the youngsters in schools is a form of quota system. I have always been against quotas in normal circumstances. However, the difference is that, if one opposes the idea of quotas in a commercial undertaking, in industry or in a university, one opposes it in an institution of which the primary purpose has nothing to do with equality. The primary purpose is the provision of a university education or the provision of goods or the services that the industry is undertaking. But the primary

1443
purpose of an integrated school is to produce integration. Its purpose is also of course to produce education, but integration is what it has been set up to achieve. It seems to me therefore that it is reasonable to require a quota system where the whole objective of an institution is to secure integration. One therefore must take steps to ensure that that primary purpose is maintained and is not undermined.
I am sure that there will be people in the Province who will attempt, the minute that there is an extension of integrated schools, to stop that development and to seize on any loophole in the legislation to ensure that integration does not occur. As regards the rejection of a youngster because it upsets the balance within the school, that is against a principle that we all support, which is the right of a parent to choose the school his child attends. I would expect the Minister to say that the concept of balance cannot be accepted because it goes against the proper principle of parental choice. However, one must use one's common sense in this matter in the situation of Northern Ireland. Parental choice is important but integrated schools are also very important.
I understand that at the moment, of all the schools in Northern Ireland only 0·8 per cent. are integrated and of all the pupils in schools only 0·7 per cent. are in integrated schools. The interference with the rights of parents to decide where their children attend school when there is such a minute proportion of integrated schools seems in reality to be so slight that it should not be used to block not only the establishment but also the opportunity for development of integrated schools. If integrated schools already constituted 40 per cent. of the schools in Northern Ireland and a parent was told that he could not send his child to the school of his choice as it would seriously upset the balance of the school, I can see that in those circumstances there is a real argument that parental choice is being interfered with. But with such a tiny proportion of integrated schools, it surely could be permitted to build restrictions into the legislation so that the development of these schools cannot be sabotaged. I do not think that the Minister could stand up and say that there is no risk of sabotage of integrated schools. But for those of us who believe that in the longer run the real development on a substantial scale of integrated schooling is probably the best hope we have of long-term peace in the Province, that factor must be balanced against the other desirable and proper objectives. I believe we should come down on the side of doing all that we can on a statutory basis in legislation to make sure that integrated schools can increase in number from the minute proportion that they represent today to a proportion that will make a substantial contribution to the education of boys and girls in Northern Ireland.
6 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in introducing this measure the Minister said that he regarded it as major legislation. I can certainly confirm that. From my experience in Northern Ireland I can say that this
1444
education order is the most important legislation in the education field since the 1947 Act in Northern Ireland. As we know, the 1947 Act followed on from the 1944 Butler Act which was passed here in Westminster. Arising from the introduction of that Act in 1947, some young people in Northern Ireland were able to go to university for the first time. After they had concluded their university education, they considered the conditions which then prevailed in Northern Ireland. It is generally recognised that the beginnings of the civil rights movement dated from that time. Those young people who had received a university education were not prepared to tolerate the conditions under which their parents had lived.
I think it will be understood in this House, given the sad, tragic history of the island of Ireland, and particularly in recent years of Northern Ireland, that people there hold two views on almost every subject under the sun. That is why education is so important. There are two views on the Battle of the Boyne. There are two views on what people here refer to as the glorious and bloodless revolution. It may have been glorious and bloodless in this country but it certainly was not in Ireland where we are living with its consequences. There are two views on the famine. It is only education and the correct teaching and interpretation of history that will go some way to alleviate all the myths and prejudices that prevail in that little island.
The Minister was also correct to say that the introduction of integrated schools is not a panacea for all the problems that beset Northern Ireland. Over many years on both sides of this House I have heard the argument put forward that integrated schools would in some way bring to an end the troubles in Northern Ireland. That is not so. It will help. It is a factor. It will allow young children to sit beside each other in schools and to learn to live with each other, but it will not stop people having deeply held political opinions on religion, on partition and on the whole political situation in Ireland. Those political opinions will remain paramount in the minds of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of integrated schools. That is why it is so important for the Government, in taking a major step in their education policy, to get things right.
Sadly, I do not think they have got things right on this occasion. I do not say that because of anything that is contained in the Bill, as I agree with most of what is in it, particularly in the field of integrated education. I was one of the first to associate myself with Lagan College, with Hazlewood and with the other integrated colleges. As one who is still a Catholic, that was not a popular thing to do then or now. However, I believe that the time has now come in Northern Ireland to try to bring education further along the road of integration. There will be massive difficulties because most of the schools in Northern Ireland, particularly the primary schools, are situated in ghettos. All the Catholic schools are situated in West Belfast and most of the Protestant schools are situated in East Belfast or in some other part of the city. So a young boy or girl may, at the behest of his or her parents, have to traverse hostile territory from home to an integrated school in one or other of the ghettos. That will take a tremendous

1445
amount of courage on the part of the parents and on the part of the child.
If we are to move forward towards integration, schools may have to be built, at considerable cost to the public purse, in areas which are not classified as Republican, Unionist or Nationalist. Young children attending those schools will experience a great amount of distress, at least in the initial stages.
Why do I say that the Government have got it wrong? We have heard the Minister say that this legislation is the culmination of 18 months of discussions that have taken place with authorities and those concerned with education in the North. If it has taken 18 months of discussions with all the interested parties, why was it necessary to rush the legislation through the other place and this Chamber within 24 hours?
This legislation was dealt with in the Commons in the early hours of this morning and it has been rushed into this House within 24 hours. One would think that it was emergency legislation and dealing with life and limb. There have been occasions—such as in the case of the Prevention of Terrorism Act—when legislation has been pushed through because there was an emergency. In that case people were losing their lives. There has been emergency legislation in other fields. But there was no need to push this order through both Houses in one day so that it cannot be amended.
We have not yet had the privilege of reading the Hansard report of the debate which took place at the other end of the building. However, I understand that all the representatives from Northern Ireland voted against the order. Why did they vote against the order? Sixteen elected representatives from Northern Ireland were present when the order was debated. They expressed their point of view. Their time was limited and they did not have all the time that was necessary to voice either their support or their objections to various aspects of the order.
It may appear to people outside the building that they were 16 bigots from Northern Ireland, all with their own axe to grind—the Catholics wanting to keep Catholic schools and to stop integration, and the Protestants wanting to keep Protestant schools. That is not necessarily so. Those representatives at the other end of the building are anything but bigots. Some of them have vast experience in the field of education, having been schoolteachers before they were elected Members of Parliament. They expressed genuine concerns. I have spoken to some of them today and they have told me that they were not given answers. The order has come here and we shall not be given answers either. Some of those concerns have already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I think that the Minister should take this opportunity, if the opportunity was not taken at the other end of the building, to answer some of the questions that have been raised.
There are eight integrated schools already in Northern Ireland. The two principal schools are Lagan College and Hazlewood College. They established criteria for themselves—the ratio would be 60:40. Given the circumstances in Northern Ireland I believe that that ratio is reasonable. Why
1446
not apply that ratio to all the other integrated schools which are supposed to come into being? Nothing is laid down in the order. It says that the school would be regarded as being integrationist if it was likely to attract reasonable numbers. Why not say 60:40, because the other schools have proved to be a success? If they have been a success with that ratio why not apply it to all the other proposed schools?
I understand that great concern was expressed about the question of the governors. Will any limits be placed on the authority of the governors to decide the integrationist culture attached to the school?
The order is not only about integrated schools, although that is the way in which it has been publicised in Northern Ireland. There are many other very laudable objects set out in the order. I should like to see it become a success. However, I believe that it should be given more time at both ends of the building so that elected representatives could express their concerns. If in the expression of those concerns it seemed that those representatives were unreasonable, that they expressed a bigoted point of view and that they were trying to protect their own interests, whether Catholic or Protestant, regarding those schools, that would be on record. Those who were in the House would be able to hear them. Now that there is television at the other end of the building people would be able to see whether or not their concerns were genuine. I believe that the Government have missed a glorious opportunity, because nobody will read about what happened at the other end of the building at half-past one this morning.
I say this to those who are opposed to integrated education that up to now we have not had integrated education to any great extent. Both Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland have produced a great many murderers—some are now serving their time in prison but some have not been caught. I believe that it is time that integrated education was given a chance. From that point of view I welcome the order.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate. However, I believe that it is probably unique that there is an Ulster Catholic on that side of the House and an Ulster Protestant on this side of the House speaking in the same debate. I should like to say categorically that I agree with every word that the noble Lord has said. I endorse his sentiments and the manner in which he expressed them.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Fitt in asking what is the hurry. There might be an emergency but in my recollection the emergency in Northern Ireland has existed since 1969, if not earlier if one considers the historical perspective. The immediate emergency has existed since 1969. I do not believe that this order is an element of that emergency which is of such urgency that it should be rushed through in this way, as my noble friend has said. Education is not a matter of urgency, it is a matter of time. We all know that.

1447
I should like to turn to the general proposition of integration. Clearly it is right that education in Northern Ireland should be integrated rather than segregated. If one opposes integration, one must be in favour of segregation, and that must be wrong.
I speak from my own personal experience. Although I am not a Northern Irishman, I am a South-West Scotsman which in many ways is not very different. Ayrshire, where I come from, is as near to Northern Ireland as a good many parts of Southern Ireland. We in Ayrshire have shared many of the prejudices of the Ulster Scots for many years.
As a youngster of five, six or seven years of age, I went to a school which was next door to the Catholic school. We were segregated by a wall—just like Berlin but it was not so high and one was not shot for trying to get over it. We Presbyterians were on one side of the wall and the Catholics were on the other. My Lords, what do you think we did at playtime? We stoned each other. I have a mark across the bridge of my nose which indicates that the marksmanship of the Catholics was more accurate than I should have liked. Why did we stone each other? We did it because we were segregated. We went home from that little school in Troon to the council estates where we lived next door to each other. We did not stone each other at home. We chased the girls—and sometimes the girls chased us. I fear to say that they did not always catch us. We stoned and abused each other while we were segregated. We did not do it when we were back at home a quarter of a mile way and living next door to each other like ordinary, honest, civilised beings.
Like my noble friend Lord Fitt, I know that the emotional imperatives are much more severe in Northern Ireland than they were in Ayrshire, but we should not forget that about 20 per cent. of the population in Ayrshire were Catholic. They were very well behaved, as indeed we were, but we regarded each other as different because we were segregated. That was part of the education system and was wholly wrong.
Finally, I wish to dissent a little from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not think that his honourable and emotionally decent espousal of the Irish language was wholly sensible. We do not want too many peripheral languages nowadays. As a Scotsman, I might say that I do not think we should encourage Gaelic. It is difficult to spell, quite apart from anything else. I do not think that we should espouse those languages. I recall that, when I was a civil engineer long ago and had dealings with power stations in Southern Ireland, the letter head of the Irish Electricity Board, or whatever it was called, was printed in both Irish and English. So the first page of the letter was so taken up by the letter head that there was only room on it for the words, "Dear Sir", or whatever the Irish is for "Dear Sir", and the letter began on the second page.
Those languages should not be discouraged as elements of a cultural identity, but, as part of the modern world, they should be set slightly to one side. I believe that, with the best of intentions, my noble friend has gone slightly overboard in defence
1448
of archaism and is making a mistake there. However, in general terms, the idea of integration is wholly to be supported and I hope that the House will support it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in general, I welcome the order, but I must immediately say that it should have been taken as a Bill. A long consultation period, as outlined by the Minister in reply to my Starred Question on 25th October and again today, is no substitute for full parliamentary procedure. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that 201 pages of legislation should not be disposed of in five or six hours of affirmative Motion debate. I raised that point again in the Home Affairs debate on 23rd November and suggested various possible remedies for the future.
I am surprised that the order refers throughout to the Department of Education and occasionally to the head of department, but never to the Minister. That seems constitutionally odd. If it is not possible to refer to the Minister, why does not the order empower the Secretary of State, as do most other Bills?
In welcoming the order, I should like to give special mention to Part VI dealing with integrated education. I am glad that Article 64 puts a duty on the Department of Education to develop and facilitate the integration of schools. I well remember visiting Lagan College when it began with a mere 28 children in a hall borrowed from the Scout movement. It has grown massively since then and is now on its own site with some 700 pupils. In October this year I visited the new integrated primary school in Enniskillen and, I am glad to say, found it bubbling with enthusiasm and initiative.
In the last eight years, 10 integrated schools have been established and more are planned. They represent a new phenomenon and have come about because that was what the parents wanted for their children. The parents came from both main religious traditions and have insisted that both traditions be strongly represented not only among the pupils, but also on the staff and governing bodies. There is thus no question of one side being in the majority. As has been mentioned, the ratios aimed at are within the range of 60:40 either way with allowance within those proportions for non-believers and members of non-Christian religions. If the ratio of pupils tilts in one direction, it will probably be counterbalanced by a different proportion within the staff or governors.
That seems to me to be the ideal situation. All traditions are respected and the main strands of Christian heritage are honoured and also studied, not only in religious education, but also in such subjects as history and geography. All the parents co-operate in parent-teacher associations, transport rotas, fund-raising and in many other ways. The life of the school is thus a learning experience for people of all ages.
Integrated education is not a form of social engineering, neither is it a panacea for all evils. However, I believe that it lays the foundations for a much happier and more harmonious future.

1449
I should have liked to see Her Majesty's Government holding up this model to all parents and to those responsible for the existing, largely segregated schools. Such a course would have provided real choice. I should have preferred a closely defined status for integration which would have asserted the principle of parity at all levels. That could have been combined with open enrolment for all other schools. Such moves, taken together with parents' ballots, could first have led existing schools to diversify their intakes and later to reach fully integrated status.
I accept that such an approach may contain its own difficulties and I welcome the safeguards contained in the order against token integration at a low level and against failure to ensure a properly integrated ethos which fully respects Protestantism, Catholicism and other traditions, where present. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to ask for a number of assurances once the order comes into force. Here I find myself going over some of the ground that has already been covered by Front Bench speakers, but I believe that it is no bad thing to reinforce those points, particularly speaking, as I do, from the Cross Benches.
Can the Minister say that future subordinate legislation, guidelines and schemes of management will not dilute the planned nature of integrated education? Will future admissions criteria allow the safeguarding of planned integration? Will the noble Lord confirm that open enrolment will not prejudice planned integration? Will the department and the boards secure balance among the governors of individual schools when making their appointments? Furthermore—and I do not think that this new point was touched on by anyone—will there be full protection for any staff not willing to teach within the new integrated framework? Can we be reassured that transitional periods—when a school changes from one status to another—will not be unduly prolonged?
Finally, will the Government consider producing a non-statutory guide to the development of integrated education? It would be comparable to the guide to employers produced by the Department of Economic Development in connection with the Fair Employment Act. Such a guide should be produced only after further close consultation with the interested parties.
I have mentioned the assurances that are necessary in order to dot the 'i' s and cross the 't' s on this very lengthy order that we are prevented from examining line by line. I look forward to a sympathetic reply.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, the Minister has rightly said that this is a very comprehensive order. I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was going to speak on the subject of integrated education. However, I had not been expecting other noble Lords and the noble Baroness to cover it. Therefore much of what I would have said has already been stated.
First, I should like to give a general welcome to the provisions of the order which cover integrated education. I should like to thank the Minister for his
1450
generous remarks about the 1978 Education (Northern Ireland) Act. On that occasion we may not have won the battle but certainly the war was not lost. The results of educating all children together, which was started a few years before that, are now gradually coming to fruition. For those of us who have been involved from an early stage it is certainly a most gratifying development.
It has been stated more clearly than I can, that the definition of integrated education is important. That may be one area where the order falls short.
The matter of balances in schools was well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Lagan College—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred—has already been aiming for, and has achieved, a proportion of 50:50 or 40:60 pupils. If that could be achieved throughout the integrated schools it would be ideal. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to this point. It should be noted that despite the difficulties due to demographic patterns of achieving a balanced attendance—to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred—a smattering of one tradition among a predominance of the other can be not only unproductive but perhaps counterproductive. I have heard of an instance where a Roman Catholic pupil went to a highly respected, well established school that has always taken pupils of both traditions, but has always had a predominance of Protestants. That young Roman Catholic pupil took the precaution when he went to the school of changing his name from Sean to John. The significance of that will not escape your Lordships. A balance is undoubtedly most important.
Integration does not come about only through educating Protestants and Roman Catholics in the one building. It has to be worked at. It has to evolve. The president of Lagan College said to me, "We could not call ourselves integrated. The proper word would be integrating. It is an ongoing process." All involved should realise that it does not happen overnight.
Having said that, it is most gratifying to see the progress that has been made. I sometimes wish that this progress were more greatly appreciated on this side of the water. I read a press report the other day about an integrated school having been opened in the region of Chelmsford in Essex. A prominent and right reverend person speaking on that occasion said that he felt that this was an example that ought to be followed throughout the country. He then added, "Perhaps in due course even in Northern Ireland.". I wish that that speaker had realised that Lagan College has been established since 1981, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said, has built up from 28 pupils to nearly 600 with a waiting list.
There are now eight or nine integrated schools running in Northern Ireland. One or two more are in the course of being established. That is the progress that we have been making and are continuing to make. I hope that noble Lords will not be slow to propagate the constructive and progressive action that is happening in Northern Ireland. It is something of which we can genuinely be proud. I thank the noble Lord for his introduction of the order.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it gives me no pleasure to detain the House further on this order. However, I would ask those noble Lords who are waiting for the next debate to have patience and tolerance for those people who are interested in the Northern Ireland situation and who have no other opportunity to air those views. It has already been said that it is not an order in the normal sense of the word. It is a fairly massively sized Bill. It is being rushed, steamrollered, through both Houses of Parliaments. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, it went through the other place at half past one in the morning and here it has been sandwiched between other very important subjects in which a number of people are extremely interested. It is not a very satisfying procedure. It gives me no great pleasure to know that I shall incur even further the wrath of my noble friend Lord Houghton who has been patiently waiting all day long to speak on his Bill.
Having said that, I am grateful that most of the previous speakers have said much of what I would have said had I spoken earlier. Perhaps I may curtail my remarks.
I come straight to the point. I, too, am interested in integrated education. Those of us who have listened to some of the speeches may have gained the impression that if one were not interested in integrated education then one was interested in segregation—one supported segregation. Another noble Lord has said that integration is the answer. Nobody would disagree. However, to ask, "Do you agree with integrated education?" is almost like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
There are other propositions. There are reservations. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would agree that there are those on both sides of the divide in the six counties who would disagree with them and for very good reasons. I lean very heavily on the submissions of the Catholic bishops who have expressed concern about the move towards integrated education for a number of practical reasons. I hope that it will not mean that those who are 100 per cent. in favour and those on the so-called sideline will not now run for their book of labels to pin labels on those who are taking the opposing view. I hope that they will listen to the submissions made by bishops of the Catholic community.
Most of us who have been involved with the problems in Northern Ireland for many years have discussed on numerous occasions the question of integrated education. It has been a subject for discussion for 50 years to my knowledge, and perhaps longer. It has been a very popular and very attractive concept that if one could only reconcile the two communities at that level, then one would be on the way. We all want reconciliation between the two communities, the two parts of the island, and the English situation.
However, one cannot approach every problem in Ireland and think that it can be cured by an English approach. That does not work because other situations exist in Northern Ireland which are not envisaged. The bishops have expressed those reservations most adequately. I assume that the
1452
Minister has read their submission so I shall not quote from it at length. But with reservations, it is an acceptable proposition to everyone.
The biggest reservation is that there is no definition of integrated education. Is it intended merely to get together Catholics and Protestants in the same school? It has been said that integration has not yet been achieved at Lurgan. However, they are moving towards that. It is not merely a question of putting the two sides together and saying, "You are integrated, now get on with it". Neither can one impose such a situation on all the schools.
I do not suppose that we can compare the situation with that which exists here. However, were we to do so it would be interesting to note that in my old constituency in London there are Catholic schools, Anglican schools, a Greek school, a Jewish school, single-sex schools, a Japanese school, an American school, and grant-aided, voluntary and state schools. They all exist together within the one community but there are demands for even more. For example, for a number of reasons there is a demand for separate schools for black people. Therefore, the move is not towards integration here. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, it would appear that here there is a move towards more segregation. Taking his point to its logical conclusion, people here are demanding more segregation within the system—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. I am sympathetic towards much of what he has said. However, one of my major points was that because we were segregated we threw stones at each other. I do not believe that that is a good idea.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's explanation. I remind him that I also have long experience of that part of Scotland and therefore his comments are not strange to me. However, I am trying to compare the two situations.
I understand that there are Moslem children in Northern Ireland who are sent here to special Moslem schools. It is not a matter simply of saying, "You and you get together. You are integrated so now get on with it. We will fund you, but if you do not do this you will not receive any funds". Other problems exist which can be overcome. However, we are saying that while we are moving in that direction other issues should be examined.
We know that tremendous steps are being taken by teachers on both Catholic and Protestant sides. In existing schools teachers have made great progress in their efforts to reconcile children within the school, reconcile the system and introduce new teaching material. In my view, that should be funded as an essential step on the way. It is not merely a question of integration or segregation. There is a point in between before we reach the ultimate; there is the area in which we could encourage the reconciliatory moves which the teachers have started. We could ensure that they are essentially funded enabling them to carry on with their work. Then perhaps the result will evolve. As has been said, it is a process of evolution.

1453
The present practical problems are serious. It is not merely an academic matter because there are major implications. The proposals in the order will have major implications for the education budget. The school which becomes integrated will be funded. The school property and so forth will go with it upon integration and more problems will arise. Integration will be carried out by a minority of the parents of existing pupils at the schools. We had the opting-out argument in respect of the English and Welsh legislation. It involves a simple majority not of those who represent all the children at the school but of those who happen to vote in the ballot. A simple majority can take the school out of the Catholic community and into the general community.
In that respect we should recognise another difference which also exists in this country; namely, that in the main Catholics substantially contribute towards and subsidise their education facilities. Many Catholics do not have children at the local school but they pay towards the upkeep of the building and everything that goes with that. It will be said, "If we manage to get a majority of the parents who are there as of now we can take the whole lot out, although others may have paid nothing towards it". The schools have been bought by a Catholic community, more so in Northern Ireland than in London, and is it right, fair and just to lift them out? I assure noble Lords that it will not be seen as justice in some parts of the Catholic community. That should be obvious in the present circumstances.
If a school is taken out, those not in favour of the change will then want to set up an alternative; that is, another Catholic school. They will have to look for a site and for funding but they will come across this kind of opposition. We are setting up such a situation by going down this road. Before doing so there are other roads to go down and we need not rush in headlong to antagonise a large population in such a way.
The bishops welcomed many aspects of the order, including the curriculum, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. They also agreed with parents' choice. But if that means a minority of the parents now involved—it is a transient population—it raises an immediate and practical problem. In a letter to me the bishops stated that they wondered why, for instance, in the Education Reform Act 1988 for England and Wales, Section 89(2) states:
"No proposals shall be published under this section for the purpose of making a significant change in the religious character of such a school unless the trustees of the school (if any) have given their consent in writing to the change in question".
Even that provision is not contained in the order. The existence of the trustees is totally ignored although they are equally important, if not more so, in the Northern Ireland situation. Of course the order makes a significant change. Who would argue that to try to integrate in the way I have described is not a significant change in Northern Ireland? Of course it is, so why have we not applied Section 89(2) of the 1988 England and Wales Act in the same way, thereby giving the trustees a say in the matter? In winding up will the Minister take that point on board?
1454
There is a great deal more to be said but I shall now wind up my speech because we shall have further opportunities to debate the matter—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he respond to the following notion. He and I were brought up in the south-west of Scotland where there is a noticeable problem, although less severe than in Northern Ireland. We were part of a segregated education system until the age of 18. We then went to university where we were not segregated and that did not do us the slightest bit of harm. Therefore, what is the difference? Why would it have mattered if we had been unsegregated before we went to university?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord answered his own question when he said that he agreed that the situation in Scotland was not as bad as that in Northern Ireland. There, there is a different set of circumstances and a different situation. There were instances of non-segregation at primary school level in Scotland. Some children received religious education apart from their lessons in the integrated situation. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is not the same as it was in the West of Scotland. It is much more difficult and complicated. Therefore, the problems are more complex.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to take a few moments to reiterate many of the points which have been made. My thoughts on integrated education were beautifully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Indeed, as he pointed out, as long ago as 1978 he and his colleagues set up the framework for much of this particular stratum of legislation in the order this evening.
Throughout the thread of our discussion, we have consistently referred to integration in the schools. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the Minister would agree that that is a matter for the schools themselves. I believe that the definitions, such as they are, in this order meet the needs of the situation, not just overall in Northern Ireland but in each individual school which might want to take to the integrated path. Northern Ireland is unique and the system of education which we are discussing is unique. It needs to be taken in the Northern Irish context, and in spite of the constraints put upon us by the legislative procedure this evening, I believe that the order brings the benefits which we want for Northern Ireland and, as my noble friend pointed out, this order will carry us on into the next century.
The second matter which I am fascinated by in the order—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, drew our attention to this—is on page 166 at Schedule 2 where there is reference to the Irish language. Schedule 2, col. 4 is entitled:
"Compulsory contributory subjects in key stage 4".
Perhaps my noble friend will indicate whether this is a compulsory contributory subject for Ministers since I am deficient in everything but two words of Irish although I am trying to make some efforts in

1455
French, German and Italian. However, if one looks at the compulsory contributory subjects in Northern Ireland, then that shows that the standard of education in Northern Ireland covered by the order this evening is unique and praiseworthy.
I also ask my noble friend to write to me on the reason for physical education being classified as "creative and expressive studies", since my physical education was neither of those. He might help me on that matter.
Thirdly, can my noble friend at a later stage give me—and your Lordships—the comparable figures between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the fact that 25 per cent. of school leavers aged 19 leave the two traditional schools in Northern Ireland without qualifications. Can the Minister at some stage let me know what are the comparable figures for Great Britain—that is, England, Scotland and Wales? With that, I wholeheartedly support the order and wish it well.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I should like to make one very brief point which is additional to those which have been so very ably put forward this evening, and I promise to be brief. We have been reminded that integrated education in Northern Ireland is a delicate and fragile matter. I welcome the sympathy which the Government and the Minister have shown towards this subject, and for making available additional resources in Northern Ireland for that purpose. They are not enough and we should ask for more; but they have certainly made available some additional resources.
Yet, as the Minister knows, there are still grave worries on the part of the Northern Ireland council and the Belfast Charitable Trust about the proposals within this order. I do not wish to become involved in the argument as to whether they are right or wrong because we cannot amend them and time alone will tell whether or not they are right.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that the request made by the Northern Ireland council is eminently reasonable, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to it. I refer to the request by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education that a working party should be established to monitor the effects of open enrolment on integrated schools, and that the Minister should be willing to give an undertaking that he will introduce amending legislation if there is found to be, in practice, a detrimental effect on planned integrated schools. I am sure the Minister shares in the intention underlying this matter. I very much welcome the consultation which has taken place and his assurance that that will continue. Will he go that inch further and assure the bodies concerned with integrated education in Northern Ireland that he will enter into a consultative arrangement of that sort with them for the future?
7 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for their
1456
contribution to this important debate. First, I took very much to heart the words of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about consultation (which I repeat has been both genuine and extensive) being no substitute for using the Bill procedure for a composite order, as is the one before us. This is not the first time that that problem has been aired in this House.
However, I can only repeat that we all know where the answer really lies. What we are carrying out here in this Parliament in Westminster is an interim project to maintain the statute book for Northern Ireland where it rightly belongs. In order to do that, given the constraints of parliamentary time—and I should say to an extent parliamentary interest—it is necessary to use this rather unconventional legislative method of Order in Council which for Northern Ireland has the distinction of being primary legislation.
My right honourable friend to whom I have put the problem has said on many occasions that he is ready and willing at any time to talk to those people most directly concerned in this—namely, the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland—about their concerns on the procedures for handling legislation and to consider any constructive proposals. That offer has not yet been taken up but perhaps those of your Lordships who have voiced concern will now encourage them, wherever able to do so, to take up that offer because I repeat that there is a problem. We do not as yet have an agreed solution, which we should love to have.
I now turn to the order itself. It would seem from the speeches which I have heard this evening that in the minds of some noble Lords there seems to remain some doubt, to put it mildly, about aspects of the integrated education provisions of the order. As I supposed in my opening speech, we all agree that integrated education, in the words of 1066 and All That is a good thing. It is right that these provisions should receive our special attention because I believe that they will have a significant influence on how Northern Ireland shapes its future. Therefore, I shall deal first with those provisions and in the course of my remarks I shall seek to address the main concerns which noble Lords have raised.
First, there is the central question of whether the legislation should seek to restrict integrated status to schools which have achieved a balance between Protestant and Catholic pupils in their enrolments. The Government understand and fully accept that enrolments balanced in that way offer ideal opportunities for encouraging equal respect and esteem for both traditions—a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, clearly holds dear. I can assure noble Lords that we shall expect schools seeking integrated status to strive to achieve a balance where it is feasible to do so within the framework of constitutional constraints. However, it is quite a different proposition to seek to legislate for a balanced enrolment, which is what the noble Lord and, if I may be allowed to call him this, his surprise supporter the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford would ask us to do. What though in my turn I would ask them is: What about those

1457
geographical areas in the Province where there is not the average 60:40 split; for example, west of Strabane? Are they to be deprived of the opportunity, if they so want it, of integrated education? I believe not. Nonetheless, I wish to stress the central considerations for government in this area.
The first is that the new legislation must not undermine the guarantee provided by existing education law that every grant aided school in Northern Ireland shall be open to pupils of all religious denominations. In particular we have sought to avoid provisions in law which could in effect require schools to engage in discriminatory admissions practices. Those practices in Northern Ireland, as anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would of course be illegal.
Secondly, there are wider considerations of policy to be taken into account. I am sure that your Lordships in supporting integrated education would share the Government's fundamental objective that the aspirations of as many parents as possible for integrated schools for their children should be met. That is the whole object of the exercise. The reality which must be faced in Northern Ireland is that there are very few schools indeed which could hope to achieve and maintain balanced enrolments, and I fear that to introduce such a restrictive statutory requirement would deny the vast majority of schools any real prospect of integrated status.
It is with these main considerations in mind that we have chosen to express the enrolment in the much more flexible term of reasonable numbers. But such flexibility, as has been alleged in certain quarters, does not connote imprecision or weakness. The future of integrated education and its standing and credibility in the community will not be helped by allowing a dilution of the character of integrated schools.
In approving applications for integrated status the Department of Education will apply strict criteria about the management, ethos and control of the school and will wish to be assured that it has a real prospect of being attended by reasonable numbers of children from both communities. I reiterate the categorical assurance that every decision about the acquisition of integrated status by a school will be taken most carefully, with the broader interests of the successful development of integrated education to the fore.
Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it is an essential feature of Government's policy that every child should be enabled to benefit from education up to the limits of his or her potential. In so far as there is evidence of particular limitations in provision for any class of school—any sector or any area—that must always be a matter for concern. Indeed it was in part a concern of this nature that led the department, in consultation with the Roman Catholic Church, to make provision for the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools which I remarked on earlier. But for the future the provisions of this order should themselves provide the best possible guarantee of equality of opportunity for all children in all schools.
The order lays on all concerned a positive duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum
1458
throughout all the years of compulsory education. That curriculum is carefully defined and its provision in every school can be carefully monitored. Thus any deficiencies in any school or class of school should be readily identifiable and will have to be remedied. It is important that the formulation of schemes for the funding of schools, and the delegation of financial decisions to boards of governors, take account of the particular needs of individual schools. The House will be aware of the problems facing many schools in areas of major social deprivation. This must be reflected in the support provided, and it will be.
The claim has been made that the prospect of 100 per cent. capital funding for integrated schools—a matter not exactly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but it was certainly in the background paper on which he based many of his remarks—will discriminate against Catholic schools because they receive only 85 per cent. capital grants. However, these allegations, I believe, miss the central point that Catholic schools are voluntary schools. As with other types of voluntary school—and this includes Protestant schools—their trustees enjoy the right to appoint an overall majority of the school's governors. The 85 per cent. capital grant rate, which is the same as that payable to voluntary aided schools in England and Wales, recognises the degree of control which trustees retain in the governance of their schools.
In contrast, integrated schools will not be voluntary schools. They will either be controlled integrated schools managed by the education and library boards or grant-maintained integrated schools set up and managed as corporate bodies in their own right. Neither form of integrated school will have an overall majority for any one interest on its board of governors. I reiterate the Government's assurance that they will consider at any time representations that changes should be made to the constitution of boards of governors and the existing grant rate for Catholic schools.
I was interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of a guide to integrated education and also in the suggestion of another noble Lord—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, himself—of future discussions with interested parties as we come to introduce this order. I shall put both those points to my honourable friend in another place. I myself think that it is absolutely axiomatic that further discussions will be required as this order is brought into effect.
The House will also have noticed that the balloting procedures themselves are based on the same principles as the corresponding provision of the Education Reform Act. These include provision for a second ballot to be held if fewer than half the parents who are eligible to vote participate in the first ballot.
The House will further note that provision also appears on the draft order requiring that, in the event of a voluntary school becoming integrated, the Department of Education will consult with the trustees about the possible transfer of property. Again, I give the assurance that if there are good reasons why a property should not transfer, the

1459
department will exercise its statutory power to direct that the trustees should continue to hold it.
Specific representations have also been made that the schemes of management for integrated schools and their admissions criteria should be able to include provisions designed to safeguard the integrated nature of these schools. On these points I can tell your Lordships that the Department of Education will indeed be prepared to consider for approval reasonable provisions proposed for inclusion in the scheme of management of an integrated school which are designed to help secure the ethos of the school so long—and this is an important point—as these are consistent with other provisions of the law.
As for admissions criteria, I can confirm that it will be a matter for the governors of each school to draw up the criteria to be applied in selecting pupils for admission to a school, subject again to the necessary proviso that they should not be unlawful. Let me re-emphasise that the Government believe parents should have the right to choose. It would be wrong for the Government to impose integration which would deny other parents their choice. Equally it would be wrong if the Government failed to secure equality of access to integrated education, alongside the options already available for other types of school. The Government are satisfied that this has been achieved in the present order.
Strategic plans for further education are of course a very important point. The order requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will have realised, that education and library boards draw up strategic plans for further education in their areas, but these plans will not be subject to approval by the Department of Education. Boards have a statutory responsibility for securing adequate facilities for further education for their areas, and we are content that they are in the best position to plan such provision, taking account of the particular needs of their areas. I know that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary will continue to fight for money for the Department of Education, as he has so successfully done in, I think, the last four years of his appointment.
So far as nursery education is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others will wish to know that, despite a smaller number of nursery places in Northern Ireland, the overall number of three and four year-olds getting an early start to their education is on a par with England and Wales, which I understand is around 45 per cent. of children of that age. Moreover, the importance that the Government attach to nursery education is seen in the recent release of three new nursery school building projects in Belfast. It will also be important that children in this group receive an education appropriate to their needs and maturity, and do not embark prematurely on formal programmes of study. The Department of Education will be offering advice to schools on the provision to be made. However, the Government have no intention at this time to bring forward legislation relating to nursery education.
Irish speaking has figured in this debate, and it is right that it should. The definition in the draft
1460
order provides the necessary flexibility to cover the situation where, for example, pupils enrolling for the first time at an Irish medium school may initially have insufficient knowledge of the Irish language to enable all instruction to be conducted through that medium. The earlier reference to part of a school therefore covers the situation where only some pupils of a school are taught in the medium of Irish. An example of this is the Irish-speaking unit at Steelstown Primary School in Londonderry. In-service training for teachers of Irish will certainly be provided where the need is established. I note and welcome also the noble Lord's support for education for mutual understanding. I too am confident that all teachers will indeed rise to this important challenge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right, I would suggest, in saying that all the contributory subjects are not compulsory. She is also right that the areas of study concept, if I may call them that, give an element of added flexibility to the curriculum, especially in the last two years of secondary school; that is, pupils in the fourth and fifth forms.
So far as physical education creating a whole person is concerned, I can tell the House that my noble friend Lord Lyell—who I can now reveal to the House is a fitness addict, to say the least—has come to no harm in his skiing activities for your Lordships' House as a result of physical education, I am sure, at school.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I just say to my noble friend that I am no stranger to the orthopaedic ward. All four limbs have been repaired during my career in your Lordships' skiing team.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for my noble friend's clarification on this matter. Be that as it may, I have noted that it has not stopped him from skiing.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spoke eloquently about the need for much greater understanding and appreciation of elements of the common history of Ireland. However, I think we can take that point as read, as the noble Lord is not here.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked, among many other things, about staff so far as newly integrated schools are concerned.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way for a second, may I say that it was the staff of existing schools that I am more concerned with.
Lord Skelmersdale: I understood from the noble Lord's remarks that it was staff at schools which changed their status, and therefore that for one reason or another they may not fit into the new regime. It was that point that I was intending to answer. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation recognises that staff employed by education and library boards or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools who are unwilling to transfer may indeed be redeployed. The legislation does not rule out entitlement to compensation in other cases, although, like I am sure the noble Lord, I would hope that this is kept to the absolute minimum

1461
because I believe that teachers are a valuable commodity, as I said earlier. Therefore, it should be possible to redeploy them on most occasions.
I do not think that it would be terribly helpful to go back to what I was saying about the comparisons between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in terms of school-leavers. But what I shall do is to consider the point further and, if I may, write to my noble friend Lord Lyell.
I believe that this has been an extremely good debate. It has brought out, and I hope that I have answered, most of the concerns that have been evidenced in recent weeks in Northern Ireland. I referred at the beginning of the debate to the relative strength of the education service in Northern Ireland. Our aim is to preserve all that is best in that service and to build on it for the benefit of all. This order will ensure equality of access for all pupils to a curriculum containing what I know your Lordships will agree are the essentials of a proper, rounded education.
In that connection I am sure than my honourable friend will be absolutely thrilled by the comfort that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave to him in commending a rather different form of curriculum from that which is about to pertain in Great Britain. An education is for the whole of life—this is a point that came out strongly from several noble Lords' speeches. It is an education which in its structures needs to be responsive not only to the need of pupils but to the wishes of parents and which will play its part in fostering community cohesion and peace in Northern Ireland. That is something devoutly to be wished. If this order does nothing else—and I think that it will do a great deal else—I hope that it will be a small step in that desirable direction. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In view of the time at which we begin this possibly somewhat lengthy debate, I must keep my own speech strictly within practical limits. I hope however that I may be permitted one personal recollection. It is 37 years since I sponsored the first abortion law reform Bill in the House of Commons. I have lived through it all. On that occasion, although the ill luck of the ballot brought us abysmally low on the list of preference, three Catholic Members of Parliament put down the same Motion to that Bill as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has put down to this one. However, we had two minutes—two minutes!—and that was the end of that. It took 15 years of balloting in this absurd Private Member's Bill procedure in the Commons to get further debates on abortion.
There is nothing new in this Bill. It is the same Bill that I introduced last May, soon after the report of the Select Committee of this House on this subject. My Bill then—and my Bill now—was designed to
1462
implement the unanimous recommendations of your Lordships' own Select Committee, composed of all parties under the skilful and wise chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It was a unanimous report. Fancy, my Lords, an all-party Select Committee of this House reached a unanimous report. Its unanimous recommendations are in this Bill tonight. No more, and no less.
We debated that report on the 25th March last year. A number of noble Lords who are down to speak tonight spoke then. Ten noble Lords on the list to speak tonight also spoke on the 25th March 1988. Therefore, some speeches will probably be predictable, my own included. This always makes for dullness of debate, because we know exactly what people are going to say. But we have to go on saying it, because our absurd rules of procedure often bring debates to a futile conclusion, and we have to begin all over again each time.
It is customary to treat a report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House with due respect, because it represents the combined wisdom of different viewpoints in the House brought together in the hope of arriving at a consensus.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No, my Lord, I shall not give way. This inquiry had taken well over a year to reach conclusions so that well over a year's hard work and debate and taking of evidence lies behind the Bill that the House is discussing tonight. Noble Lords should hesitate before casting it into outer darkness.
What is wrong with it? Is it the content of the Bill or its timing? I think we should examine these matters for a moment. The content of the Bill can be briefly summarised by saying that we recommended that up to the end of the 24th week the existing conditions and criteria in the 1967 Act should continue to apply, while after the 24th week stiffer conditions and sterner tests should be applied. Whatever limits are fixed there have to be exceptions. There are bound to be exceptions and we must try to define what they should be and how they should be applied.
Under this Bill the tests for abortions after the end of the 24th week would be stiffer than they are at the present time. There was a time during the debate on 25th March 1988 when the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, suggested that something like 24 weeks might be the basis for a consensus and that if the Government were to introduce a Bill with provision for a gestational limit of about 24 weeks, it might go through both Houses of Parliament. That is what we have been searching for all these years; to try to get some kind of consenus upon which both Houses could unite to bring forward a law which would be generally accepted throughout the land.
Very recently an important document has come into our hands published in the Lancet of 2nd December. There we get an up-to-date account of the opinion of the gynaecologists who are handling abortion cases all the time. This report is open to

1463
us all and I believe that copies have been widely circulated. Incidentally, the result of the survey was that, on the whole, the existing Act was believed to be working satisfactorily. Seventy-six per cent. of the consultants thought that the existing law was working satisfactorily on the whole and only 23 per cent. took a different view.
As regards the time limits, a sample opinion on several questions was taken of about 300 consultants. One of them dealt with 24 weeks and other gestational limits. Behind the 24 weeks, with exceptions, were 75 per cent. of the consultants. Only 3 per cent. were in favour of 18 weeks, which was the gestational limit included in the Alton Bill and which was largely canvassed as a basis upon which the abortion law could be changed. Eighty-seven per cent. of the gynaecologists thought that their royal college was right to oppose the Alton Bill last year.
Limits even higher than 18 weeks were still opposed and are today. Only 13 per cent. favoured changing the legal limit to between 20 and 23 weeks. Only 4 per cent. favoured going below 19 weeks. A period of 24 weeks was strongly supported by 64 per cent. of those who were consulted. Incidentally, when the consultants were asked whether they favoured the women's campaign for the right to choose, there were some quite astonishing results. Seventy-three per cent. of the gynaecologists said that women should be allowed, after consulting their doctor, to choose whether to have an abortion; 21 per cent. said that they should not.
The general public census taken in 1987 showed that, of men, 73 per cent. thought that women should have the right to choose and, of women, 84 per cent. thought that they should have that right. Those who said that they should not have the right to choose were 13 per cent. of the men polled and 8 per cent. of the women.
In the face of the opinion of the consultants who are daily dealing with this grievous problem of abortion, it ill becomes us to set ourselves up as better judges of what is right and proper and to think of gestational limits which are far below what the profession believes are appropriate. The general practitioners have said 24 weeks. The Government have said that they are behind the period of 24 weeks. Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Baroness whether that is still their position, because it was certainly so concerning the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill 1986. I do not see how we can possibly differ from the unanimous conclusions of our own Select Committee on this question.
If it is not a question of content, is the problem the timing? In view of the misrepresentation which is rife in the press, especially the Catholic press, I must make it absolutely plain that this Bill does not intend to block anything, stop anything or interfere with anybody. The Bill has its own merits and it derives directly from the Select Committee's report. It is entitled to a place in the debates in this House quite apart from anything else that may be happening, unless the two issues are likely to clash. Even then, there is nothing in the rules of your
1464
Lordships' House to prevent a Private Member's Bill making progress alongside another Bill which may be dealing with a similar question.
I have read some extracts from the press this morning. I read in the Guardian:
"Mr. Keith Davies, campaign co-ordinator of the Life, the national pro-Life organisation, yesterday described Lord Houghton's bill as the most monstrous proposal that has been put before Parliament since the Abortion Act itself. It was tabled to prevent a pro-Life amendment being added to the Government's embryo bill, he said".
That is absolutely shocking. I look at another press cutting; namely, the Scotsman, which states:
"Labour peer may block abortion bill".
I have another which begins:
"Peer's Bill could torpedo abortion debate",
and another:
"Peer's Bill threatens abortion amendments".
This Bill does nothing of the sort. I gave notice to introduce my Bill before the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill appeared in the Queen's Speech. I wrote to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, the day before the Queen's Speech telling him of my intention to introduce the Bill and then to see how matters went before asking for a Second Reading or progress to be made on the Bill. Neither of us knew at that moment—at least I assume that neither of us knew; I did not—that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill would be included in the Queen's Speech, though everyone thought so.
I had written to the Leader of the House asking him whether it was likely that the rumours gaining ground in the country were true that the Bill to be dealt with first in the House of Lords would have a Long Title wide enough to provide for amendments to the Abortion Act 1967. I received no reply from him. One cannot say something about these matters until the Queen has spoken, although we know that all kinds of things go on behind the scenes, whether or not the Queen has spoken. No one spoke to me and I can scarcely complain about it.
I suggested to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in a kindly and friendly way, that I hoped that he would not lend himself and his reputation to the maneouvre of trying to hijack the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on behalf of abortion. But he did not reply to that letter either. It is difficult to be reasonable when dealing with some people who have a different viewpoint from one's own. I try to be honest, straight and open, but not when dealing with some people on abortion. One cannot find out anything. There is a blanket of silence.
In my speech on the loyal Address I asked the noble Duke to come out and say what his plans were. I said the same thing at the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The noble Duke kept his seat and said not a word about what he intended to do. He knew that my Bill was down to have its Second Reading, and so the day before this debate a Motion was tabled to delay the Second Reading for six months.
What are we to gain by setting this Bill aside? We are all enmeshed in the rusty framework of our parliamentary procedures on Private Members'

1465
Bills. It has been a disgrace and a scandal for the whole of the 21-year history of abortion. Governments refuse to touch some matters. They say that they are suitable for the initiatives of Private Members. But when Private Members launch initiatives they cannot, because of the facilities for obstructing and delaying Private Members' Bills get the time to see their work completed. Private Members have no Whips and they cannot enforce closure. They are at the mercy of obstruction. Everyone has suffered from it. But it still goes on.
I would quite understand if the noble Duke were saying that this Bill is a small moonbeam in the larger lunacy of our legislative practices and rules. I would agree with him. The Labour Government of 1966 were the first and only government to give time to the subject of abortion in order to allow David Steel's Bill to become law. No government since have done it. The rules are rigid and unvariable. So we have a device—I call it a contrivance—born of connivance to use the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as a vehicle for getting abortion amendments into a Government Bill. Those amendments will ride on the back of that Bill into the House of Commons and by that subterfuge abortion law may be changed where the Government refuse to adopt any alternative method of achieving it. That is disgraceful.
The Government must care so little for the business of this House and for the harmony of our proceedings that they seem to be willing to facilitate this use of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill for abortion amendments. In those circumstances I can quite understand the noble Duke, The Duke of Norfolk, thinking, "Why bother with Houghton's Bill? He will not get any time in the House of Commons. We shall be backing a loser. It will be stopped at the boundaries. But if we can get inside the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, we shall be well away. That horse will run. It will jump over the boundaries. It will have to have government time, and that is how we can achieve our purpose". But we shall still be here when that Bill comes from the House of Commons after being impregnated possibly with revolutionary changes. I shall not say what we may have to do with it when it comes here, but it is certainly something that we shall have to consider.
I hope that the present Bill can make progress. Your Lordships cannot turn down for purely strategic and procedural advantage—if there is any; I do not believe that there is—the recommendations of your Select Committee. Let this Bill go forward. Let it make progress. If there is anything in it that we do not like, it can be amended. At least we shall then get our debates on abortion in a separate channel and not disrupt and disharmonise all the proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
7.36 p.m.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Bill amends the Abortion Act 1967 and appears to reduce the time limit for abortion to 24 weeks from the present 28 weeks. That is a total delusion. Clause 1(2A)(a) specifies that if two medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman, an abortion may be carried out at any time up to the full term of the pregnancy; that is to say, an abortion can take place up to birth. This is reinforced by the provision in Clause 2 that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 will not apply to abortions under this Bill. It will be recalled that the Act made it a crime to kill a child capable of being born alive; and the continuation of pregnancy for 28 weeks was a prima facie proof that the child was capable of being born alive.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to the Brightman Committee. I attended its meetings once or twice in the Moses Room. The committee was not representative of this House. Many of its members were pro-abortion. They are good people and I do not say a word of criticism about them. But the committee did not contain anyone on my side of the argument. That is a fact. For the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to claim that the Brightman Committee was representative of the considered opinions of the House is rubbish.
We need amendments to the Abortion Act 1967. But this Bill goes in the wrong direction and so is not worth treating as a basis that could itself be amended. The Bill is a calamity. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Gran tchester): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been moved,
To leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
Therefore the Question I now have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not accept the amendment moved by the noble Duke. We have been discussing the question of abortion and revision of the abortion legislation for a very long time. Moreover, last year with the Alton Bill a great deal of parliamentary time was given to the issue and a great deal of discussion took place on the matter throughout the country.
I can accept that perhaps this Bill as presented by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton is not the absolute, ideal Bill with every word as one would wish. However, the main substance of the Bill is the proposal for a reduction in the period of time permissible before an abortion takes place to 24

1467
weeks. I see that the noble Duke is shaking his head, but I shall return to the matter later.
Speaking as someone who very much supported both the David Steel Bill and the determination expressed last year to defeat the Alton Bill, I must say that of course I do not like abortion any more than the noble Duke. Indeed, in a perfect world there would be no abortion. It is something we would wish to avoid wherever we can. But it has always been plain to me that the alternative of no abortion is totally unacceptable. Any of us who have had experience in such matters—and I suppose many noble Baronesses in this House have had personal contact with people who have been faced with these problems—will know how hideous are the alternatives. We say that we do not wish to go back to the days of knitting needles, and I shall not progress along those lines. However, I want to make the point that we are not defending the idea that abortion is a desirable practice; we are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. I submit that in most moral questions the choice is all too often that of the lesser of two evils. When you are certain which the lesser is, I contend that the moral obligation is to back that decision even though you know that it is very far from the perfect solution.
We have argued this issue for far too long. The evidence now is that it is sensible to reduce the period to 24 weeks. The medical profession tells us quite plainly that it is desirable to recognise the fact that changes in medical practice make 24 weeks far more suitable than 28 weeks. Therefore, those of us who regretfully support the need to have legal abortion back the idea of 24 weeks. It is highly desirable that we should clear up this issue of what is legal in terms of abortion and what is the right period of time to take into consideration.
The noble Duke said that the other provisions in the Bill give permission for abortion over a much longer period. I understand that these are the recommendations of the Brightman Committee. However, as the noble and learned Lord is to speak in the debate I am sure that he will either confirm or qualify that statement. If there are inadequacies in the other clauses, we shall have the chance to amend them in Committee. Moreover, when we have heard today's debate we shall know whether it is necessary to do so.
The central feature of the Bill is the reduction of the period to 24 weeks. Surely the desirable aim now is to obtain this adjustment about which we have been talking for so long. If we do not do so now, the issue will arise again and again; it will not go away. We have a reasonable proposition here, overwhelmingly supported by the best medical evidence that can be produced. I do not think that there is so much difference between us on the moral issue. However, on the physical issue it is clear that 24 weeks is strongly backed. Surely it is a reasonable compromise in the present circumstances. However, it may well be that the situation will change in the future.
Of course it would be desirable to have a government Bill. It would clear up the whole issue. I agree that the situation is unsatisfactory: we have
1468
the 1929 Act and the 1967 Act and we must amend both. What we really need is a new piece of legislation. However, we are not going to get it. In the circumstances, therefore, this is the best compromise we can achieve—to reduce the term to 24 weeks.
I shall say very little about the relationship between this Bill and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. However, the fact of the matter is that we all know that there is a possibility of amendment to that legislation. I beg noble Lords not to be tempted to go along that line. The embryo issue is of the greatest importance. Indeed, we have all read accounts about families who suffer great hardship and who experience great anguish because of children born with congenital illnesses which cannot be cured in the present state of medicine. Surely, again, this is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Is it not better that by means of scientific research we should find ways by which the number of those children so born can be reduced and that hideous suffering extinguished?
Therefore, let us debate the embryo legislation in its own right and on its own merits. Let us not confuse the matter with what will inevitably be an extremely emotional debate on the subject of abortion. There is only the slenderest link between the two subjects. We need to keep them separate. This Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, gives us the opportunity to separate the two issues. I beg your Lordships to reject the amendment.
7.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I think that I am slightly relieved that I do not have to stand to support the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. However, integrity demands that I say that I wish to support the Bill for four reasons. First, it separates the physical and legal issues relating to abortion from those relating to the more complex issues of human fertilisation and embryology. While from certain viewpoints there may be attractions in such a linkage, I can see no overriding justification for it. On the contrary, I support the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it cannot be in the interests of clarity to consider two different kinds of entity in one piece of legislation.
Secondly, I wish to support the Bill because it signals to the community our concern about the present legislation relating to abortion. I share with many others the widespread concern about the current 28-week limit and see the provisions of this Bill as representing an improvement in the existing law. While admitting some exceptions in very exceptional circumstances to the proposed 24-week limit, the Bill closes the gap which enabled so many abortions to be performed legally but on grounds which seemed to many critics, myself included, to be too slight.
There is a widespread desire in the Church for stricter controls on so-called "social" abortions. I believe that there is ground for some hope in this direction within the Bill. However, there is one caveat that I wish to register. It concerns the possible

1469
exceptions to the proposed 24-week limit. Of course I know that we are talking about a relatively small proportion of all abortions, but I wish to stress that, when the Bill reaches the Committee stage, the Church will look for some assurance that the wording of the legislation will ensure that there is no general licence to perform abortions after the 24th week. The drafting details are for lawyers, not for bishops, but the point, I am sure, is clear.
Thirdly, the Bill takes into account the advances in neo-natal and post-natal care for which we are all profoundly grateful. The proposed reduction of the limit to 24 weeks is a recognition of the fact that modern advances in this field have meant that many babies of less than 28 weeks' gestation can now be saved and some late abortions would therefore involve the destruction of a fetus which normally might well survive.
It is that consideration which I am sure leads the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to favour a period of 24 weeks. Because of the continuing advances in neo-natology the legal limits must be kept under constant review. I long for the day when the limit can be further reduced, but in the meantime I see the Bill as a step in the right direction.
Fourthly and finally, the Bill recognises that which we all acknowledge: that we live in a society wrestling with ethical ambiguities. Such recognition is mirrored within the Churches and it comes as no surprise to realise that there is no one explicit Christian view on the subject. The Churches contain people who argue from informed and concerned positions and yet who nonetheless arrive at different conclusions. In such circumstances of complexity and ambiguity the Bill realistically steers a moderate course. That will disappoint or offend a great many people who espouse for one reason or another a more extreme position.
The Church of England, through its Board for Social Responsibility, has been arguing for the 24-week limit for a number of years. Members of your Lordships' House may recall the attempts made a few years ago by the former Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, who sat on the Steps of the Throne a little earlier this evening, to steer through an amendment Bill arguing for just that position.
There is a widespread view that the present law creates an impression that abortion is a slight matter. It is not. Each abortion is a personal tragedy. Despite difference of opinion as to how we should proceed, the Churches are united in their view that abortion represents a major moral dilemma and the prevalence and apparent ease of obtaining abortions in our society suggest a widespread view of the value and distinctiveness of human life that is extremely worrying and distressing. Yet to withhold compassion, particularly in circumstances of extreme distress or need, is also unacceptable. The pain presented by such a dilemma is deeply felt by all caring people.
It is my hope that the Bill will help us to act a little more responsibly in a situation of considerable complexity.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I approach this debate with the conviction that the Abortion Act 1967 is flawed, out of date and needs reconsideration and amendment. The problem is how that is to be achieved. That the Act is flawed is explained in the report of the Select Committee which I had the honour to chair in 1987 and 1988.
First, the Act is flawed because it does not contain any provision which in terms defines the period of pregnancy within which an abortion can lawfully be carried out. There is merely a conventional 28 weeks based on a cryptic and almost unintelligible reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which was not an abortion Act and has no application in Scotland. Unless abortion is to be free of time restrictions, an abortion Act ought to specify the period within which abortion can lawfully be carried out.
Secondly, the Act is out of touch with current thinking because, assuming that the 28-week convention is a correct interpretation of the Act, 28 weeks is too late as a maximum gestational period for most abortions. In my opinion, the maximum age should in most cases be 24 weeks. Some of your Lordships may think that it should be even lower. I have no intention of arguing that point now.
Thirdly, the Act is flawed because it was passed without any debate in either House as to the time limit, if any, within which an abortion should be allowed. Surely, whether or not a time limit ought to be imposed, it should at least be discussed.
Fourthly, the Act is flawed because, assuming that the 28-week convention is correct, the Act ought at least to say how such a 28-week period is to be determined. The calculation of gestational age is not an exact science. In the later stages of pregnancy it is impossible to measure the period of pregnancy with a greater degree of accuracy than a spread of about three weeks, even with the benefit of ultrasound scanning.
Fifthly, the Act is flawed because the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, and therefore the convention of a maximum gestational period of 28 weeks, does not apply to Scotland. It is nothing short of ludicrous that a doctor performing an operation south of the Border after the 28th week of pregnancy may be guilty of a crime under the 1929 Act and be sentenced to imprisonment for life while the same doctor, performing the identical operation on the same woman north of the Border, is guilty of no crime at all.
The Bill addresses those five problems and therefore opens the way for debate. However, I understand that the Bill has little chance of reaching the statute book because, being a controversial measure, it is almost certain to run out of time in the other place.
What are the alternatives, given that the 1967 Act cries out for amendment? I should be greatly worried if noble Lords sought to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in this House by adding in Committee clauses which amend the Abortion Act. The embryology Bill—as I shall refer to it—was described by the noble and learned Lord

1471
the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading as a Bill which encompasses a complex issue involving a whole spectrum of medical, scientific, ethical and moral issues.
The noble and learned Lord then stated that the Bill had two main purposes: to regulate infertility treatments and to deal with the embryo research question. I cannot feel that it would be wise to add to that complexity by introducing at the Committee stage in this House a totally different issue which has nothing whatever to do with infertility treatments or embryo research—namely, the time limit within which abortions could be allowed. Human fertilisation and embryology have been dealt with by the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She reported in 1984, and her report is the source book for that subject matter. The source book for abortion is the report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill which reported in 1988. That report contains 58 paragraphs of text and tables and 315 pages of evidence.
It does not seem to me sensible to add all that additional material to the burden which will be placed on those of your Lordships who will be dealing with the embryology Bill. I hope therefore that this House can be left to deal with the embryology Bill at the Committee stage, without the intrusion of clauses dealing with abortion.
It may be that when the embryology Bill reaches the other place, Members there will amend it by adding clauses to deal with the law of abortion. That of course is a matter entirely for them. It might have great advantages because abortion could then be debated in Government time. Should such amendments be introduced, it seems to me that it would be helpful and it would save a lot of time—it certainly cannot be unhelpful—if the material available to the other place included a full debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the form which a well thought out abortion amendment Bill might take. This would be a valuable contribution which we could make to the work of the other place, if Members there decide—as I understand they can do—to amend the embryology Bill by introducing clauses on abortion.
If that were done, then when the embryology Bill comes back to your Lordships' House with most of the work on infertility treatment and embryo research completed, it would not be such a burdensome task to your Lordships to consider in addition at that stage to the law of abortion.
In other words, my suggestion is that we first consider infertility and embryology on their own and send that Bill back to the Commons thoroughly vetted and polished. We then consider abortion on its own, via the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. If the other place thinks fit to add abortion to the embryology Bill, Members will have in front of them for their consideration a thoroughly vetted and polished abortion Bill. By this means the abortion Bill could be settled in this Session with the minimum of inconvenience to all concerned.
1472
I therefore reached the conclusion that I ought to support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, not because it has a chance of reaching the statute book but because it will enable this House to consider infertility treatments and embryo research on their own, and because of the contribution which that Bill can make to any abortion debate in the other place.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as I can say in public what I said in private to him after another debate. I regret if I said anything acrimonious about him and his chairmanship of the committee. I think I implied that he was taken for a ride by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I realised that when I called the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, naive, that word should not be applied to such a learned judge.
However, I agree with the noble Duke—although I shall not go into the matter again—that the idea that this committee of the House was representative is farcical. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself moved the rejection of the Bill of the right reverend Prelate the former Bishop of Birmingham, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford paid tribute. He moved its rejection and he and two others who voted against it were the only representatives concerned with abortion to be put on the committee. However, I shall not go into that matter again.
Baroness White: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did not give way to me, but perhaps I am not old enough!
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Earl intervened in my speech last week so perhaps he will allow me to intervene in his. The Select Committees of your Lordships' House make no pretence of being representative. They are responsible to the House, unlike in the other place where committees are representative. I think that we should keep that quite clear.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I did not take down the words but I should be surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did not indicate that it was a representative committee. My recollection is that he must have done so and that is why I introduced that word. However, I shall not concern myself with such tactical or debating points this evening.
I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I think he knows how much I respect him. Perhaps he is too modest to know how deeply I respect his public spirit, his vigour and eloquence, although I regard those as lesser qualities. I am afraid that he would think that I had gone off my rocker if he found that I agreed with him. If I strayed into the lobby with him tonight he would think that the time had come for me to leave the House, although I am

1473
only 84, as compared to senior Members. So I am afraid I shall not be on that side tonight—very definitely not. I must leave the details of the Bill to others. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, who spoke so well last time, will deal with them.
Up until now one question has not really been explored in the House this evening and that is the question of whether there would be more or fewer late abortions under the Bill. Nobody has come out quite clearly and said that it would be one or the other. Perhaps it is uncertain. It may be that when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, replies he will say whether he is confident that there will be more or fewer abortions under the Bill. Perhaps he will agree and accept that in future some people will obtain abortions who would not get them without the Bill. To that extent, the Bill promotes abortion. If that is not so then I do not see the point of these clauses in the Bill, but no doubt that will be made clear to us later on. However, again I leave those points to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson.
I speak in simple and brief terms, as a Christian and a socialist. I am not a member of the Christian establishment, as is the right reverend Prelate the Bishop, to whom we listened with such pleasure. I am not a member as he is a member or as leaders of my own party are members of the socialist establishment. I am a rank and file Christian—a rank and file socialist. There are a good many texts which could be produced but one in particular brings those forms of inspiration together. The text in my mind could no doubt be translated in different ways but I offer this version to the House:
"When thou makest a feast, thou shalt call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind and thou shalt be blessed".
There is no mention of a fetus of course. One would hardly expect it in that quotation. But Christians generally and socialists would agree that above all things they stand for the weak, the helpless and the defenceless. The fetus is the weakest, most defenceless and helpless of any entity, human or otherwise, that one could imagine. I should have thought that any Christian, or indeed any Socialist, would start with the presumption that one should do all in one's power to ensure that there are as few abortions as possible. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would disagree with that, as she said how repugnant abortion was. At any rate if we start from that presumption, the question arises whether one can allow abortions at all.
My mind inevitably goes back in time, as does that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. His mind goes back to 1952, but mine only goes back to 1967. He was not in the Chamber at that time, but we had legislation before us then. I was Leader of the House at the time and it was my position as Leader of the House to speak against the legislation. I said then and I have said ever since that there are circumstances in which I personally would agree to a divorce, and circumstances in which I would even recommend a divorce in my own family. I do that from my own conviction that there are no universal rules in human affairs. There is no rule to which there is not an exception. We are told, "Thou shalt not kill". That was laid down in the
1474
Jewish faith long before Christianity was heard of. However, most Christians and most Jews agree that in some circumstances one has to kill—for example, in defence of one's family or oneself or in defence of one's country, or in defence of a just cause. At any rate that absolute principle is qualified.
We are also told, "Thou shalt not steal". However, that is qualified if one is starving or one's family is starving. In those circumstances few people would fail to steal, if the chance arose. So as regards abortion the question is whether exceptional circumstances exist which should make abortion more readily available, or whether it should be more readily available in any circumstances. I cannot believe personally that we should be told in the course of this debate, or by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he concludes the debate, that no one will get an abortion under this Bill in future who would not get it now. In fact the Bill is paving the way to easier abortion in quite a number of cases. For that reason I am entirely opposed to it and I hope that the amendment will be carried.
8.13 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, during the debate on the embryology legislation last week I found myself very much in agreement with my noble friend Lord Caldecote. In particular I agreed with him that the back street abortion era was a great evil. That situation was improved by the Abortion Act 1967. That Act permits the lesser of two evils. I shall never forget seeing the tragic suffering of so many young women as a result of the sordid back street abortion system of the 1950s and 1960s.
I sense a feeling in the House that those who oppose abortion are all members of some strange, inhuman sect. However, I wish to point out that the doctors and nurses who have to carry out abortions find the whole thing repugnant, whether or not they hold any religious views. They find themselves caught in a trap, especially with those women who are more than 18 weeks pregnant. Those are the women in greatest need. They are often terrified, not very bright and socially deprived. What is more, if the pregnancy continues, we know that half of the resulting children will be dead within two years. Many of them will be battered to death. That is the dilemma that faces the caring, thoughtful people who work in the National Health Service.
I suspect that your Lordships may not be aware that in order to eliminate the unpleasant spectacle of the 20-week aborted fetus showing clear signs of life, the fetus is put paid to by injecting the womb with noxious agents. I think noble Lords will understand why nurses and doctors find that repugnant. I suspect that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will result in more abortions being carried out at a later stage, making this unpleasant business more frequent.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that last year only 22 abortions were carried out after 24 weeks. Furthermore, I am sure it has escaped the notice of noble Lords that there are several hospitals not far from here which will not carry out any

1475
abortions after 14 weeks. There seems to me no good reason for the unseemly haste to pass the Bill. I hope that the House will accept the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the matter of abortion because the state of the abortion law is so unsatisfactory that it should be kept continually in the public eye. I take part in this debate as an ordinary member of the Church of England. With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford, I believe my views are a little more representative of the views of the General Synod than his.
When I spoke to people about the Bill they said that it appeared to be a restrictive Bill, lowering the time limit for abortions from 28 to 24 weeks. However, a detailed study of the Bill shows that, far from reducing the number of late abortions, it would in practice allow many abortions to be carried out up to the full term of 40 weeks. As regards late abortions, I believe that there are two principles which find general support in your Lordships' House. The first is that no child which is capable of being born alive should be aborted except to save the life of the mother. Secondly, the number of late abortions should be kept to a minimum. This Bill goes against both of those principles.
It would do away with the protection afforded by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which states that it shall be a felony to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive except for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother. Under the Act evidence that the pregnancy had run for a minimum of 28 weeks is prima facie proof that the child is capable of being born alive.
Let us examine the Bill to see what protection is put in place of the 1929 Act. First, we should look at the second page of the Bill. New Section (2A) states:
"No pregnancy may lawfully be terminated after the end of its twenty-fourth week".
That is of course a step in the right direction, but noble Lords should note that the 24-week limit would apply only to abortions approved under subsection (1)(b), with a substantial rider, and under subsection (1)(c).
We should now look at page 1 and at the grounds for abortion in more detail as they are set out in Clause 1(1) (a) to (d). Under Clause 1(1) (a) the ground is that of:
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman".
Your Lordships will note that the phrase,
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman",
is a much lower threshold than that in the Infant Life (Preservations) Act which was concerned with preserving the life of the mother. The 24-week limit would not apply to abortions under this heading. As all pregnancy and childbirth could be said to involve some risk, this would provide an open door for abortions up to 40 weeks. Clause 1(1) (b) states as a ground the:
"risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
1476
The 24-week limit would apply to abortions under that heading but not if two doctors were of the opinion that the termination of the pregnancy was essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman. That is also a relatively low threshold, particularly when one has regard to the so-called social clause in subsection (2).
In Clause 1(1 )(c) the ground is:
"risk of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of her family".
Here the 24-week limit would apply.
In Clause 1(1) (d) the ground is that there is a:
"substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
Here the 24-week limit would not apply. Abortions under that ground would be legal up to full term.
Experience with the 1967 Abortion Act shows that if this Bill became law no woman would have any difficulty in finding a doctor who, albeit in sincerity, would give abortion on request however long the pregnancy had lasted. The protection at present given by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act would therefore be almost entirely swept away and not replaced.
There is one other aspect of the matter on which your Lordships' House is entitled to be informed by the supporters of the Bill, or perhaps the Minister may be able to help us. That is how the very late abortions made possible under the Bill will be carried out. By that I mean which method of abortion would be used.
The phrase "termination of pregnancy" is such a bland one that if we are not careful we shall be lulled into feeling that it is like switching off an electric light. We should, however, remember that recent research has confirmed that the fetus feels pain. The most common method of abortion is D&E, which involves dilation of the cervix and the application of a vacuum to the womb by means of a tube inserted into it. The vacuum dismembers the child, enabling it to pass through the tube. That method, which is beastly enough for an early abortion, is surely quite out of the question for a late abortion. Presumably some way of taking the life of a child in the womb before it is taken out of the mother will be used. It would be interesting to know what that method would be.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to inform the House which method or methods will be used in the case of such very late abortions. If he cannot satisfy the House on that point I believe that that alone would be sufficient reason not to give the Bill a Second Reading today.
In summary, the Bill, far from minimising late abortions, would increase their number, and do so until full term. That would mean the abortion of babies at a time when they were capable of being born alive and when they would suffer even more than it appears they do in early abortions. I believe that it is a measure which no civilised country could contemplate. Therefore I shall certainly be voting in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.

1477
It has been suggested that we should give the Bill its Second Reading and then amend it in Committee. That would seem to me to be a waste of parliamentary time. Perhaps more important, it would give the wrong message to people outside your Lordships' Chamber as to how we view abortions, and particularly late abortions.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I agree totally with one point which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the presenter of the Bill made in his vigorous and attractive presentation of his argument—as he usually presents any argument which he puts in this House or used to in another place. I wholly agreed with him that everything that anyone would say was utterly predictable. One could look at the list of speakers and know what they would say.
However, I was flabbergasted to hear the noble Lord and those who support him complain about the rules of procedure relating to private Bills, when I think of what happened to the David Alton Bill in another place. A vast majority of elected representatives voted that Bill through, and by a series of manoeuvres using political and procedural powers it was denied the opportunity to come up to this House so that this House could make its decision on the Bill. It is not for supporters of this Bill to complain about the use of parliamentary procedure to try to obtain a decision on this great issue.
Believing what I believe, I can understand very well that those who reject those ideas might resent the imposition upon a great mass of the population of some moral or ethical principle which that mass of the population do not accept. They say that people who believe as I do are not obliged to participate in the practices, which will only be permitted by law. The practices will be purely permissive. Therefore why not have a civil law which does not interfere but leaves those who dislike a particular practice free not to practise it if they so wish? In other words, there should be no mandatory imposition of a practice upon the mass of the population.
I understand that argument in many matters involving moral and ethical principles. However, in some matters society has always retained and still retains in law the right to impose a moral standard which it will not permit any to disobey. The oldest of all has already been quoted today, Thou shalt not kill—not even the very old, not even the very insane, not even the very handicapped, not even those in pain, not even those in total despair.
Our predecessors included among those one may not kill a human being not yet separated from its mother. They, our predecessors, gave protection to an unborn child which is capable of being born alive. In our time we have lived through days when more and more the power to kill has been taken for granted.
I have never accepted the 28-week limit. I would have supported a reduction to 18 weeks, although I have heard with great interest and concern what was said by my noble friend Lord McColl. The reduction to 24 weeks is at least some reduction, but in this
1478
Bill—and I am surprised that the right reverend Prelate did not see that that ought to change his mind regarding his support of the Bill—there are exceptions which would permit killing—by what means we know not—of the person of more than 24 weeks, with a needle or drug or whatever it may be.
Never have I accepted the social exceptions. Conception, I believe, ought not to be devalued. I do not believe that registered medical practitioners should be given the power to kill a formed human being who has been six months in the growing based upon their personal assessment—medical opinion is sometimes very right and sometimes very wrong—that the consequences would be serious damage to the health of the mother. How often are they wrong?
All of us have at some time encountered a person who has been born seriously handicapped, perhaps into conditions where material circumstances are not of the highest. Sometimes those handicapped people are people of superior wit, often of superior character and sometimes blessed with an affinity to goodness and spirituality, capable of giving and receiving love far greater than those of us born without such handicap. I believe that our predecessors, with their straightforward stand upon principle that, Thou shall not kill the being capable of being born alive, were wiser in their generation. Nothing that I have read or heard will change my view that this appropriation of power over life and death which the Bill extends is anything but barbaric. I support the amendment.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby on introducing the Bill. I certainly respect and admire his vast experience and great gifts as a parliamentarian. I speak in the debate as a Catholic. My noble friend Lord Houghton would not expect me to apologise to him for that. I do not have a medical background, so I do not profess to be an expert on the medical aspects of abortion or embryology.
My background was in local authority and community health care in the 1950s and 1960s in an inner London borough, so my knowledge and experience of the existence of back-street abortions, to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred, was very real. I knew that girls were thrown out of their homes if they were found to be pregnant. In those days, they had to leave home if they were found to be pregnant. Girls were evicted from lodgings, or digs as they were called in those days, by landladies or landlords, if they were found to be pregnant. They had to get out and had nowhere to go. Housing conditions were not as good at they could have been.
There was still a sad lack of education regarding pregnancy. There was no widespread counselling at all; in fact, as I recall, there was hardly any. There was no general counselling for those girls unless a church was approached to give them some counselling through a priest. In those circumstances of sheer desperation, many of those young kids were

1479
forced to go, often on borrowed money, to back street abortionists and suffer the traumatic experience to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred.
Out of that came the demand for and passing of the 1967 Act. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who said that the Act was now out of date. It is out of date to the extent that circumstances are now totally different. We are no longer talking about the same situation. There is now a great deal more tolerance. I no longer hear of girls being thrown out of their homes for being pregnant, but, if they are, more help is available through all kinds of agencies to take care of that exigency. By and large there is better housing. We have improved standards, although not enough. We still need more housing.
There have been vast changes in our approach to sex education from primary schools of all denominations upwards. Tremendous strides have been made in the past few years. We have all witnessed the campaigns in the media for safer sex and less promiscuity. Those educational processes go on all the time.
There have been medical advances. Premature babies can now be saved at a much earlier age. They can even live at the age of 20 or 21 weeks by virtue of the wonders of medical science. There have been recent developments which have given rise to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I was present at the debate in the Chamber and have read the proceedings. When the discussions continue in Committee, they will bring people to a greater understanding about the beginning of life, which is important in all these arguments. We have embarked on those discussions as a result of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. People will understand those of us who say that life begins at conception. There will be a better understanding in the world outside this goldfish bowl of why people hold to that point of view.
So the Bill, as has been outlined by the noble Duke and others, would make matters worse. It goes in the opposite direction. Rather than going back to that understanding and developing something from it, it goes to the other extreme. As a number of speakers have said, it virtually allows abortions up to birth. Surely that cannot be an improvement. That was never envisaged in the 1967 Act. As was said at the time, it was not the aim of the sponsors of the Act:
"to leave a wide open door to abortion on request".
That seems to be one of the aims of the present Bill. It seems to open the door to that. That is why most people who think like me oppose it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, used what has become a popular argument; namely, that because there is no Infant Life (Preservation) Act in Scotland, there is no abortion there after 28 weeks and they do not need the Bill: the situation is all right, there is nothing wrong with it and they do not have our problems. However, regardless of whether they have the Act, they operate under the same professional bodies and consultancy bodies. They operate the same code of conduct. That is
1480
what determines what happens there. There would certainly be trouble if there were abortions after the 28th week in Scotland. While the Scottish situation might be some kind of defence on paper for those people who are in favour of the Bill, the defence does not exist. Under those circumstances, the possibility of abortions up to birth or even up to the 28th week does not exist. I have no figures to prove that it has ever happened.
My noble friend Lord Houghton and other noble Lords mentioned the Select Committee. I do not want to go into the matter too deeply except to say that I was disappointed in the committee's findings. I make no bones about its composition but it dealt with the subject of late abortions from a narrow viewpoint. It did not take into account the possible psychiatric and social effects of legislation.
One point that has concerned me for a long time and which I shall illustrate by example is that applicants in the field of obstetrics, gynaecology and anaesthetics and psychiatry have been turned down because of their approach to abortion. They are asked questions about their attitude to abortion. When I was chairman of an interviewing panel for a teaching hospital, we interviewed many doctors, but we never asked that kind of question. In those days that kind of question would never have been asked of any applicant for a job. It is apparently becoming all too frequent nowadays. I understand that, in another place, the Select Committee on Social Services unanimously agreed that the working of the conscience clause in the Abortion Act should be investigated and it is currently carrying out a review.
There are many other points that concern me but I hope that I have at least said enough to indicate where I stand and why I shall support the amendment.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Although it is not my subject, I felt that I had to say a few words. Without doubt, if this Bill were to become law—as I hardly imagine it will—there would definitely be far more abortions. Some noble Lords have said that it is an open door and that it would be near murder. I believe that that is rather a strong word to use.
The subject causes great suffering and heartache. It is the women who have to suffer. I therefore consider that any Act which increases abortions cannot be good. It is true that there is the most superb medical care which presumably does away with the majority of pain. However, the mental pain remains. I therefore support the amendment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson said, to destroy young life is extremely unpleasant.
I am not happy about one aspect of the Bill. We have heard much this evening about the 1929 Act which allows babies to be aborted up to 28 weeks. They can be alive then. I thought that the Act stated that if anyone—presumably, but not necessarily, a doctor—performed the operation to abort a child, and if he were not found out he would be all right if the child did not die. However, if the child died I

1481
thought under that law the doctor would be committing a felony. It is a point that worries me.
I know nothing about the subject, so I should not be speaking. However, I shall definitely vote for the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
8.42 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I do so because in certain circumstances, which have been mentioned several times before, this Bill allows abortion up to the age of birth. My view stems from my conviction that abortion, and in particular late abortion, is nothing less than murder. This was brought out most movingly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene.
I am strengthened in my thinking by such presentations of late abortion as I have seen. I refer in particular to the film "The Silent Scream" which some noble Lords may have seen. This showed in graphic detail an abortion operation on a fetus of some 20 to 24 weeks. I do not know the exact period. As the name implies, the central feature of this film was a close up of the mouth of the fetus opened in a silent scream as the forceps closed in on the head. It goes without saying that the later the operation after 24 weeks, the greater the suffering. Indeed, in operations up to the time of birth, say, 36 to 40 weeks, the abortionist has to kill the fetus, generally I understand by crushing the head or injecting a lethal fluid before it emerges from the mother's body. If it were killed after it emerges, the abortionist could be charged with murder. I do not wish to go into further medical details.
Far more moving for me was a talk that I heard in the Royal Albert Hall in 1987 (I think it was) by Mr. David Alton. The climax was the release from the roof of the Albert Hall of 2·5 million tiny paper darts each represrenting a fetus aborted since the Abortion Act 1967. I gather that the present figure of abortions is about 3 million.
Surely one has to consider how many potential scientists, doctors, musicians, painters, even politicians, were in that vast collection. It may of course have had its fair share of criminals too. I accept that there will have been some—they are of course in a minority, but they are there—who would have suffered terribly in their lives from spina bifida or some other serious condition. Nevertheless, I hold the view which was expressed when we discussed the embryology Bill last Thursday that fetuses like embryos are products of a divine creative process which we interfere with at our peril.
I should like to make one further point that has not been dealt with in any detail although the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, touched upon it. It is the appalling, traumatic effects on so many women who suffer abortions. I have heard of some from my friends, and indeed I have seen one or two personally. I feel that it is a very powerful argument against the late abortions which are made possible by the Bill. I therefore have no hesitation whatever in giving my support to the amendment to be moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, first, I should like to dispose of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I do not think that that Bill should be used in this House as a vehicle to change the law on abortion. If Members of another place wish to use it as such a vehicle, that is up to them. When the Bill returns to us we shall no doubt give those amendments our serious consideration.
Having said that, the Bill brought before us by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is in my view an absolute horror. As I understand it, it would allow abortion on demand up to birth and that could mean the first stages of labour right up to the very end. It is true that, according to the way in which the noble Lord has drafted the Bill, the young woman concerned would need two doctors to be prepared to testify in court about the serious mental or physical danger that she was in; or the dangers that the siblings in the family would be in if the birth was allowed to proceed. We all know that one can always find unscrupulous people in any profession. It has even been known for Members of your Lordships' House to be found guilty of various offences and spend time at Her Majesty's pleasure. Therefore, if Members of this House—where we speak and vote on our honour—can be capable of dastardly deeds so can members of any other profession, doctors included.
One need not wait late into pregnancy for doctors to decide whether there are any dangers to the mother, or the rest of the family, or to the fetus in the womb of being disabled. Whether one should—and that is another question—abort a fetus merely because it is disabled can be discovered at an earlier time because medical science is moving forward at an ever increasing rate.
It is interesting to note that records in the neo-natal unit at University College Hospital show that during the period 1979–1984—now some five years out of date—babies of a gestation period of 23 to 24 weeks who were born alive had a 25 per cent, chance of still being alive at one year. By 27 to 28 weeks the chance has risen to 64 per cent. Therefore, there is an increasingly high proportion of babies who will survive normal birth or even an abortion if they are not killed within the womb before they are aborted.
Other noble Lords will probably know better than I the methods of abortion. I hope that the Minister will tell us about them when she replies. I understand that the further into pregnancy one goes it is often necessary for the child to be killed at least 24 hours before the abortion takes place. The reason is that the child begins to decompose and it is easier to cut up inside the mother before being removed piecemeal. That is a horrifying process, particularly bearing in mind that the mother will have felt that child moving inside her from about 16 weeks. Therefore, for the last 24 hours of carrying the child she will have been carrying only a dead lump. I do not know what that will do to her mental condition.
For those and many other reasons that I shall not go into because the hour is late, I must support the I noble Duke's amendment.
Lord Brightman: My Lord, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to correct him on one point. He told your Lordships that if there is serious danger to the health of siblings it will be permissible under the Bill to abort the child at any gestational age. That is not so. Clause 1 (2A)(b) provides that abortion on the grounds of serious danger to the health of siblings is forbidden after week 24.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his correction. He is far better versed in the law and the way in which Bills are written than I am.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I shall not take sides with either the noble Duke on the amendment or the noble Lord on the Bill in respect of the personal ideologies of either. They are both my friends—with the noble Duke it is familial—and I would not wish to cool my friendships by taking sides on issues where they are antagonistic towards each other.
I have had 46 years' experience in this House of which nearly 20 years have been full-time during my retirement. I ask myself what are the interests of the House. I know of the difficulty that the usual channels have in recruiting members of Select Committees, particularly those on private Bills which may go on and on, with a great degree of interference in one's private life. The difficulty in recruitment to Select Committees would be increased if it was known that their findings would be regarded with total indifference by the House that appointed them. Therefore, the only live issue in my mind—and my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, who was the chairman of the Select Committee must be the keeper of my conscience—is whether the Bill embodies the recommendations of the Select Committee which we have before us. If it does, I believe that it deserves reference to a Committee of the Whole House.
We should not duck that obligation on the ground that it will be a waste of time because of what will happen in the other place. If we did not discuss anything that may be a waste of time we should arrive home much earlier in the evenings and have much longer holidays, but I do not believe that it would be a good principle on which to run the House. I do not speak ideologically but merely as a long established Member of your Lordships' House.
On the ideological side, I should be with the noble Duke, who dislikes abortion, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. So do I. I should never be a consenting party to an abortion of any child that I had engendered. I have said that all my life because I believe it to be wrong. However, I must live in a world where I know that abortion will take place either in the backstreet or on the National Health Service. As legislators, we must set aside our private religious beliefs on the basis that a facility is provided for us but we shall not take advantage of it. That is my standpoint and on that I rest my case.
I believe that it is wrong to make Committee points on Second Reading and even worse to make
1484
Second Reading speeches in Committee. However, certain matters have been raised and I find myself in line with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford when he says that he hopes that the period will progressively reduce itself. I also hope for that and I see no reason why it should not. There is always a time lag between the law as it is and the law as it should be. Medical science and technology are marching ahead so fast that we as legislators cannot keep pace with them.
I shall mention briefly two matters to which I should like to attend in Committee. First, the words "capable of life" need cosmetic improvement. They should read "capable of life with or without life support apparatus", or whatever it may be. The best form of life support for a newborn infant is its mother's breast. However, if by chance she is not in good lactational form, there is Cow & Gate to rely on. One of these days we may be able to take babies with solid lungs who cannot breathe and oxygenate their blood through a machine which is used in heart surgery and which may be adaptable. There are many conditions where, if only the baby could be prolonged for a little while, it could live. I hope therefore that the period will be reduced and reduced and reduced.
Over and above that, all I want to say is that I believe that confusing this issue with the embryology Bill which we have before us would lead us into parliamentary schizophrenia. It is absolutely not to be considered for one moment. The two issues are totally separate. Under the embryology Bill we are asking Parliament to express an opinion and finally pass a law as to how long you may play with an embryo, but an abortion Bill deals with how late the life can be extinguished. The two subjects are absolutely incompatible. I referred to schizophrenia, but that is a rather out-of-date term. It refers now to what used to be called dementia praecox. What used to stand for Jekyll and Hyde is now known as hysterical dissociation of the personality. That is what we shall suffer from if we try to discuss these two Bills as if they were one.
9 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing this Bill and thus giving us an opportunity to discuss the abortion issue quite separately from the embryo Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading last Thursday.
I am not a Roman Catholic. I merely say that as a statement of fact lest it be thought that everyone speaking in favour of the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is a Roman Catholic, which is certainly not the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, expounded so lucidly, this Bill effectively introduces abortion on demand up to 40 weeks or full term. At present we already effectively have abortion on demand up to 28 weeks. Many of us who believe in the sanctity of human life regard that as unacceptable. This Bill effectively removes any time limit on abortion for reasons listed in Clause 1(1)(a) and(b).

1485
It is an appalling fact that we are more vulnerable in the womb that at any other period of our growth cycle. At this point I should say how much I agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on that point. Thus the one place which was intended by God to be the most secure has, through the advances of science and the deviousness of human nature, become the most vulnerable. Now the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seeks to make the gestation period in the womb even more vulnerable.
I trust that the House will treat this Bill with the contempt which it deserves. I urge your Lordships to support my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and vote for his amendment.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, before this debate I thought I should talk about the argument to keep the embryo Bill and the abortion Bill separate. I shall do that very briefly because so much has been said. I am very surprised that a number of people seem not to have read the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Perhaps I may deal with the clinical problem which affects doctors which they conscientiously try to discharge; that is, the only stages at which they have sampling techniques to try to discover how matters are progressing in the womb is quite late in pregnancy. Screening is done by ultrasound at something like 16 to 18 weeks, alpha feto protein at 16 to 18 weeks and choria villus biopsy can be done, if the mother wants it, and the evidence of abnormality obtained at 20 weeks. The decision after that is the patient's. However, those techniques do not provide early evidence of abnormality.
I now turn to the area of early diagnosis. The background to the whole thing is the eternal concern of mothers that they will have abnormal offspring, particularly in families where that has happened before. It is estimated that at some time in their reproductive live about half of the world's women conceive with abnormal chromosomal patterns and most of those pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. Until recently those infants who were born died. For the majority there was no effective treatment. It may now be possible by detailed evaluation of the fertilised ovum to carry out early diagnosis before the primitive streak has formed. The scientists investigating that matter under the strictest central control believe that they may be able to produce evidence of abnormalities which are present. The decision is whether there should be an early destruction of the conceptus. If that is done, there could be an avoidance of so much of the agony which has been referred to this evening in all kinds of phrases, particularly if a deformed child dies late in pregnancy or at birth.
9.6 p.m.
The Marquess of Lothian: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I should like to say that sometimes I am surprised and saddened that, whereas the House invariably and rightly expresses sympathy with the welfare of the animal kingdom, it seems to me that sometimes when we are discussing abortion there is
1486
a tendency to consider the fetus as an inanimate and unfeeling subject.
Therefore, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a paper published by the British Medical Journal in 1980 and written by Dr. Valman, a distinguished paediatrician, and Dr. Robinson, a consultant gynaecologist; it is entitled What the Foetus Feels. In that paper certain scientific and detailed descriptions are given with diagrams of how, for example, only nine weeks after conception the fetus is well enough formed to bend its fingers round an object in the palm of the hand.
The article is lengthy and I shall not take up your Lordships' time with it except for one short quotation:
"The foetus needs to be heavily sedated by sedating the mother before intrauterine transfusions. Otherwise he will move away from the needle".
Therefore, I venture to say to your Lordships that when we are considering the thousands of fetuses whose lives have already been ended at this stage and when we are considering others which may well have to undergo the same fate, they should not be dismissed as objects incapable of feeling extreme pain. For this and for many other reasons which have been adduced by noble Lords, I intend to support my noble friend's amendment.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, in making my case I wish to make it clear that I fully acknowledge the sincerity of those who take a different view from mine and as a mother I understand the depths of their feelings. However, we are dealing with two separate persons, each of whom has rights, sadly rights which are in conflict with each other. On the one side we have the mother to be who has the right to live a life of her own choosing; on the other the unborn child who having been conceived by its mother and father has the right to live.
There is of course a great difference between the circumstances of these two sets of people. The mother is able to marshall her arguments forcefully and with great depth of feeling. The unborn child has no voice that we in this Chamber can hear. As yet it has no power of any kind to plead its rights, let alone defend them. Most sadly, the name of Parliament and its deliberations and decisions seems at times to replace the name of God.
With this Bill advocating abortion up to birth we are abandoning what has been the civilised standard for centuries; namely, that every human being, if he or she is to be treated by a doctor or specialist, is to be treated for his or her own particular benefit and not exploited for the perceived benefit of others.
I as a mother understand the anguish which sadly, today can rarely be relieved by the efforts of childless couples who wish to adopt. Some adoption agencies in different parts of the country closed their lists of approved couples who were waiting to adopt because of the lack of babies.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford said that the Churches are undecided. May I respectfully say that I believe the Catholic Church

1487
is not. I also know many other Christians and friends of the Jewish faith who share this feeling of repulsion.
This is a crossroads decision. It will determine whether our nation takes the civilised moral road or whether we compromise the principles and question the absolute sanctity of life; namely, that every stage from conception to death is to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. I have also witnessed abortion, heard the cry of babies and seen their movements before death.
In Paul's letter to the Hebrews it is written:
"To be alive is no man's gift, it is God's gift; and to end life is no man's right, but God's right".
We should deny this Bill a Second Reading.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not putting down my name to speak. However, I did that quite deliberately, because I do not profess to be an expert in this subject, neither do I claim to have had a revelation which enables me to determine when life begins and when life ends. So I cannot get myself involved in these high-sounding debates about that subject. I leave that to people who have these revelations and put themselves on a level where they can decide truly moral issues.
But listening to the debate—and that is what I intended to do—I noticed that nearly all the opponents of this Bill stressed in all seriousness how important it was that this subject of abortion should be separated from the question of the embryo Bill. I think the whole House said that, and I hope that the mover of the amendment, the noble Duke, will take note of that, because I consider that to be one of the most important things that has been mentioned this evening.
I say that purely as a layman. I have no religion. I am what is described in some places as a humanist. I have been terrified by listening to some of the things that described what happened to the unborn child or the fetus, call it what you will. I am also horrified when I read history and see some of the terrible things that have been done to human beings in the name of the angels. Somebody wrote to me and advised me that in this debate I should be on the side of the angels. I wrote back and said that I did not know there were any angels, but I would certainly be on the side of what I consider to be the moral rights or wrongs. One thing I shall never do when a women, or a doctor, is faced with a certain choice, is try to decide what that decision should be. I shall just thank everybody I possibly can that it is not me who has to take that decision. If a woman faced with that tremendously difficult problem has to take that decision, she will have my support, and I hope my understanding; but she would never have my instruction because I think that that is not moral. That is downright immoral.
Having listened to the debate, I cannot, for the life of me, see any reason why the Second Reading is being opposed, and that it should be given a Second Reading in six months' time. If it is read a second time in six months' time does that imply that the mover of the Motion believes that there is
1488
something in the Bill that is worth considering in six months' time, or is it a move just to stop it? Nowhere have I yet heard people opposing the Bill tonight say whether or not they want to abolish all abortions.
We got the nearest to it when my noble friend Lord Stallard said that he believed that life begins at conception. Then we get dangerously near to the subject of whether or not contraception is acceptable to most people. Let us all be honest. I have said this before in this House. If we are talking about religion and about fundamental beliefs, the first thing to do is to be honest and frank. Those who contemplate voting for the amendment should ask themselves the question whether they really think that abortion should be abolished altogether. If the answer is no, then in all honesty they should vote for the noble Lord's Bill.
What does it do? I have listened and been told what happens at 24 weeks; what happens at 28 weeks; and what a difficult situation it is for the doctors who have to carry out these abortions. I have heard all that not only here but elsewhere. Realising that a doctor at perhaps three weeks' pregnancy, or four weeks' pregnancy, can see quite clearly that what is going to happen will be detrimental both for the child and the mother, I cannot believe that anybody in this House would vote against abortion at that limit.
If my guess is right that faced with that decision as a parent people would want an abortion that soon, then let us have a Second Reading. That would then enable us to first to keep this Bill and this issue separate from the embryo Bill. Secondly it would give the opponents of the Bill the opportunity to go into Committee and say when they think that abortion should be stopped, and what the length of pregnancy should be.
If they have any doubt about the subsections which enable doctors to go outside the limit, then an amendment would take care of that by removing them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody wants merely to stop discussion on this matter. I must come to the conclusion that it is for an ulterior motive, and that that ulterior motive is so that they can add something to the embryo and research Bill.
9.18 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, we must recognise that the debate on this Bill does not centre on issues of right or wrong but is directly an exploration of conflicts of values. Views derived from the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are necessarily opposed to abortion, though even in that Church there are differences of opinion. The mainstream of Protestant theology, and the moral tradition to which it has given rise, permits abortion under careful legal regulation, and generally approves the provisions which were embodied in the 1967 Act. But again there are disagreements among those in that tradition.
Some indications suggest that Protestant views are supported by a significant majority of the general population. The most recent survey that I have seen published as the 5th Report of the British Survey of Social Attitudes found that 54 per cent, of men and

1489
women held that legal abortion should be permitted on the basis of the woman's choice, and 59 per cent, on the couple's choice. The proportion of people favouring legal abortion on grounds of fetal abnormality, rape and danger to the woman's health was very significantly higher. Ninety-three per cent. of all respondents thought that it should be permitted on that basis.
The second indication of a majority view is that abortion on statutory grounds is available in medical practices under very strict administrative regulation by the Department of Health, in both the public and private sectors. All abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy must be carried out in national health hospitals. Given the number of abortions performed annually, it is clear that a majority of responsible medical people support the Act and treat their patients under its terms.
Inevitably therefore we come to a conflict of values between people of different religious beliefs which cannot be resolved by discussion or argument or by reference to the empirical data concerning the medical or social results of prohibiting abortion in the past or permitting it in recent years. At this point the only acceptable solution is the practice of tolerance, itself an inescapable element in a democratic society.
In my view no more compelling words will be spoken than those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in last week's debate in this House on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. He said:
"I have to speak as a Christian believer and I owe an absolute obedience to God, but I would challenge my right if I were to assert it—and I do not—to impose my theological views upon the conscience—the responsible conscience, responsibly exercised—of others".—[Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1022.]
The 1987 report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill addressed the flaws in the 1967 Act so cogently analysed in the speech tonight of its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. In my view it also demonstrated beyond dispute that the medical profession in these islands has responsibly carried out its duties in respect of abortion. I think that the evidence cited by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, supports the conclusion that the recommendations of the Select Committee have secured the wide approval reflected in the dignified and informed speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford.
Now we face a situation in which the opinion of a minority is sought to be imposed upon those who do not accept it. That minority is determined to impose its theological views upon the conscience—the responsible conscience, responsibly exercised under our law—of the majority. Further, this minority, which I am bound to describe as authoritarian in its attitude, is not in the position of having to struggle to disseminate its opinions or to safeguard its members against coercion by the majority. All of its members are free to follow the discipline of their Church and they do not run any risk of having imposed on them the treatments or advice which may be available to their fellow citizens
1490
under the Abortion Act as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, sought to meet that point by saying that societies have always imposed by law the moral injunction, "Thou shalt not kill". He then turned his own belief that abortion is murder into a universal truth and naturally to be condemned by everyone on the ground that abortion is murder. The noble and learned Lord's argument is not compelling for those of us on the other side of the argument who do not identify abortions lawfully conducted as murder, and he fails to resolve the difficulty which concerns me.
Those who support the noble Duke often assume that they alone represent the claims of conscience in these matters. Many of the rest of us—
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I have not intervened before although I have felt tempted to do so. We live in a pluralist society. In no way do I, as a Catholic, a papist or whatever one likes to call it, want to impose Catholic views on the noble Lord or on any other noble Lord. We live in a pluralist society and we do not believe in doing that.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am glad to know that. But I am now exceedingly puzzled to know what is the purpose of the noble Duke's amendment. Before I sit down I shall seek to attempt to demonstrate to the noble Duke exactly why I think that he and his co-religionists are attempting to impose their views upon those of us who do not accept them.
Many of the rest of us now have no alternative but to insist that the moral exhortations of our consciences are just as worthy of respect in relation to public policy on abortion as our opponents claim for theirs. I also wish to insist that some of the language used in public discussion on this issue is an unacceptable means of communication among citizens in a democracy. I do not take kindly to reading descriptions of abortion clinics—the lawful existence of which I support in circumstances in which they are staffed by responsible members of the medical profession—as death camps, even though I flatter myself to be as sensitive as anybody else to the emotional distress and family and personal tragedies which may lead to abortions or afflict those who undergo them.
I am outraged to read of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—a body which has provided necessary information and compassionate counselling to women who may be considering abortion—described as,
"the largest mass-murdering organisation in this country".
I read with extreme distaste that the administrator of Life said that a father gaoled for kicking his unborn baby to death,
"very rightly received a stiff sentence but gynaecologists who did the same thing by different means receive big fat fees for it".
Finally, I am alarmed by what I have read in persistent newspaper reports which have appeared in recent weeks about one section of the movement against abortion which has brought hooligans,

1491
describing themselves as the "Green Berets" of the anti-abortion movement, from the United States to this country so that they may use their extensive domestic experience to persecute and harry vulnerable women.
The Guardian recently dedicated a whole page to a description of riots outside clinics organised by the so-called "Operation Rescue". The correspondent wrote:
"I watched women driven to hysteria … outside a Lancashire clinic … (where the) operating theatre was invaded by Rescue … Those arrested included a Catholic priest and several of the 22 North Americans who came to Britain earlier this year as full-time organisers for 'Operation Rescue Outreach'".
Of course, this nastiness is an extreme example. Many movements attract a violent, sometimes psychopathic fringe. Moreover, many honourable democrats are opposed to abortion and, I am sure, to such methods of promoting their beliefs. However, I hope that many more of them will publicly repudiate the violence of behaviour and language which undermines democratic procedures and reduces reasoned argument to the hurling of abuse at their opponents.
I support the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I especially support the warning given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about the tragic consequences for medical research, and for the future of many children yet to be born, if we permit the issue of abortion to be tangled up with our discussions on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I conclude by commending to the House the words of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on this point—
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he kindly explain, preferably not in violent language, how it is that perfectly ordinary NHS hospitals refuse to carry out abortions after 13 weeks? Is he suggesting that such a hospital is a religious organisation?
Lord McGregor of Durris: No, my Lords; I am not suggesting any such thing. I based what I said in respect of the conduct of abortions on the very extensive evidence which is printed in the report of the Select Committee. The committee received a great deal of evidence from gynaecologists and obstetricians.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that many Members of your Lordships' House who do not agree with the view taken by the noble Lord would, nevertheless, totally repudiate the kind of actions which he described in his speech.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I greatly welcome the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. However, it never entered my head that such language or, I hope, such thoughts would have been present in the mind of any noble Lord who has contributed or listened to the debate. But assuredly such thoughts, such violence, such lack of charity and such contempt for opponents are widely present
1492
in the discussions which take place on this issue outside your Lordships' House. They are stimulated by those who share some of the beliefs about which we have heard from noble Lords tonight.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, all too often when one winds up a debate one realises that the notes that one had prepared before the debate started were quite inappropriate to use at the termination of the debate. While I agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I take the view that those who take a point of view different from me—in whatever party they may be, mine or others—do so with a sincerity no less than mine. I expect that they will treat me in precisely that way. I may think that they are wrong, and they may think that I am wrong; but we take part in a debate as civilised human beings.
Over many years, I have been interested in the subject of abortion, as have many of your Lordships. I was one of those people who thought himself privileged to support David Steel's Bill when it came before another place in 1967.1 did as much as I could to help David Steel present his Bill because I was conscious of the appalling situation which existed before we created legislation that established the issue on a proper legalistic basis. The things that were going on in back steets, the hardship and cruelty that women—sometimes young and ignorant, sometimes suffering from a situation which they did not understand—were deplorable.
There have been moments during the debate when I wondered whether we were rehashing the 1967 Second Reading of that Bill when people were saying how monstrous it was that we should have any legislation that dealt with abortion. I am deeply grateful that the Bill was passed. As Secretary of State, I sought in those years (and previously as a Minister in the department) to find ways in which it could be administered fairly and in which people could be properly counselled. It was always my hope that we would have a Bill brought before us which, bit by bit, would shorten the period during which it would be possible and legal, except under very special circumstances, for an abortion to be carried out.
My noble friend's Bill, which I support, recognises that modern medicine enables us to tighten up the legislation without creating new problems. I do not accept that the consequences of my noble friend's Bill, if it were to be passed, even as it is worded now, would be more abortions than at present. I do not believe that, and I should like to hear what evidence anyone has for such a suggestion. Late abortions should be kept to a minimum, and the Bill will keep them to a minimum because there will be a change from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
My noble friend would not have presented the Bill at this moment—good though it is—had it not been for the Long Title of the embryology Bill and the threat that our serious and sensible debate on the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, would be damaged and confused by the introduction of amendments on abortion in the

1493
middle of that Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was absolutely right when he said:
"I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennah".—[Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1023.]
To start any sentence with that phrase is remarkable in itself. Very rarely has he agreed with anything that I have said in your Lordships' House. However, he did on this matter. He said that:
"The question of the abortion time-limit is quite different from that which we are now discussing".
So it is important that we should have a means of separating out two quite different issues. This has been said across the Floor of the House. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Many Members have recognised that it would be very damaging, whichever way we go on embryo research, to find that we are debating the two issues at the same time. So my noble friend chose a good time at which to introduce the Bill.
All right, the Bill has good content. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, clearly said, it carries out to the letter the recommendations of the Select Committee's report. I have not previously heard that other people were criticising the report of the noble and learned Lord. I did not hear, when the matter was debated in this House, that people thought that the report was unrepresentative. I thought that the research work which went into the report was very valuable indeed. I thank and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on it.
My noble friend Lord Houghton has introduced a Bill based on the report which provides the evidence and research on which we shall debate the Bill. What does that mean? We can amend the Bill as we wish. If there are those here who say that 24 weeks is too long a period, then they may move amendments that it should be 22, 20 or 18 weeks, or whatever. When we give a Second Reading to a Bill we are not saying that we agree with every little bit of it. We are saying that it provides a basis for a reasonable debate.
When we examine those parts of the Bill which define the special circumstances in which there could be a late pregnancy, and we refer to the risk to the life of the pregnant mother, and the risk of injury to the physical or mental health and so on, we are expressing suggestions in the Bill. Every one of the clauses could be amended, tightened up or loosened or whatever. We are doing that, reflecting the experience of doctors and nurses who over the years have been working in the field.
We know perfectly well that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, the British Paediatric Assocation, the Clinical Genetics Society—I could go on into the nursing profession—all say, "We wish to see the gestational age limit of viability in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act changed from 28 to 24 weeks". They support the Bill. I have sought other medical evidence. I shall not give it because time is late, but it was of the circumstances that are described in
1494
Clause 1(1) paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of my noble friend's Bill.
When we come to Second Reading, we can deal in detail with the problems of congenital abnormalities. The last time we debated them, we were not in the position of understanding the AIDS situation. For example, the wife of a former drug addict might have a blood test to discover whether she is HIV positive. The test proves negative, the couple go ahead with the plan to start a family. The woman falls pregnant, she has another test at eight weeks which again proves negative. But at five months she has a further test which proves positive. The woman carrying the virus has approximately a 50 per cent, chance of bearing an infected baby, while her own risk of developing AIDS is increased by the pregnancy.
If anyone says that that is not a situation in which, with medical advice as suggested in the Bill, there is a case for abortion, then I do not know what a good case is. However, if Members of your Lordships' House do not believe that, they can tighten up this Bill. What this Bill does is create an opportunity for your Lordships' House to send to another place two clean pieces of paper. One is your Lordships' reflections on the human embryology legislation, and the other is a Bill which deals with abortion. What they do in another place is for them to decide. We have a certain sense of honour and a certain sense of responsibility as a revising Chamber in trying to get the situation clear. I do not believe that we can send to another place a Bill which confuses abortion and embryology. I think therefore that we have to have two debates.
We have one Bill before us tonight. It is a Bill which can be easily amended in one way or another. We are a democratic society and a democratic House and the will of the House will prevail. This is not the law of the Medes and the Persians, or even the law of Douglas Houghton, it is a Bill which springs from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The Bill gives us the opportunity of establishing a clear situation.
If I did not say at the beginning of my speech that I was speaking for myself and not for all my honourable friends, let me do so right now. I made that point last week and I think everyone understands that. I do not seek to speak for others. As I have already said, I hold the deepest respect for the integrity of those who hold an absolutely different view to my own. I hope that at the end of this debate tonight we shall have a Bill which can go into Committee for amendment, if we think that is right. We shall then be able to deal in a proper and responsible way with the Bill that had its Second Reading last Thursday. I therefore support, in that spirit, the Bill which was so ably moved by my noble friend.
9.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, brings before us today is one on which as we all realise, Members of both Houses, and many people

1495
elsewhere, hold, with equal sincerity, very strong and widely differing views.
As I made clear to your Lordships last Thursday when the House was debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, this Government, like their predecessors of both main political parties, are neutral on the ethical issue of abortion. Like individual Members of both Houses, Ministers themselves hold strong and widely divergent views on this issue of conscience. The Government can therefore have no collective view on the merits of the proposals which the noble Lord has set before the House.
Today's debate is about abortion, and in particular late abortion. Therefore, my role as spokesman for the Government is to provide an impartial assessment of the practical effects of the Bill, and, from the advice available to me, to provide whatever information may help the House to reach a decision.
First, I should comment on the legal position. This has been touched on by a number of your Lordships, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, himself, but I think it bears repetition in what I may perhaps venture to call a consolidating way.
In 1967 Parliament was given the opportunity in a Private Member's Bill to build on an existing framework of criminal law which prevented abortions except in a very restrictive set of circumstances. Parliament agreed to do so on a free vote.
We have already heard that the interaction of the Abortion Act 1967 with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which latter Act makes it an offence to destroy any child capable of being born alive, in practice, creates an upper limit in England and Wales at which abortions are performed. At present, this limit is 28 weeks because the Infant Life (Preservation) Act contains a rebuttable presumption that a fetus of 28 weeks' gestation or more is capable of being born alive. This means that in the event of a prosecution under the Act, in respect of the death of a child of 28 weeks' or more gestation, the onus would be on the defence to prove that the fetus was not capable of being born alive. In the case of the death of a child before the end of 28 weeks, it would be for the prosecution to prove that the fetus was capable of being born alive. The question of whether a child is capable of being born alive is for the court to decide in any particular case on the basis of the evidence before it.
Whereas the 1967 Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland, the upper limit created by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act does not apply to Scotland. In Northern Ireland neither the Abortion Act nor the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applies.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, introduced in 1987, sought to reduce this presumption of viability from 28 to 24 weeks. As he explained, that Bill was referred to a Select Committee in your Lordships' House. Early in 1988 that committee recommended that the Bill should not proceed because it felt that an
1496
amendment to the 1929 Act was a wholly unsuitable method of legislating for a time limit on abortions. The Select Committee went on to recommend changes to the Abortion Act.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, the Select Committee's principal recommendation was that a doctor who carried out an abortion in good faith in accordance with the statutory provisions should not be liable to prosecution for the crime of child destruction. The committee therefore recommended that Section 5(1) of the Abortion Act should be repealed to disengage that Act from the 1929 Act. The Government acknowledged that there was some merit in that proposal.
The Bill now before your Lordships' House attempts to implement the Select Committee's recommendations and in one respect would go further. The effect of the Bill would be to allow abortion up to the end of the 24th week of gestation on the same grounds as exist in the 1967 Act, and to allow abortion after the end of the 24th week of gestation in three circumstances. Those circumstances are that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman; that two doctors are of the opinion that abortion is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman; or that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical and mental abnormalities that it would be seriously handicapped.
The Bill does not amend the 1929 Act in all its applications but provides that no offence is committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the 1967 Act (as amended by the Bill).
A further provision in the Bill, and one which was not included in the Select Committee's recommendations, is that, if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week, that opinion shall be conclusive.
The introduction of a specified time limit in the Abortion Act itself, even with the exceptions proposed in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would bring about a major change in the 1967 Act.
It may be helpful to the House in its consideration of the likely impact of this measure if I first remind noble Lords of some basic figures. Of the 183,798 abortions carried out on resident and non-resident women in England and Wales in 1988, 154, 784 or 84 per cent, were performed at less than 13 weeks. The number carried out after the 20th week was 3,113, or under 2 per cent, of the total. The number of terminations carried out after 24 weeks is small and has been falling for some years. In 1981, 142 terminations in this age range were carried out in England and Wales; by 1988 that figure had fallen to 22. In saying that. I recognise that my noble friend Lord McColl quoted a figure of 29. However, 22 is the figure that I have for England and Wales

1497
and I believe that there was also one such case in Scotland.
In the private sector, the department initially reached a voluntary agreement with the proprietors of the few nursing homes approved to carry out abortions after 20 weeks that they would not perform abortions after 24 weeks. In February 1986 that voluntary agreement was made a condition of approval.
Whatever view we may take about the ethical and moral aspects of abortion, I am sure we should all agree that any abortion that is to be performed should be carried out as early in pregnancy as possible. Our concern about the problem of late abortions in general led to a request by the Department of Health and Social Security that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should undertake a review of late abortion practice. In its 1984 report, which the department funded, it drew particular attention to the incidence of late abortion among young people, and delays caused by inefficiencies in the administration of the abortion services. The department discussed the report with health authorities and encouraged the development of improved administrative systems—for example, the introduction of better referral and appointment procedures.
The scale of abortions must be a matter for regret, whatever stance one takes on the moral question. Because of our concern about the number of abortions and particularly late abortions, the Department of of Health decided to finance from central funds, family planning and counselling projects for young people in three separate health districts. Those three-year projects, in City and Hackney, South Sefton and Milton Keynes district health authorities, ended in March 1989 and are now being independently evaluated. The projects aim to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy among young people and encourage them to seek advice early if they suspect that they are pregnant. We hope that the projects will illuminate the issues and be helpful.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the studies to which she referred include the new cases of AIDS, which obviously make a difference to the situation? I imagine that they would do so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I also imagine that they would do so. Perhaps I can confirm otherwise, if that should be necessary.
The House will also be aware that a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which included representatives of other medical bodies and the Royal College of Midwives, produced a report in 1985 on fetal viability and clinical practice. That report recommended that the age at which a fetus is considered viable should be reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. A copy of the report was sent to each fellow and member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in this country and they should take account of it in their clinical practice. In 1987 that recommendation was confirmed by the same
1498
group of organisations when they looked again at the 1985 report.
Perhaps I may conclude my observations by reminding your Lordships that the operation of the 1967 Act is monitored closely by the health departments and their chief medical and nursing officers, through their control of the private abortion sector and through the investigation of specific complaints, which I am glad to say are very rare. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, reminded us, all notifications of abortions made to the chief medical officers of the health departments in England, Wales and Scotland are scrutinised by staff authorised by them to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law. That machinery is not revealing any abuses of the current Act.
The current 28-week presumption of viability has been with us for 60 years. A change to 24 weeks at this stage at which a fetus is presumed to be viable would be in accord with current medical advice and practice. The Government have previously indicated that in their view that proposition would be in line with the latest evidence on viability, and that remains our view. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue on which people sincerely hold differing views. This evening's debate has demonstrated once again the strength of the arguments on both sides of an issue on which the Government's position must be one of neutrality. I know that your Lordships' views and future debate on this important subject will be of great interest to many people.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall be brief, as the hour is now late. The noble Baroness is to be congratulated on this comprehensive survey of the situation. Her reply has covered many of the points which I should wish to raise, or which should be raised, in the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I must say to some noble Lords that they cannot stand up and say that they will support the amendment to cast out the Bill and then ask for a Committee stage on the Floor of the House to follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, asked many questions that I am prepared to answer. However I hope that those who have taken part in the debate have read the report of the Select Committee, the evidence attached to the report and also the Bill. Whatever we decide about times and conditions has to be expressed in legislation in words. Unless we use words responsibly and understand what they mean, then we cannot put any suitable construction upon them.
Some noble Lords obviously did not listen to me when I said that up to the end of the 24th week we had not disturbed the conditions of the 1967 Act. What we have done in the Bill is to sort out the jumble of the 1967 Act and arrange the conditions in readable and meaningful order. However they are the same. The Bill therefore is not increasing the facility of abortion any way.

1499
However, where we are stiffening up the after-24 week cases, I ask the House to consider these words from page 2 of the Bill:
"that the termination of the pregnancy is essential".
"Essential" is the word. Surely "essential" means "must". What other word can we find? We have to have words or there has to be a bar. One must have words if one is to have exceptions. The provision continues, "to prevent serious damage". "Serious" is grave. One can toss words about to find which will give the most impact. But that is what the provision means: "essential to prevent serious damage".
Abortion on social grounds is excluded absolutely from the criteria for lawful abortion in over-24 week cases. Noble Lords will find that provision in subsection (2)(b). To that extent it is a tightening up of the provision on late abortions. That is mainly what the Bill provides for.
However, the point of the whole debate has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. He finds it impossible to accept that when a Select Committee of your Lordships' House has reached a unanimous conclusion, and the unanimous conclusion is embodied in a Bill, your Lordships' House should deny that Bill the opportunity of going into Committee. That is what the House is asked to do. I deplore that move. It will destroy, I believe, the willingness of many of us to serve on Select Committees if we are going to be treated in this way. It does not matter what Members' views are; they should give the Bill a run so that we can at least deal with it in Committee. Moreover, has not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, indicated that the work that we can do separately on this Bill will be invaluable for whoever has later to study the question?
I come to this conclusion. If the amendment is carried, the House is banning further debate on abortion until after the embryology Bill has left the House and gone to the House of Commons. We shall never have the mix of abortion and embryological research on that Bill. We are determined that we shall not have it. They must be separated. In those circumstances noble Lords may as well settle for an avenue of approach on the matter that will yield fruitful results.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Duke this question. He has not so far explained the position. Where does he expect to go if his amendment is carried? What will he do? I hear—I believe on good authority—that it is not his intention to try to intrude abortion into the embryological research Bill. Is that true or not? What has he in mind to do? We are entitled to know and not to shuffle around any longer. I believe that he should now rise to his feet and be perfectly frank with the House, and then we shall all know where we are.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he answer my question about the methods which will be used for the late abortions which will become possible under the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, no. If your Lordships give the Bill a Committee stage we will tell you.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he agree that when he and I served on the Select Committee, during which we had many a tussle, perhaps the final agreement of the committee was contributed to in some part by the fact that I withdrew from its membership?
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I should like to make three brief points. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, assured the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, Scotland adheres to the equivalent of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act because the Scottish gynaecologists and the Scottish Office have given that order to the Scottish doctors.
Secondly, I was saddened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. It was full of thoughts that he appears to have about me and my Catholic friends. I speak entirely for myself in the debate. I happen to be a Catholic. We do not agree with many things that we are told to believe. It is a pluralistic society and in no way should I like to see some of our ideas forced upon this country. I hope that the noble Lord understands that. He looks as though the Inqusition is still in existence. Thank God, it was wound up three centuries ago. Its behaviour was appalling. I believe that any religious domination is appalling and I say so openly. I do not agree with everything that the Catholics say, but I believe that on the whole the Catholic religion has the best ideas. It is what I call the old faith and it is the faith that I try to practice. However, the idea that we are trying to force it on this House is polywash.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly. I was attempting to say to the noble Duke simply that in respect of this issue there is a conflict of values and that he as a member of the minority wished to deny facilities to me and to a majority of people in this country who wish to have them. On the other hand, for our part we do not wish to impose anything that is repugnant to the conscience of the noble Duke or his co-religionists. That is precisely the point that I was making.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I only hope that some noble Lords can see that I am not trying to impose anything in this free, democratic country of ours. The idea that a minority of people—be they Catholic or Yorkshiremen, as I am—can impose their wishes on other people is totally wrong. I believe in the democracy of this country and in the majority vote.
I tabled the amendment for a simple reason. I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Sefton and Lord Ennals, understand what the Bill is about. I do not believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, understands the Bill. It does not reduce the period for abortion from 28 to 24 weeks. I should like that and I said so in our debates before the Brightman Committee sat. I believe that it would

1501
be wonderful to reduce the period from 28 to 24 weeks. But the Bill opens up the period to 40 weeks—
Noble Lords: No, no.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I set that out at the beginning of my speech and it will appear in Hansard tomorrow. If your Lordships wish me to repeat it, the Bill states at subsection (2)(2A):
"No pregnancy may lawfully be terminated after the end of its twenty-fourth week … unless two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman".
Therefore, if the two medical practitioners say that there would be damage to the pregnant woman, the abortion could take place up to 40 weeks. That is what the Bill says. That is why I moved the amendment. I should like to see another abortion Bill brought in, but not this one because it does not say what your Lordships think it says.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Duke has got it all wrong. I have emphasised that we have stiffened the conditions of lawful abortions after the end of the 24th week. That is what the clause says. I have gone over the wording and if the noble Duke wants to find better words to stiffen it up and reflect the meaning of what we think we have conveyed here, then let us give the Bill a Committee stage and let us examine it. That issue cannot be decided on Second Reading.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I agree that the noble Lord has stiffened the conditions up to 24 weeks but he has then opened the door from 28 to 40 weeks. That is what I am worried about. I would welcome a Bill in this House on abortion but not this one. The Bill is so full of matters which do not tally that I wish to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
10.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment to the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hylton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Jakobovits, L.

Coggan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Coleraine, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Deedes, L.

Liverpool, E.

Elles, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

Lothian, M.

Gainsborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Grantchester, L.

Lytton, E.

Harvington, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

1502

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Milverton, L.

Reading, M.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Morris, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Norfolk, D. [Teller.]

St. Albans, Bp.

Northbourne, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Parmoor, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Perth, E.

Stallard, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blyth, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Long, V.

Brightman, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Butterworth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Monson, L.

Mountevans, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Nicol, B.

Carnock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Carter, L.

Prys-Daviies, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rea, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L.

Seear, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seebohm, L.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Flowers, L.

Sherfield, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stedman, B.

Haden-Guest, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ullswater. V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Walpole, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wamock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L]
Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L]
Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L]
Read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and sent to the Commons.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge Estate Bill
Read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  MEDICINES: EC CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
  MEDICINES: EC CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
  ADAS RESEARCH STATIONS
  ADAS RESEARCH STATIONS
  PRISONS: VISITORS' CENTRES
  PRISONS: VISITORS' CENTRES
  LAWS: PUBLIC OBSERVANCE
  LAWS: PUBLIC OBSERVANCE